Thinking before acting?

[observer]

Whilst we now live in a world of people desiring quick and easy answers to complex questions, with a media with a concentration span measured in seconds; do we now live in a world of knee jerk decision making?

[Paulo]

Hi Obs,

 

I agree wholeheatedly with you, the 3rd world are suffering as a consequence of us wanting cheaper fuel. I know I'm unhappy with paying ?1.15 per litre of diesel at the moment but there must be a better solution than impinging on 3rd world food supplies

 

Paul

[Shelley]

Try http://www.evuk.co.uk/ .

[observer]

Electric powered cars?

[asperity]

Spot on Obs. All the so called "green" solutions are proving to be worse for the environment than the "problems" they are supposed to solve.

[Shelley]

Nothing is perfect, but electric is pretty consistently rated as the gold standard, both in CO2 reduction and especially in cleaning up urban air. Read for example David Sandalow's Freedom from Oil. See also http://www.DrivingTheFuture.com/97pct.htm .

 

Furthermore the additional advantage even of just "transferring the problem to the power station" is that they have the capability of reducing car use by break the car overuse chain. I'd much prefer walking or cycling next to one than next to a car with an exhaust pipe.

 

[ 15.04.2008, 19:20: Message edited by: Shelley ]

[Paul Kennedy]

My guess is that hydrogen powered cars will evolve to be the successor to petrol/diesel ones. Electric cars create yet another demand on our diminishing capacity unless we reduce consumption elsewhere and/or bring on stream new power stations and those would mostly likely be nuclear. Car manfacturers are of course improving the mpg of their engines as well as improving the performance of smaller engines as replacements for their larger ones. The performance of a 2 litre diesel is now very impressive and at the moment the best is the BMW.

[Peter T]

I think it is unlikely that we will revert to alternative fuels until the oil runs out. Too much money being made.

[observer]

Afraid, there's no magic bullet - and sleep walking into the desparation of the nuclear option; will leave a waste disposal nightmare for generations.

[asperity]

Firstly we have to get away from the idea that CO2 is a toxic gas. Without CO2 we wouldn't have life on earth. If it were possible to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere this would have an adverse effect on crop growth. At the same time this would have no effect whatsoever on the temperature of the earth's atmosphere. Even the "Global Warming" high priests have changed their tune (it's now called "Climate Change" so that man can be blamed whatever the climate decides to do).

[Captain Chaos]

This is worth a read:

 

Spectator article

 

As Asp says CO2 can not possibly be a toxic gas..

[observer]

What's that stuff that volcanoes belch out, when they errupt - surely one volcanoe is a worse "polluter" than any number of power stations?

[Shelley]

Originally posted by Paul Kennedy:

My guess is that hydrogen powered cars will evolve to be the successor to petrol/diesel ones. Electric cars create yet another demand on our diminishing capacity unless we reduce consumption elsewhere and/or bring on stream new power stations and those would mostly likely be nuclear.

Yes, it may well be the future, but battery electric and plug-in hybrids are the best present day solutions. One problem with hydrogen is that you still have to get the hydrogen from somewhere, which makes it in effect end up to be just another form of electric power. Battery electric, on the other hand is old and simple technology that works now, and makes a quite substantial net improvement now. And as we gradually convert more of out electricity to renewable, it gets better and better.

 

It's not just for people who can afford BMWs either. The G-Wiz is made and was first popularized in India.

[Shelley]

This book really gave me perspective on the issue. I highly recommend it.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hot-Topic-Tackle-Global-Warming/dp/0747593957/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208300000&sr=8-1

 

It's concise and not expensive, and will convince you that the problem is real and urgent, but very much solvable without destroying our quality of life or making us feel guilty of every minor infraction we make. I particularly like the wedges approach. Put together enough gradual net improvement by 2050, and the problem is solved.

 

Of course, you people are right. Carbon isn't a poison. We don't have to get rid of all of it, we just have to get things down to the right balance. We need to stay below 450 ppm to keep the rise under 2 degrees. Mild bad things happen at 2 degrees, but much worse happens at around 3 degrees. We are presently at 430 ppm. It is urgent that we act now, but the solutions are all within present day technology.

[asperity]

Pure stuff and nonsense Shelley. CO2 is not causing global warming because global warming as described by the alarmists is simply not happening. The earth has been through warmer and colder periods throughout its long history and nobody knows what the ideal global temperature should be. The real danger facing the world is food shortages caused by land being turned from food crops to fuel crops to try and achieve the impossible i.e. control the earth's climate. Mankind cannot do that any more than he can control the tides or change the moon's orbit. The people who are supporting this idea are charlatans out to make a fast buck out of the gullible. :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

[Eagle]

Excellent summary.

[observer]

Spot on Asp: and you mentioned a factor that the eco-brigade seem to ignore; - "over-population."