Global Warming on C4 - Monbiot in the Guardian

More in the Guardian today from James Lovelock of the Gaia theory. According to him what few of us are left will all be living in the Arctic...

web page
 
OK then, on our boats in the Arctic! Wonder if they have red diesel up there?
 
You can actually imagine the selective breeding process. Once upon a time there were two barnacles. Lets have a s**g says one. Can't says the other.... tried it once and fell off, nearly drowned. I can! I can! said another... and held on for his life... hence the survival of the barnacles who could hold on best.....
 
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quickly - a 60% cut in CO2 comes from a 60% cut in energy usage.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

No - a 60% cut in CO2 comes from reducing the amount of fossil fuel we burn

That can be either improving the efficiency or moving to using other sources of energy (renewables, nuclear).

Alternatively we could invest in "Carbon Capture" technology for our fossil-fuel burning power plants.
___________________________________________________

No - a 60% cut in CO2, 'FROM HUMAN SOURCES ONLY', comes from reducing the amount of fossil fuel we burn !

This is NOT a 60% cut in atmospheric CO2 !!!



"When you look at it in detail 60% over 30 years is not that hard a target to achieve"

It is an impossible target to achieve.
You are talking about reducing the manmade CO2 'WORLD' output.
How do you suggest that all countries/peoples agree to do that? From the current media reports/forum comments, we can't even get scientists to agree on root cause.

Lets have a "look at it in detail" then, amaze us with this epiphany. Please let this secret out & save the World!
All the politicians, now poking their snouts into this trough, don't seem to be getting anywhere other than creating another source of hot air.

Obvious way perhaps, would be to Nuke the oil producing countries in the Middle East, or ban all wood burners, eliminating those fossil fuel source from the argument.
Bit drastic?

It might work - quicker than waiting 30 years.
 
Nuclear is probably the practical short term solution. By short term we are looking at the next 30 years or so. It has been quoted that it takes 18 years to get a station, 10 years public enquiry and 8 years build. Tha's not helpful. The primary beneficiaries of the enquiry are lawyers and greens getting their fifteen minutes of fame. Abolish them and simply state that verious areas of the country, more than 15 miles for any group of more than x people at y people per square mile are suitable for pwer station development. Define the putative existence of the lessper spooted throat warble as "secondary". If it comes to species survival then just maybe the antis represent those whom have not evolved sufficiently and must go with the dodo and Great Auk.

Unfortunately the areas will all be selected as being in constituencies that the choosers are happy to offend. Back to microplants, submarine or ship sized piles on suitable large barges moored on a suitable area of water (we could make them). If they are not safe then we'll learn the hard way, or be certain beforehand. Short distance to loads, reduced Tx losses and easily removed when no longer required or viable. Microplants don't have the concrete based carbon footprint either.

Fusion is better, but we can't do it yet. If the green tax all went towards fusiion research them who knows. But it won't. Ditto space arrays and microwaves, or covering the Sahara with solar panels. (Don't tell the Greens).
 
[ QUOTE ]
>ban all wood burners<

Sorry to disappoint but wood ain't fossil fuel, it's a renewable resource.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell that to the disappearing rainforests
 
Oh come on Ken

You can do better than this.

We are in the real world and we are constrained by the laws of both nature and economics.

Dreams of what might be are all very well but they don't put food on the table today.

Much as you may dislike them you cannot ignore the limitations of technology - Tide flowing round a headland is a fine romantic picture but to translate it to energy that someone can use where they need to use it is a very different thing.

In 1992 a very good friend of mine moved to live in Islay. The first time I visited him there he showed me an installation for producing power from waves, a sort of venturi driving a tubine.

It worked.

They built a bigger version - that worked too. Its still working I believe - produces a few kilowatts - when there are enough waves, bit iffy at LW Springs I believe (they chose Islay because of the small tidal range)

Its now 2007 - 15 years after he moved.

It has not got any further.

Why - because it cannot produce the quantities required at an economical cost.

It is such a jump from powering a few homes on a small island to powering a city of 1million+ people with factories and hospitals and offices and street lights and all the rest.

And that is without considering the reliability issue. Make power supply less reliable and you will dramatically increase the use of s/b generators which will rather defeat your intentions.

lying in the sun sounds nice (you should try it here today and see how long you last) but just as an experiment put some solar panels on your Twister and replace the diesel with an electric motor and see how far you go.

Sounds good in theory but doesn't work in the real world.
 
Like your ideas on the planning process.

What we are going to do is build 5 new nuclear stations in Hampshire. The first one just down the road from you. There are very few labour MPs in Hampshire.

And just listen to the outcry if you try to change the rules.

Don't know about the lesser spotted throat warbler I think its the greater spotted half wit thats the issue.
 
Perfectly right. The burning of non fossil fuel is making the situation worse because we are clearly not replacing all the trees we burn so it isn't a "renewable" resource. It's only a matter of time frame though anyway. Coal is only fossilised trees. If we wan't to reduce Co2 in the short term its no good talking about "good" and "bad" Co2 we must stop burning anything at all that gives off Co2 and plant more crops that absorb Co2 surely? Telling ourselves that our wood burning stove is burning stuff planted 10 years ago and is being replaced does not alter the fact that we are releasing Co2 short term. Does it?
 
[ QUOTE ]
>ban all wood burners<

Sorry to disappoint but wood ain't fossil fuel, it's a renewable resource.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if chucked into swamps and left long enough, would be fossil fuel.
 
I live in Hampshire and would not mind a bit getting rid of Fawley oil refinery that sends loads of sulphurous crap up its chimney and replacing it with a nuclear power station. about 80 miles upwind of me is Cherbourg. (At least it's always upwind when I want to sail there). There is one of the biggest nuclear fuel reprocessing plants in the world there. If there is an accident I am dead already!
And I don't think calling people half wits really enhances your argument either...
 
[ QUOTE ]

yes, but one has to admit that evolution-wise barnacles haven't made much of a effort, really.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't that true of 99% of life on earth, mostly its microbes, barnacles by comparison are highly evolved, It's worth remembering were the odd species.
To quote Bill Bryson in a Short history of everything
"Life wants to be: Life doesn't always want to be much : Life goes extinct from time to time."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

EugeneR
Help with getting sold boat data
Replies
8
Views
547
Tranona
T
W
Those were the days……Back in 1972
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Wansworth
W
D
Nmea experts - a tricky one
Replies
11
Views
350
Refueler
Refueler

Share this page

Top