Monday, April 7, 2008
Al Gore likes to pretend that he's not a Luddite, but if he's so 'tech', why was he proposing that global warming could be slowed by using old, stupid, politically charged 'solutions' that didn't work the first time around?
Via the NY Times:
The charged and complex debate over how to slow down global warming has become a lot more complicated.Most of the focus in the last few years has centered on imposing caps on greenhouse gas emissions to prod energy users to conserve or switch to nonpolluting technologies.
Leaders of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change -- the scientists awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year with former Vice President Al Gore -- have emphasized that market-based approach. All three presidential candidates are behind it. And it has framed international talks over a new climate treaty and debate within the United States over climate legislation.
But now, with recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency, a growing chorus of economists, scientists and students of energy policy are saying that whatever benefits the cap approach yields, it will be too little and come too late.
The economist Jeffrey D. Sachs, head of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, stated the case bluntly in a recent article in Scientific American: "Even with a cutback in wasteful energy spending, our current technologies cannot support both a decline in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. If we try to restrain emissions without a fundamentally new set of technologies, we will end up stifling economic growth, including the development prospects for billions of people."
What is needed, Mr. Sachs and others say, is the development of radically advanced low-carbon technologies, which they say will only come about with greatly increased spending by determined governments on what has so far been an anemic commitment to research and development. A Manhattan-like Project, so to speak.
Scientists and people in general, including this green republican have been suggesting this since 2001. But when he had a soapbox, politician Gore used it to promote ideas that sounded cheesy and unworkable back in 1978.
Another reason to shrink the influence of government - politicians are usually years behind the curve.
Indeed. It's getting mighty disturbing hearing all of these jury-rigged solutions that are threatening to have massive economic impact with minimal real positive effect and massive unforeseen (or should be foreseen) consequences, and all based on the latest fads and hysteria.
There is a role for government, and that is in some sort of real primary research into new energy alternatives that could be used on a world-wide basis. That's the only hope for not only protecting the environment but also stopping the massive flow of cash into Jihadi states. Conservation alone isn't going to do it. I don't know why the US Government hasn't done it yet, and barely anyone is talking about it.
There is a role for government, and that is in some sort of real primary research into new energy alternatives that could be used on a world-wide basis. That's the only hope for not only protecting the environment but also stopping the massive flow of cash into Jihadi states.
The development of new technologies would also help the economy.
Conservation alone isn't going to do it. I don't know why the US Government hasn't done it yet, and barely anyone is talking about it.
Since the government was relying on old solutions from the '70's and the '80s, I assume they're incapable of dealing with new tech and new information. If they're not part of the future, they should get out of the way...
Its sad that the west destroyed the environment by their unlimited abuse of oil.
but as the saying " better come late then never"
we wish that scintest and politicians find new energy sources like solar and wind. which will save whats left from the world (both from wars and environment issues)
we wish that scintest and politicians find new energy sources like solar and wind. which will save whats left from the world
While there is a possibility of improvement in photovoltaic technology, wind and solar probably won't be able to meet anyone's energy needs. Our best options so far are newer, more efficient nuclear power plants and more efficient automobiles.
If you look at the chart accompanying the article, you'll see that electricity and transportation are our biggest energy-wasters. Those are the industries to focus on.
One benefit from rising oil prices - it becomes more profitable to use US-based shale oil & natural gas sources.
Arabian:
I wouldn't want to stand on the environmental record of the Arab nation, whether it's the various desertifications of lands that took place over centuries past or the ostentatious use of all sorts of resources by the small percentage of Arabs who hold most of the region's wealth in the present.
By the way, courtesy of the Blue Star PR site:
Who makes the greenest energy?
Israel.
Biofuel from Israel is both green in color and good for the environment.
The new algae-based energy source may one day even reverse global
warming by trapping greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.
Here’s how it works: Israeli producers pump dirty smokestack exhaust
through giant pools of sea algae. The algae thrives on the added
nutrients and multiplies one-million-fold its natural density in the sea.
The plentiful algae then can be harvested as a clean-burning biofuel.
Power plant operators from Brazil, Hawaii, Singapore, Italy and India
have already expressed interest in this revolutionary Israeli technology.
Helping to make the world
a little greener
http://www.bluestarpr.com/000219.php
"One benefit from rising oil prices - it becomes more profitable to use US-based shale oil & natural gas sources."
I guess this wont solve enviromental problems, while natural gas is much better.
this will solve dependency on oil from outside the states.
"Arabian:
I wouldn't want to stand on the environmental record of the Arab nation, whether it's the various desertifications of lands that took place over centuries past or the ostentatious use of all sorts of resources by the small percentage of Arabs who hold most of the region's wealth in the present. "
Lynne T
Ok i dont decline that all the world is contribuiting in a way or another, and in diffrent amounts....
please tell me were the desertification accured, i now israel has big contribution in plantation, but can you specify were exactly desertification accured.
on the other hand what do you mean by the small precentage of arabs who use most of the resources. I really have many things in mind but i wish you say who are the small presentage.
and conserning the algae biofuel, ok its good for israel but also other countries are into this area , and fortunately i read this couple of months ago
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-10/biofuels/biofuels-p6.html