Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (252200)	12/24/2007 11:34:46 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I submit - no members of the church of GW can provide a scenario where Kyoto is accomplished that is supported by numbers. Furthermore, the gains to be accomplished by Kyoto, as described by the treaty's advocates - something less than 0.1% lessening of the increase in temperature decades from now - are almost to small to measure, let alone make a significant difference. These two statements together lead to the cynical conclusion that the real point of the exercise has very lttle to do with global warming and much to do with the creation of new transnational power bases.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (252200)	12/24/2007 12:22:14 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"Ah - but here is the flaw in your logic. It is too late to start ..." That is a frequent thought of mine. Another poster and I often begin or end posts to each other with "we are so fucked".I don't think we can stop 450 ppm; I don't know if we can stop 500ppm. So maybe be we should dike Fla and run a 40' dia water pipe to the SW from Canada, and move Atlanta to the Great Lakes. They are down to about 2 months water supply. "As for sequestration - you simply do not know what you are talking about." Actually, I do. If the technocrats know what they are saying. Lots of methods, from flue gas thru algae tubes, to burying it ibn old oil fields. Will they work? I dunno. Are they expensive? Yup. Am I willing to try that before the gvt relocates Miami to my little hill? Yup. Have I spent money? I am solar powered electric neutral. How much will it cost? Sir Nicholas, a senior adviser to Britain's Treasury, is due to hold meetings with Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd today in Canberra, where he will also address the National Press Club. His official report for the British Government intensified the debate about the economic impact of global warming worldwide when it was released last October. The main conclusions were that combating climate change would cost the equivalent of about 1 per cent a year of global economic output, with the costs of not acting possibly up to 20 times that amount. His report describes climate change as "the greatest market failure the world has ever seen". theage.com.au Am I wiling to spend 1 or 2% to keep our little rocket ship's life support system functioning for my granddaughter? Yup. Cheaper than giving 10% to a church to feed starving Bangladeshis. Or Georgians. Or Floridians. Cheaper than 2 Tril down the Iraq weasel hole. Enron scam cost Cal about 65B; I could have solarized every house in the state for that kind of money. I see you are a Lomborg fan. Lomborg is a fool. In the end, it may come down to geoengineering. The 2 I like are screens out in space, and tubes to circulate ocean water vertically, bring cool water to the top. See problems with that, but maybe it is just me. These 2 have the advantage of being reversible, if we overcorrect. I'm still a pollyanna here. As for Lomborg's social spending, if we don't spend that money on GW, we should just party with it, cuz the issue will be moot and we will all have social problems....all several hundred million of us living in the polar regions. What makes this all so convenient, tho, is we are also at peak oil, so we need to use alternate sources anyway. "Now - on the Exxon Free thread the above got me banned in minutes." It ain't for denial...read the header. It's for people seriously interested in the problems, who get turned off at the food fights on the others.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (252200)	12/24/2007 12:30:22 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 281500

I wouldn't put too much hope in nuclear,either. theoildrum.com About the Energy Watch Group This is the first of a series of papers by the Energy Watch Group which are addressed to investigate future energy supply and demand patterns. The Energy Watch Group consists of independent scientists and experts who investigate sustainable concepts for global energy supply. The group is initiated by the German member of parliament Hans-Josef Fell. SUMMARY Any forecast of the development of nuclear power in the next 25 years has to concentrate on two aspects, the supply of uranium and the addition of new reactor capacity. At least within this time horizon, neither nuclear breeding reactors nor thorium reactors will play a significant role because of the long lead times for their development and market penetration. This assessment results in the conclusion that in the short term, until about 2015, the long lead times of new and the decommissioning of ageing reactors perform the barrier for fast extension, and after about 2020 severe uranium supply shortages become likely which, again will limit the extension of nuclear energy. But... peakenergy.blogspot.com The basic problem..too many people all trying to live like us. Ain't enuf resources for that. If China and India became America, the 3 of us would be consuming 9/4 of the world's oil supply. The best solution? Bird flu pandemic. Not a good choice.