Recent Comments

Prev  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  1539  1540  Next

Comments 76601 to 76650:

76601. Camburn at 13:28 PM on 23 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       I have been busy and unable to reply: 1. I will again assert that there are workable solutions right now to reduce co2. And they are very cost effective. Thorium is one of them, nuclear is another. Yes, thorium is nuclear but not uranium. Co2 is an environmental concern, but it looses credibility as a concern because hard core environmentalists will not look at current tech solutions that are viable. Robert Kennedy shot wind in the foot with his resistance to the off shore towers on Martha's Vinyard. Al Gore { - gratuitous 'what Al Gore does' complaints snipped - } These are all important issues. The idea that you conserve { - more Al Gore complaints -} so therefore the message is lost. By not agreeing to known tech, the co2 message is lost, as the immedicacy of the problem becomes something not important. This for certain is not a right/left issue. It has become politicized, but in the general public it really isn't. People look at solutions, see them, see they are not being pushed for....and once again..the problem becomes 100th on the list of problems.
       Moderator Response: [mc] The problem with your argument is that the 'you' referred to (meaning us) don't conserve, largely because of denials clouding the issue. Nor has wind been 'shot in the foot;' come to Sweetwater, Texas and see wind power in action. And no, the general public does not see solutions because they are constantly being told there is no problem.
76602. mreisner at 13:23 PM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       Given the laws of chemistry and physics, there is no plausible way that GHG emissions from the non-conventional resources, such as tar sands, can be less than that from conventional oil. Unless of course, you are going to capture and sequester the carbon from tar sands but not conventional oil resources. The entire IPCC 4th Assessment assumes most of these resources remain in the ground. Mitigating the impacts of global warming is overwhelmingly a political issue. While the science is critically important to make sure we make the best public policy decisions, it is of second order importance right now. As the science has advanced and narrowed the uncertainty we are dealing with (and will continue to do so), GHG emissions have continued to accelerate. The tar sands is an excellent organizing opportunity for several reasons. First, the decision-maker is the President-he can personally decide the fate of this pipeline. The question is whether he will "man up". Although disapproval of the pipeline cannot stop other ways of getting tar sands to available markets, it can send a powerful statement to China and the rest of the world that the United States is ready to leave (its been a long time coming). A Presidential decision denying the pipeline could start to generate some momemntum for Durban, South Africa. China has signaled its willingness to consider a price on carbon that automatically increases annually at a signficant amount, bilaterally reach a deal to set a price with China, let countries decide for themselves if they get to the price with a tax or cap and trade. Third, use the organizing effort to start to build a coalition of some non-traditional allies (farmers, ranchers, environmentalists, etc.) in traditional red regions of the nation. But more importantly, use this opportunity to reframe the debate on global warming and make it an election issue. The scientific debate is over-human use of dirty coal and oil is causing global warming. Global warming is already increasing the severity of floods, droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather around the world. Thus, the U.S. will lead the world in transforming our energy and economic system to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of global warming. This generation has a moral obligation to our children and grandchildren to make the world a place where every individual has the opportunity to inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness. The U.S. will harness its innovative spirit and ethic of hard work to become the world's leader in the necessary technologies. In doing so, we will rebuild the middle class by creating family wage jobs, increase revenues to balance the budget over the coming decade, etc. We will also mobilize all of our resources, including the military to combate climate change and minimize the geopolitical instability that unaddressed global warming will cause. I know this is wishful thinking, but we are already committed to warming of at least 2 degrees C (if we eliminated all GHG emissions today). Humanity is now in a race to draw the line somewhere between 2-3 degrees (and that is assuming the earth's feedbacks cut humanity a break).
76603. DSL at 13:14 PM on 23 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       So do we have a "Challenge for the Left" article in the works? You can't post an article like this and then prevent people from talking about the reasons why solutions might be a challenge for capitalism.
       Response:

       [DB] Are you offerring to write one...?

76604. bibasir at 12:54 PM on 23 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       It is the democratic party, not the democrat party. Obama is a democratic president. See Wikipedia. ""Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States instead of "Democratic Party" when talking about the Democratic Party.[1] The term has been used in negative or hostile fashion by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases "
76605. muoncounter at 12:49 PM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       DB#23: "A reading of -4 or below is considered extreme drought." So if red (-4) is 'extreme', purple (-6- -8) must be 'biblical' and the light violet 'kiss your a$$ goodbye'?
76606. Daniel Bailey at 12:44 PM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       @ Rob & muoncounter Just a coming attraction for the really big shoe: Current Palmer Drought Severity Index [PDSI] 2060-2069. A reading of -4 or below is considered extreme drought. Regions that are blue or green will likely be at lower risk of drought, while those in the red and purple spectrum could face more unusually extreme drought conditions. (Courtesy University Corporation for Atmospheric Research [UCAR]) [Source]
76607. Tom Curtis at 12:32 PM on 23 August 2011
       It's waste heat
       mullumhillbilly @91 I never said anything like the claim that water vapour is not part of the greenhouse effect, and I resent your attempt to put words in my mouth. The specific heat capacity of gaseous H2O is approximately twice that of dry air. That means that if you increase the humidity, you increase the energy required to raise the temperature of air; and increase the energy in the air that needs to dissipate when cooling. That is an additional effect to the greenhouse effect of the water vapour. Let me add that your whole angle of attack here, in addition to being dreadfully uninformed, is entirely wrong headed. The rate at which the GHE warms the planet is a function of the energy difference between the planets current OLR and that required for equilibrium. If the planet is cooler, that difference is greater and the planet warms faster. Given that, and assume contrary to fact that the energy accumulated during the day was entirely dissipated at night. In that case, during the day time a planet with GHE will warm much faster than a planet without GHE. Hence, even if you could prove your core assumption, your conclusions would not follow. As it happens, your main assumption is grossly in error as I showed in 77. Your hand waving response was simply irrelevant. Given the absence of renewed insolation, the surface of the Earth would cool to less than -208 degrees K over time, but during the entire duration of that cooling, it would cool slower with a GHE than without it. You assume my argument is irrelevant because at some time (generally after 12 hours) another source of heat arrives, reversing the slowing. That reversal is, of course, the onset of daylight. It follows that if the planet with a GHE cools slower than one without until the onset of daylight, or more typically, a breeze carrying heat from nearby day lit areas, then more of the heat of the preceding day is retained each day with a GHE, contrary to your supposition. What is more, having retained more heat from the preceding day, with the GHE the the surface will also warm faster during the day so that, by the end of the day, it will have more heat to retain over night. For an argument like yours to have any merit, the surface of the Earth would need to cool to the point where it is in equilibrium with geothermal energy each night, which obviously does not happen. For anybody guided by evidence, that means it has no more credibility than geocentrism (it is that obviously wrong).
76608. muoncounter at 12:24 PM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       RobP#20: "much of the southern US is in the grips of a prolonged drought....." Look at the global drought monitor here. Canada has drought problems of its own. Welcome to the new normal (or will the next new normal make this one look like a day in the park?)
76609. muoncounter at 12:15 PM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       Dan M#17: "many land owners in places like texas ... were very much opposed to the idea of the pipeline because of the fear of a spill." There are significant spill concerns up and down this pipeline, not just in Texas. See this post in grist; the author has a legal point of view on environmental issues in the US midwest.
76610. apiratelooksat50 at 12:13 PM on 23 August 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest #12
       DB - good point!
76611. Rob Painting at 12:13 PM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       CBDunkerson - "If he approves it without getting any offsetting benefit in return then that's a loss (and rather disappointing)... but doesn't seem catastrophic" It's bizarre watching this all slowly unfold, it will all end in tears, the observations and projections make that much a certainty. But at a time when much of the southern US is in the grips of a prolonged drought..... ......and with much worse US drought yet to unfold as the global climate warms, American politicians want to make things even worse? Utter madness.
76612. muoncounter at 12:10 PM on 23 August 2011
       It's waste heat
       mullumhillbilly#91: "most (if not all) of the demonstrated warming has been at night in higher latitudes" It's high time you started doing as most others here do: Substantiate your statements. By no means is all of the observed warming at night, nor is it all in the higher latitudes. You might want to look up 'arctic amplification' and 'diurnal temperature range' for some conceptual support. "suggested how higher night temps can occur without net gain of energy in a 24 hour cycle. " Your 'suggestions' don't carry much weight by themselves. Has anyone doing research in the climate sciences made a similar suggestion? If so, don't you owe that researcher the credit? Although KR kindly provided the sound basis for the greenhouse effect, that is not the topic on this thread. This thread is about waste heat. Thus far, you've shown nothing (other than your initial calculation errors) to counter the position of the original post: Waste heat is insignificant compared to greenhouse radiative forcing. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please feel free to share. If you have no evidence, continued speculation is not particularly interesting.
76613. dmyerson at 11:57 AM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       What about the producer's claim, mentioned in the NYT editorial, and which I've seen on TV commercials, that production of tar sands will not have any more emissions than conventional oil. Is it a complete myth or unrealized potential? Maybe that could be a followup post.
76614. scaddenp at 11:53 AM on 23 August 2011
       Climate's changed before
       " I red once that in the past, the CO2 seemed to be a consequence of Earth superficial temperature increase and that CO2 increase generally occurs after temperature increase." Natural CO2 increase occurs that way, which has the effect of amplifying warming. For more detail see CO2 lags temperature
76615. hfranzen at 11:51 AM on 23 August 2011
       One Confusedi Bastardi
       I may be too late getting in on this, but I feel compelled to make onr comment (although I could make many!). As a physical chemist I have an understanding of LeChatelier's principal. It deals with will defined systems whose states are fixed by c+2 variables. The earth in no way comes close to being the type of systtm to which the principlal can be applied. For the chap in the video to bring the principla into the discussion in the way he does demonstrates that he has no idea whatsoever about the principal and has no hesitation about expounding about science about which his understanding is worse that abysmally poor. I agree that Fox News bears a large burden of reponsibility for this fiasco, but I must also raise a serious objection about someone who supposedly has some scientific credentials so far overstepping the bounds of reponsible scientific reporting
76616. scaddenp at 11:47 AM on 23 August 2011
       It's waste heat
       I am pointing out DLR is operating significantly in day time. Your timing argument makes no sense to me. At climate scale, you are looking at annual averages. You think models are based on calculations for a particular time of the day?
76617. Andy Skuce at 11:44 AM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       RB@15: I was pointing out what the producers' economic motives are. This absolutely does not provide a justification for building this pipeline in my opinion, since none of the externalities, GHG's or the devastation to the Athabaska area, are even considered as costs. Dan, I agree that stopping this project will not do much in the short term to slow down development of the tar sands. But, if KXL is stopped, over the coming decades, development growth will be constrained eventually by lack of transportation capacity. As a BC coastal resident myself, I don't want more tankers sailing through our waters either. Stopping Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan will be the next battle.
76618. manouchk at 11:27 AM on 23 August 2011
       Climate's changed before
       I was wondering what is the consequence of what and if their is a proof for that... I'm not expert and it looks like a big assumption of all(or most?) sutdies is that the increase of Earth superficial temperatura is a consequence of the increase of CO2. I red once that in the past, the CO2 seemed to be a consequence of Earth superficial temperature increase and that CO2 increase generally occurs after temperature increase. That would be great also if some selected bibliography could be suggested at the end of article. I'd like too know about a good book about past climate, glaciation and atmospheric composition... Even, if I a bit skeptical, the precaution principle makes me still keep on using my bicycle as much as possible to commute...
       Response:

       [DB] If a book is what you ask for a book is what ye will receive:

       Spencer Weart's: The Discovery of Global Warming

       Highly recommended.
       

76619. KR at 11:19 AM on 23 August 2011
       It's waste heat
       mullumhillbilly - A quick search on your moniker indicates that you have been posting on climate topics for a while, complete with heavy use of the term "warmist". I'm not interested in recapitulating the entire greenhouse gas theory to someone who should know it by this point. I would suggest reading through the Science of Doom greenhouse effect pages, then returning if you still have any questions. GHG's warm the climate both night and day, reducing the diurnal temperature variations by reducing the climates ability to dump heat quickly. At the moment you are giving me a very strong impression of being disingenuous, of arguing for the sake of arguing, and of raising silly objections. Just not worth my while...
76620. mullumhillbilly at 11:16 AM on 23 August 2011
       It's waste heat
       tomCurtis@87. So you are saying humidity and water vapour are NOT part of the GHE? I agree re buffering capacity of oceans, thence maritime climate cf inland deserts, and I was simply using the Moon example to illustrate the overwhelming warming effect of direct insolation vs GHGs. You say "GHGs cause more warming during the day than during the night". Presumably you mean the net effect is significant. (net being gross "trapping" minus emission back to space). Is the surface temperature record reliable enough to show this? As I understand it, most (if not all) of the demonstrated warming has been at night in higher latitudes. I don't think we have the information to say whether that night warming (eg is it based on higher minimum temps, or an integral of degree-hours?) actually reperesents retention of energy in the system. I've already suggested how higher night temps can occur without net gain of energy in a 24 hour cycle. I'm not even disputing that there may be some residual energy accumulating, but the actual amount is crucial to climate sensitivity.
76621. mullumhillbilly at 11:02 AM on 23 August 2011
       It's waste heat
       scaddenp@86 ?? DLR is highest at night in your diagrams, except for a couple of early afternoon peaks when presumably some clouds passed over. Thermometer in the shade. If it truly was totally insulated from any external energy, of course it would drop to zero, whether on the Moon or on Venus. What's your point?
76622. Dan Moutal at 10:54 AM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       To be clear I am not in favour of the pipeline, I just think that stopping it will (unfortunately) do little to slow down the growth of the tar sands. There is just too much money to be made there (again unfortunately). And maybe the fact that I would prefer the oil go somewhere other than British Columbia (where I live) is biasing me a little:) One interesting aspect of the pipeline that I read somewhere is that many land owners in places like texas, which tend to be republicans, were very much opposed to the idea of the pipeline because of the fear of a spill. This could be one of the few areas where there could be a genuine bipartisan grass-roots support to stop the pipeline.
76623. mullumhillbilly at 10:54 AM on 23 August 2011
       It's waste heat
       KR84, Yes GHGs_101 is quite comprehensible thank you, but this really doesn't address the question of time. So less FIR (LWR) escapes to begin with at night, but the surface cools rapidly as the night goes on (frost) and the IR drops well before dawn. Diurnal variation of IR is not a new idea. I'm saying time is important, and you glossed over that. Climate sensitivity is very much dependent on how much of the trapped/delayed IR-sourced energy makes its way to TOA by dawn (incl by convection), and thence is lost to space.
76624. Tom Curtis at 10:26 AM on 23 August 2011
       It's waste heat
       mullumhillbilly @85, it is true that the diurnal (day/night) difference between warming due to insolation is far greater than the diurnal difference in warming due to GHG. But the GHG cause more warming during the day than during the night. The primary reason the earth has such a small diurnal range compared the the moon is the presence of a liquid ocean which requires the storage or release of very large amounts of energy to heat or cool, thus keeping temperatures relatively constant. The atmosphere, particularly when humid, has a similar but smaller effect. That is quite distinct from the GHE.
76625. scaddenp at 10:18 AM on 23 August 2011
       It's waste heat
       Consider putting a thermometer in a vacuum in the shade on a sunny day. Do you expect the reading to plummet to sub-zero? Consider doing the same experiment on the moon. Look at the actual measurement of DLR (eg here) and note that DLR strongest in day as you would expect. Your daytime warmth is from both the sun directly and DLR.
76626. scaddenp at 10:13 AM on 23 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       JD - exactly. So to stop FF use, something about that environment must change. The challenge is what.
76627. Tom Curtis at 10:09 AM on 23 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       John Donovan @50, it is a reasonable presumption that economic pressures alone will not drive the replacement of all fossil fuel usage by 2050 in the US (or the world) renewables and nuclear power. Given that, saying that the solution is renewables and nuclear does not face the specific problem posed - how, under libertarian principles, can we drive the replacement of fossil fuel use by nuclear and renewable power and a transport fleet powered by electricity or biofuels at significantly faster rates than that transition would be made based on commercial decisions alone?
76628. skywatcher at 10:08 AM on 23 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       #93 Eric, I mentioned no polar bears. You moved the goalposts. I mentioned declining Arctic sea ice, rising food prices, increasing natural disasters, ocean acidification. They're all happening now, not in the future, and none are 'crystal-ball projections'. All in correction to your erroneous statement that "There is nothing bad happening now" (#89). Obviously you feel none of these things are bad - I presume you can afford costlier food, do not fear the next massive drought, bushfire, flood or heatwave arriving at your front door, and are unconcerned about the world's ice cover (or do not rely on snow/ice melt for our water supply), and you don't care about the pH of the oceans. Lucky you.
76629. Tom Curtis at 10:04 AM on 23 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       KR @49, in response to your respondent: 1) The very obvious point is that the cost benefit analyses have been done, and have decidedly come down in showing that the costs of limiting global warming are significantly less than the benefits; 2) Saying you would act if the cost benefit analysis comes out the right way does not say how you would act. In fact Scaddenp's challenge is this: Assume the cost benefit analysis is clearly in favour of mitigating climate change. On that assumption, what policy is believed by libertarians to both be effective in mitigating climate change and consistent with libertarian principles? Given that, Twodogs' response must be considered an evasion as an answer to scaddenp's challenge, however appropriate as a response to your actual question. 3) In that Twodogs' cost benefit analysis gives no consideration to who bears the costs, and who gains the benefits, it is far from clear his is a libertarian response as distinct from a politically conservative response or a classical liberal response.
76630. Tom Curtis at 09:52 AM on 23 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       Badgersouth @51, scaddenp has asked a legitimate question. However, there will be no possibility of receiving a legitimate answer if the thread becomes a venue for a slanging match between left and right. As it happens I often find myself biting my tongue on left/right political issues at SkS. I do so because global warming is a far greater threat to the human race than any of the normal left/right antagonisms. Indeed, the only political issues that are more important, IMO, are the retention of the rule of law and of democracy. If, of the other hand, you feel it is more important to score cheap political points, by all means derail the thread. You might, however, want to give consideration to the fact that the plainly inadequate responses of the right on this thread is already scoring a far stronger political point than any consideration of who said what to whom first.
       Response:

       [DB] One has to remember the scope of this thread:  to see if those of certain ideological leanings can offer up substantive, solution-oriented discourse.

       Consider this a Stand-and-Deliver (Put Up or Shut Up) challenge.

76631. John Hartz at 09:42 AM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       Here's the text of the NY Times editorial that I referenced in Badgersouth #2. "This page opposes the building of a 1,700-mile pipeline called the Keystone XL, which would carry diluted bitumen — an acidic crude oil — from Canada’s Alberta tar sands to the Texas Gulf Coast. We have two main concerns: the risk of oil spills along the pipeline, which would traverse highly sensitive terrain, and the fact that the extraction of petroleum from the tar sands creates far more greenhouse emissions than conventional production does. "The Canadian government insists that it has found ways to reduce those emissions. But a new report from Canada’s environmental ministry shows how great the impact of the tar sands will be in the coming years, even with cleaner production methods. "It projects that Canada will double its current tar sands production over the next decade to more than 1.8 million barrels a day. That rate will mean cutting down some 740,000 acres of boreal forest — a natural carbon reservoir. Extracting oil from tar sands is also much more complicated than pumping conventional crude oil out of the ground. It requires steam-heating the sands to produce a petroleum slurry, then further dilution. "One result of this process, the ministry says, is that greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector as a whole will rise by nearly one-third from 2005 to 2020 — even as other sectors are reducing emissions. Canada still hopes to meet the overall target it agreed to at Copenhagen in 2009 — a 17 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2020. If it falls short, as seems likely, tar sands extraction will bear much of the blame. "Canada’s government is committed to the tar sands business. (Alberta’s energy minister, Ronald Liepert, has declared, “I’m not interested in Kyoto-style policies.”) The United States can’t do much about that, but it can stop the Keystone XL pipeline. "The State Department will decide whether to approve or reject the pipeline by the end of the year. It has already delivered two flawed reports on the pipeline’s environmental impact. It should acknowledge the environmental risk of the pipeline and the larger damage caused by tar sands production and block the Keystone XL."
76632. mullumhillbilly at 09:33 AM on 23 August 2011
       It's waste heat
       DB82, muonc83, OK that was an oversimplification, but my essential point stands I think. GHG are working around the clock but daytime incoming radiation far outweighs any interception of surface FIR, so most of the GHG warming of the atmosphere happens at night. On the bright side of the moon surface temps are +100C, dark side -150C. Are you telling me GHGs make the planet warmer during daytime?
       Response:

       [DB] "Are you telling me GHGs make the planet warmer during daytime?"

       Think about what you are implying (that molecules somehow "know" what the time of day is).

       GHG molecules do their thing 24/7/365.

       Like the Terminator, they just...don't...stop...

76633. Stevo at 08:48 AM on 23 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       I'd try and sell to the 'right' the business opportunities on offer for those who can make money in the new clean energy technologies. My fear is that those who stick rigidly to reliance on coal and fossil petrochemicals will miss the renewable bus. Companies who invest in renewables now will be at the forefront in 30 years time and by then it will be too late to get on the bandwagon - too late to be a major player that is. A great opportunity to be at the leading edge of both business and technology is being squandered thanks to political ideology holding businesses back by denying science. Go figure.
76634. RB at 08:42 AM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       I see Andy@6 covered the same point I made in 12. The chances of decreasing fossil fuel usage over the next decade are likely low. The problems facing the U.S. economy are substantial, unlike any post-WW2 recession, and occurring at a time when the world is already grappling with "peak cheap oil" and the resulting higher prices.
76635. Andy Skuce at 08:21 AM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       To Badgersouth's statistics I would add this quote from The Economist, which highlights the staggering size of the tar sands project:

       A single engineering project, the Syncrude mine in the Athabasca tar sands, involves moving 30 billion tonnes of earth—twice the amount of sediment that flows down all the rivers in the world in a year.

76636. pbjamm at 08:19 AM on 23 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       I have to agree with Badgersouth@27&51 This article seems out of place on SkS and is likely only to result in acrimony rather than discussion of real solutions.
76637. John Donovan at 08:06 AM on 23 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       To scaddenp @52 I assume it's not happening for other reasons: e.g, because fossil fuels are plentiful and some companies are making a lot of money selling those resources right now. So the other question is: would a technically feasible compromise be politically possible? I hate to say it, but probably not in the current US political environment of "drive-by" legislation.
76638. John Hartz at 07:53 AM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       Here's a few facts about the Alberta Oil Sands: - Oil sands mining is licensed to use twice the amount of fresh water that the entire city of Calgary uses in a year. - At least 90% of the fresh water used in the oil sands ends up in ends up in tailing ponds so toxic that propane cannons are used to keep ducks from landing in them. - Processing the oil sands uses enough natural gas in a day to heat 3 million homes in Canada. - The toxic tailing ponds are considered one of the largest human-made structures in the world. The ponds span 50 square kilometers and can be seen from space. - Producing a barrel of oil from the oil sands produces three times more greenhouse gas emissions than a barrel of conventional oil. - The oil sands operations are the fastest growing source of heat-trapping greenhouse gas in Canada. By 2020 the oil sands will release twice the amount produced currently by all the cars and trucks in Canada. Source: "Report: Alberta Oil Sands Most Destructive Project on Earth," DeSmog Blog, Feb 18, 2008 To access this article, click here.
76639. scaddenp at 07:44 AM on 23 August 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest #12
       pirate - so are you going to take the challenge here?
76640. RB at 07:44 AM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       In this particular case, it is argued that there will be an effect on gas prices because of the price divergence between Brent crude and West Texas Intermediate. Given that energy cost spike has caused a significant economic slowdown, there actually is some economic merit to the argument as James Hamilton of UCSD argues here . At current GDP levels, a price of $80 per barrel of oil is a significant negative influence on the economy and Brent has been trading substantially higher for a while.
76641. Polar Bear at 07:44 AM on 23 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       If Libertarians wanted small govt they should use soalar /wind then we could do away with lot of governmental agencies that have to watch out for polluters..solar energy,no govt supervision need for the fuel
76642. CBDunkerson at 07:33 AM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       Thanks dana1981, that certainly explains it. The possibility of getting back down to 350ppm is already remote, and anything which makes gasoline powered cars viable for another 50 years would remove any chance of it. I agree that 'finding ways to use new sources of fossil fuels' is a major problem. I'd said as much a few weeks back when there was a report about the Japanese looking at 'mining' methane hydrates from the ocean floor. That, the tar sands, the work Russia is doing to extract methane from permafrost, and so forth are taking away the possibility that dwindling supplies will push fossil fuel costs up so much that they are no longer economically viable. If so, then the only real hope is to find ways to make other energy sources even less expensive.
76643. scaddenp at 07:29 AM on 23 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       If the solution is nukes/renewables/whatever, the question isnt really about what is the technical solution - its about the political solution. If the solution is there, then why isnt it happening and what needs to change to make it happen.
76644. dhogaza at 06:57 AM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       That google aerial photograph is just about what I saw on my last polar flight, which featured obscenely clear skies for a vast portion of the flight over the arctic (PDX to Heathrow via Seattle IIRC). Watching nothingness go by I was suddenly startled when I noticed a huge scar along a river, and it slowly dawned on me that I was seeing the alberta tar sands operation. The immensity of it was boggling as we were flying at close to 40K feet up ...
76645. dana1981 at 06:52 AM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       CBD - Hansen's comments about the tar sands being 'game over' were based on the full amount of carbon they contain, whereas the EPA estimates are based on how much oil will realistically be extracted in the next 50 years. Plus Hansen is big on 350 ppm, whereas the 1 trillion ton target is 450 ppm. So those two factors account for Hansen's "game over" comment. To me it's an attitude issue. As I said in the post, we need to be looking for alternatives to fossil fuels, not looking for new fossil fuel sources to burn. It's totally backwards, looking for more fossil fuels to burn instead of trying to leave as much fossil fuels in the ground as possible. The signal it sends may be the worst aspect, if the pipeline is approved by the USA's supposedly environmentally conscious president.
76646. CBDunkerson at 06:39 AM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       Badgersouth #7 - True. Though the steam injection method is much less destructive than the strip mining they were originally using to get at the stuff. Again, not using the tar sands would be a good thing... but so far as I can tell that ship has already sailed. Even if Obama blocks the pipeline AND all the other distribution options somehow fail to materialize I can guarantee you that the next Republican president in the U.S. will see to it that a pipeline gets built. A couple of people have suggested that delay is worthwhile to give alternatives a chance to reduce demand. There is some validity to that, but I don't see a few years delay making much difference. Certainly not a 'make or break' issue for keeping carbon emissions within manageable bounds. If Obama blocks the pipeline or bargains his approval for some kind of concession (e.g. investment in electric vehicle research, offsetting carbon capture, or whatever) I'd say that is pretty good for us. If he approves it without getting any offsetting benefit in return then that's a loss (and rather disappointing)... but doesn't seem catastrophic.
76647. John Hartz at 06:36 AM on 23 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       Dikran Marsupial: SkS opened a Pandora's box by posting this article. Whether or not Tom Curtis looses his patience over what's being posted on this comment thread is somewhat irrelevant.
76648. John Donovan at 06:13 AM on 23 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       One obvious solution that might be palatable to both sides is to ramp up both renewables and nuclear. But both have "not in my backyard" aspects that make such new energy construction problematic. Specifically most solar and wind resources, in the US at least, are located pretty much in the middle of nowhere as opposed to where most people live due to noise and aesthetic considerations. Likewise, most nuclear power plants are currently built near to where the energy consumers are, but because we see these plants occasionally have a Murphy's Law melt-down event, people are psychologically (though understandably) reluctant to have a nuke built upwind from them. Here is one solution that I'm sure has been thought of already: build the Smart Grid, including high voltage (up to 1 MV) DC transmission lines for sub continental transmission with minimal losses, to connect the "middle of nowhere" to population centers with both renewable and nuclear energy. Then we could dedicate huge swaths of more or less under utilized desert for renewables (where those solar and wind resources are generally located) and also for new nuclear plants. These remotely located nuclear plants would then not only provide baseload power for the renewable plants next door, but would also not be located near population centers in the event of a technological, natural or terrorist disaster. There is the issue of water for cooling the nukes but that doesn't seem an impossible hurdle to overcome.
76649. John Hartz at 06:00 AM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       @CBDunkerson#6: No matter how one slices it, the extraction of petroleum from the Alberta tar sands has been, is now, and will continue to be an ecological disaster for North America.
76650. Andy Skuce at 05:30 AM on 23 August 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       Stopping this pipeline is about more than just preventing the calculated incremental production that will directly result from it. The producers have two main goals here: a) to supply diluted bitumen directly to the Gulf Coast refineries that pay a higher price than the refineries in the mid West; b) to provide diversity and excess capacity in their transportation options. If Obama OKs this pipeline (and I fear he will), this will provide a shot in the arm to the tar sands operators and will encourage further development. If he nixes it, on the other hand, expect the producers to dial up the pressure on British Columbia to provide additional outlets to the Pacific. Currently there are two main options for Pacific outlets. The most prominent option is the Northern Gateway pipeline that will run to Kitimat on BC's north coast. This pipeline is encountering much public opposition, notably from First Nations. BC public opinion is generally very negative towards the idea of having oil tankers on the north coast; a spill there would have unthinkable consequences. The other option is expanding existing pipelines to the Port of Vancouver and dredging the harbor to allow Suezmax tankers. This proposal is currently mostly under the radar of the mainstream media. As Dan@1 said, the best way to prevent pollution from the tar sands in the long run is to stop consumption. But until then, the only option is to try and choke off production.

Prev  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  1539  1540  Next