Global warming - let's settle this once and for all!

[Byzantine Mercenary]

there is a simple mathmatical principle that can be applied to this whole situation to decide what the best course of action is simply balance out the resulst of taking either action.

there are two main possibilitys about global warming, either we are right or we are wrong, if we lower emmisions and put funding into renewable energy sources then there are two possible results

1. we are wrong the world is compleatly unaffected by the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and is in fact being heated by the sun rather then man, if this is the case then we would have spent a lot of money lowering emmisions and developing renewable resourses but will be less reliant on fast depleating fossil fuel resourses and will have cleaner air due to less polution, this would slightly balance out the cost aspect and so would be quite good.

2. we are right and manage to slow down and eventually stop global warming and possible disaster is averted, as a bonus we are also less relient on fossil fuels.

If we do nothing:

1. we are right global warming is not happening and the earth is actually being heated up by the sun. money is saved by companys and the economy is more healthy, untill oil and other fossil fuel reserves run out which will probably cause just as big a problem if not more so then emmision restrictions

2. we are wrong, the earth heats up, there are thousands of refuges that flood the cooler parts of the world at the same time as they are struggleing to adapt to the lact of fossil fuels.

In conclusion in my opinion we should try and lower emmisions and should develop renewable energy resources as this is the option that brings the best results.

[doc_bean]

In conclusion in my opinion we should try and lower emmisions and should develop renewable energy resources as this is the option that brings the best results.

No one is really argueing this, the problem is, to what level should we lower emissions, at what cost ? How much do we invest in renewable energy ?

It's an economics problem really.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Byzantine Mercenary: Well said!

@doc_bean: "No one is really arguing this"
Ok, that's nice to hear. I was a little worried this thread would turn too political, and include heavy for and against American-bashing arguments etc. While it's true the USA refuses to take part in most deals for limiting pollution, it's also true that the pollution rights the Kyoto protocol suggested for the USA was a little tougher than for other countries, which was unfair. It's a two-edged sword.

I was mainly intending a discussion about the scientific parts of it, a discussion about how dangerous the problem was. But now it's turned political, I'll respond to the political parts too (building on from some of what Byzantine Mercenary said but focusing on another part):

If we don't lower emissions until the last minute, we get a shock, which will shake the market and create economical chaos worse than the 1930ies depression.

If we don't lower emissions until it's too late, we're doomed.

If we lower emissions gradually, by passing laws on which pollution levels certain products may have, and give the market a hint some years in advance as to how these levels will develop, we create a safe, stabile market which will slowly adapt itself to the conditions reality imposes.

It's claimed that if we'd put as much money into solar power as we're every year giving to the coal mines for them to carry on their work, we'd have developed a solar energy able to replace most of the fossile fuels in 10 years, for instance. So the cost of developing solar energy isn't really a problem. The one problem is that economists and politicans underestimate how dangerous the problem is.

[doc_bean]

@doc_bean: "No one is really arguing this"
Ok, that's nice to hear. I was a little worried this thread would turn too political, and include heavy for and against American-bashing arguments etc.

This IS the backroom, someone is bound to take a stance like that, if only to see if they can defend it. But few if any people actually involved in the real life pollution/emission/green house debate will claim that reducing pollution/emission is not better than not doing that (if the costs were the same).

While it's true the USA refuses to take part in most deals for limiting pollution, it's also true that the pollution rights the Kyoto protocol suggested for the USA was a little tougher than for other countries, which was unfair. It's a two-edged sword.

A lot of countries want a per capita regulation, is it surprising then that the Us refuses to take part ? It's one of the thinnest populated countries in the world.

I was mainly intending a discussion about the scientific parts of it, a discussion about how dangerous the problem was.

Hard to say, cuurent theory seems to involve a 'turning' point at which the climate of earth will inreversibily change about 100 years in the future. What will happen after the turning point seems to be pretty unclear, although it probably isn't good.

If we don't lower emissions until the last minute, we get a shock, which will shake the market and create economical chaos worse than the 1930ies depression.

The last point is at least 50years into the future, even by optimistic estimates our oil supplies won't let us rely on fossil fuels that long in the same way we do now.

If we don't lower emissions until it's too late, we're doomed.

That's assuming it ever gets to be 'too late'.

If we lower emissions gradually, by passing laws on which pollution levels certain products may have, and give the market a hint some years in advance as to how these levels will develop, we create a safe, stabile market which will slowly adapt itself to the conditions reality imposes.

Funny thin is, it isn't Kyoto that is driving the market away from 'polluting' tech. It's the volatility of the oil price, the high energy prices and, for countries, the need to have some control over the energy market themselves.

It's claimed that if we'd put as much money into solar power as we're every year giving to the coal mines for them to carry on their work, we'd have developed a solar energy able to replace most of the fossile fuels in 10 years, for instance. So the cost of developing solar energy isn't really a problem. The one problem is that economists and politicans underestimate how dangerous the problem is.

Claimed...

Currently, for households in belgium, the payback term for photovoltaic cells if they weren't subsidized would be 60 years (assuming stable energy prices). Photovoltaic cells last about 30years...

Alternative energy isn't magic, it has its own specific costs and disadvantages. The oil industry, rich and powerful as it may be, isn't the only thing keeping us using oil. Oil and gas have simply been the most practical and cost-efficient source of energy in the last 50years (along with nuclear power).

[Rodion Romanovich]

A lot of countries want a per capita regulation, is it surprising then that the Us refuses to take part ? It's one of the thinnest populated countries in the world.

True, it's hard to tell which system should be used

Hard to say, cuurent theory seems to involve a 'turning' point at which the climate of earth will inreversibily change about 100 years in the future. What will happen after the turning point seems to be pretty unclear, although it probably isn't good.

Any link?

The last point is at least 50years into the future, even by optimistic estimates our oil supplies won't let us rely on fossil fuels that long in the same way we do now.

Yes. The key is whether we'll keep using the coal or not. The oil will probably run out much faster than the coal. There's not too much oil, but there's too much coal. If we use it all up things will look really bad.

That's assuming it ever gets to be 'too late'.

Of course

Funny thin is, it isn't Kyoto that is driving the market away from 'polluting' tech. It's the volatility of the oil price, the high energy prices and, for countries, the need to have some control over the energy market themselves.

Exactly, Kyoto isn't the solution, merely a first attempt at something. I have higher hopes for any treaties that may come in the future.

Claimed...

Actually, quite a few scientists argued that that would be the case, including several economists. The strange thing is that the EU gives support to coal industry in Germany and Poland. That support money should have been invested in solar energy instead, or another promising energy type: fossile fuels with greenhouse gas capture. These mechanisms involve capturing the emissions below earth's surface. There's a risk of leakage which may become dangerous, but it's quite good as it simulates the coal being bound in the earth again. Lack of binding in the earth is one of the main causes of the greenhouse effect.

Currently, for households in belgium, the payback term for photovoltaic cells if they weren't subsidized would be 60 years (assuming stable energy prices). Photovoltaic cells last about 30years...

This is why more science is needed. According to most scientists, it isn't impossible to improve the solar cell qualiy and cost efficiency enough.

Alternative energy isn't magic, it has its own specific costs and disadvantages.

Indeed. Wind power and water power is for instance quite ridiculous, and actually harms nature more than some fossile fuels, while providing less energy.

The oil industry, rich and powerful as it may be, isn't the only thing keeping us using oil. Oil and gas have simply been the most practical and cost-efficient source of energy in the last 50years (along with nuclear power).

That's correct. The oil isn't the main problem, but the coal is. When oil runs out, people will most likely switch to coal unless there's non-natural, i.e. law-based, restrictions added. It's quite sad that oil is used for energy btw, when it's useful for asphalt, lubricants, creation of plastic etc.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well, here are some more jokes:
- we can control the flow in rivers by using ponds!
- we can make dry desert areas wet so we can grow things there, by water pipe irrigation
- we can create vaccines that prevent people from catching diseases
- we can create pennicilline that cures most disease caused by bacteria

Pretty easy stuff compared to controlling the atmosphere, We dont even really know how it works and were going to control it. Again men are not gods. We have limited power and intellect. There are millions of things we will never know or understand. I think Doc pretty much sums it up. No one questions we should try to limit emmissions. Its a matter of how much is really needed. All this doom and gloom is just a scare tactic as far as I can see.

[Viking]

What people seem to ignore is that greenhouse gases are called greenhouse gases beacuse...oh wait, because they make things greener, right?
Without the greenhouse gases the average temperature on Earth would have droped far below zero while it`s now almost 20 C. If we contribute with more greenhouse gases, it gets watmer; now matter what the amount is.
A recent study of ice cores from the north pole showed us that it hasn`t been as much CO2 in the atmosphere as it is today, before you go more than several hundred thousand years ago. Cope with that.

It`s getting warmer, and man is contributing to it. That is fact. Hence we can brake the warming now observed, almost totally or by a percentage.

We dont even really know how it works and were going to control it.

We don`t know how it works? Ever seen a weather forecast?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Pretty easy stuff compared to controlling the atmosphere, We dont even really know how it works and were going to control it. Again men are not gods. We have limited power and intellect. There are millions of things we will never know or understand.

That's the very point - we have limited power and intellect. What I'm saying is that if we do something that seems to lead us to death and destruction, we're not exactly compensating for our lack of knowledge and divinity by keeping up that movement and even accelerating it.

I think Doc pretty much sums it up. No one questions we should try to limit emmissions. Its a matter of how much is really needed. All this doom and gloom is just a scare tactic as far as I can see.

I'm not trying to use scare tactics. I'm intending a scientific discussion, and it looks like one thing has at least been settled - uncontrolled pollution is bad. I wish it would be false, but it isn't. Therefore, this topic has IMO served the purpose I intended for it, as we've settled the most important fact - that the greenhouse effect exists, and is human caused to some part. The political discussion is also interesting, but it was my idea to keep it out of the debate until the scientific parts were settled, so that people didn't refuse to admit scientific facts because they thought these facts could be used against their political ideology. Now, then, that there is at least some science to base the politics on, I too think debating the politics is of interest.

So, as the part we're not agreeing about is how much restriction of emission is needed, the next sensible question is how should we find out where the limits are, who should carry out the necessary scientific work for that, who should finance it, and who should have the power to decide about where law would put the emission limits? It's of course in the interest of everyone to make better and more exact estimates in this field of science.

[doc_bean]

Actually, quite a few scientists argued that that would be the case, including several economists.
The strange thing is that the EU gives support to coal industry in Germany and Poland.

The EU also supports tabacco farmers yet supports emasures to reduce smoking. It's all quite absurd, but they are supporting different things. The support to the coal industry is economical support, which they are probably entitled to according to EU rules (amount of unemployed, reconversion area, etc.)

Politics

That support money should have been invested in solar energy instead,

They seem to prefer 'sexier' solutions like fusion. Which, incidentally, also means France can get a lot of money (back) from the EU.

More seriously though, solar energy has its disadvantages, certainly in Europe. It isn't very sunny here, and when it is it's usually too hot (solar cells don't function well if it's too hot, ironically). Fall and spring would probably be the best seasons for solar power, but then it tends to be cloudy all day.

Which brings us to the big problem of alternative energy; it's (relatively) unpredictable. A nucealr power station supplies a constant amount of power, fuel stations can be used to supply additional power and can be started up really fast, when they are needed. Solar cells work when the weather is good, which you can't really say far in advance. Which is a problem, since in the energy market as it is today, a company can 'order' energy and the supplier needs to supply it, they need backup if they were to rely mainly on alternative energy.

Windmills are a whole different league of trouble altogether though, yet they seem to be very popular in Europe now. Politics...

or another promising energy type: fossile fuels with greenhouse gas capture. These mechanisms involve capturing the emissions below earth's surface. There's a risk of leakage which may become dangerous, but it's quite good as it simulates the coal being bound in the earth again. Lack of binding in the earth is one of the main causes of the greenhouse effect.

I've only vaguely heard about this so I can't really comment, it sound like a good idea, but pretty expensive.

Indeed. Wind power and water power is for instance quite ridiculous, and actually harms nature more than some fossile fuels, while providing less energy.

Norway and a few other countries can get away with water power, it certainly damages a big area, but it's pretty clean for the rest of the world. Wind energy is a fad

That's correct. The oil isn't the main problem, but the coal is. When oil runs out, people will most likely switch to coal unless there's non-natural, i.e. law-based, restrictions added. It's quite sad that oil is used for energy btw, when it's useful for asphalt, lubricants, creation of plastic etc.

I don't see us going back to coal unless we absolutely have to. It requires transport of large quantities of coal (a few full trains a day per nuclear reactor), mining it is dangerous (see China) and unpopular work (we used immigrants back in the day) and it's quite pollutive (that may be solvable).

What is really needed is a good and efficient way to STORE power, that would solve a ton of problems with alternative energy. Currently superconductors can be used for quite efficient storage, but too bad they require Helium, which is a 'tactical resource' according to the US, which keeps the average company from using it.


PS: sorry for any spelling mistakes, spell check is acting up again

[Rodion Romanovich]

What is really needed is a good and efficient way to STORE power, that would solve a ton of problems with alternative energy. Currently superconductors can be used for quite efficient storage, but too bad they require Helium, which is a 'tactical resource' according to the US, which keeps the average company from using it.

The hydrogen fuel cells sound promising. But people are scared of hydrogen being explosive, for instance if used in cars. Ironically, they fail to realize that the fuel they put in their cars now is quite explosive too, especially if ignited, as is the case several hundred times per minute in a combustion engine