Slashdot Mirror

Yes, efficiency of splitting water has improved, but it is still more expensive than producing hydrogen from fossil fuels.

If you have cheap electricity from any source (such as geothermal), it's still more efficient to use that in a BEV than a FCEV and will always be a lot more efficient than using that electricity to split water and then burning the resulting H2 in an ICE.

Iceland's Hydrogen economy seems to have stalled out:
http://www.worldwatch.org/node...

The "Hydrogen economy" is a con promoted by fossil fuel interests.

Here is a link to WorldWatch. They only say "short" flight. They later mention "500 km" but don't say if that is what "short" means. They use other weasel words: "as much as" 25%.

Googling around to other sites that mention "25%", it seems they are actually talking about the take-off AND CLIMB to full altitude. I certainly believe that could account for 25% of a short flight's fuel consumption, since it can also account for 25% of the distance covered.

Those are old estimates, and they were revised upward by the U.N. two years ago.

"In a paper published Thursday in Science, demographers from several universities and the United Nations Population Division conclude that instead of leveling off in the second half of the 21st century, as the UN predicted less than a decade ago, the world's population will continue to grow beyond 2100. (Read "Population Seven Billion" in National Geographic magazine.)"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140918-population-global-united-nations-2100-boom-africa/

One reason for this is that the second derivative for women in first-world countries is not declining, it's actually started going upward again:

"The revision in the low variant's total fertility rate - the average number of children per woman - was due to a rise in births in Europe and the United States following years of an 'artificially depressed' fertility rate, according to demographics expert John Bongaarts. This lower rate was a consequence of large proportions of women delaying pregnancy until later in their lives. 'During the ‘90s, while the average age at childbearing was rising, women became more educated, wanted a job,' said Bongaarts, vice president of the Population Council. 'That artificial depression is now being removed as the average age of childbearing stops rising.' The 2008 U.N. revision projects that the industrialized world will average 1.64 children per woman between 2005 and 2010, up from an average as low as 1.35 projected in 2006..."

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6038

So you gotta tell us - where is that 800 Terawatts of radiative forcing going? Or do you find that a trivial number with no need to go any further? Or do you dispute the number?

Dingbat, I answered that question in the very quote that you quoted.

No, you didn't If you gave me some facts and figures, you could claim as refutation I will accept that. I am asking for facts and figures, and science.

I do not find the scientific prowess of the people who brought us the economic meltdown in the early years of this century very comforting. Regardless, not many economic systems are ever designed to help poor people, so that's a real non-starter.

You're a moron and this is a logical fallacy, ad homenim. I can only assume that you don't actually understand AGW.

I understand much, and if all you can do is calll me names, that appears to be your best argument. The idea that we will somehow help poor people by ignoring the greenhouse effect is quite simply, ludicrous.

After all, falling off a cliff can be pretty pleasant at first. No point worrying until you hit the sudden stop.

This is another logical fallacy, a false analogy, from which again I can only conclude that you didn't understand what you read.

Oh dear. My point is that there might be some point that we would want to worry about it. When and where is that point? The Carteret Islands are now uninhabitble due to saltwater incursion. At the present rate, the island will be totally submerged by 2020 - athough some have said 2015. In 2005, the Papua New Guinea Government funded total evacuation of the island because of the incursions, and storm surges flooding the island. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

While mistakenly calling it the first climate change refugees, New Zealand has granted residency to residents of Tuvalu in 2014. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/... The confusion over the "first" moniker was probably coming from being the first time refugee status was from a different country.

Then there is Bangladesh. http://www.worldwatch.org/clim...

Just ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, and it is mainly poor people who are affected by some of the effects. So the concept of ignoring AGW to help the poor as econmic wisdom is simply bizarre.

Seriously, you must be drunk or something because your normal posts are much better than this one which looks like you didn't read anything.

It was in the morning, I haven't had a drink since my son's wedding in June, and that was 1 IPA. You really didn't do a good job reacting to my post, finding it an excuse to unload on me. You are falling victim to "bullying guy on the internet" tactics. Nah - homie don't play that.

It's a little weird, your response to my pointing out the fallacies of the scientific skeptics as if I were making an unforgivable personal insult to you. Is that some way of saying you hold every single scientific skeptic outlook that you pointed out personally, and at the same time?

I'm not drunk, not on any drugs stronger than Aspirin, but you dear phantomfive, have some really severe anger issues. Perhaps there are some stressors going on in your life that make you need to lash out at people and it makes you feel better. I'm most sorry for arousing your indignant anger.

But I'm certainly not going to have a rational conversation with you about this, so you can go spout your anger elsewhere.

You need to engage your brain...

There is no point in advocating killing anyone or doing anything at this point.

It's too late. It's too fucking late. It's too late by almost three decades.

Requested Cite:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
"There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion, will increase to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion in 2100.
https://blog.iiasa.ac.at/2014/...
Demographers from the United Nations Population Division and several universities published a paper in Science last week that argues the world population is unlikely to stop growing this century. They calculate that there is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion, will increase to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion in 2100, with the median at 10.9 billion. ...
These projections indicate that there is little prospect of an end to world population growth this century without unprecedented fertility declines in most parts of Sub-Saharan Africa still experiencing fast population growth."

Every prior projection projection of maximum human population has turned out to be on the low side. Just during my lifetime, the prior projected "maximum" has risen a billion at a time every decade.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node...
U.N. Raises âoeLowâ Population Projection for 2050

http://www.globalchange.gov/si...
Population Projections: Reasons for Uncertainty

I actually agree on the logarithic growth but it's not asymptotic as has been projected.

We are already well past overshoot territory. Read limits to growth, then the updated one, and then do some research on chromium and other metal reserves. Oil isn't the only non-renewable. We are going to have to find replacements for every industrial metal at roughly the same time.

It's like Global Warming. It's also too late on global warming. Tropical diseases and pests range will definitely increase by thousands of miles over the next 100 years. The north west passage will open. And the sea is going to rise by at least a foot by 2100.

We are on a train with no way to stop it and the bridge is out a mile ahead.

People actively try to avoid thinking about this because it's so horrible.

Global Population Reduction: Confronting the Inevitable

Plant growth spikes won't do anything for us when we are destroying 200+ football fields worth of forests per day to plant palm oil

Read a few of the numerous studies done on the SAD vs Vegan diet with respect to both renewable and non-renewable resources.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont...
http://www.worldwatch.org/node...
http://www.gracelinks.org/1361...

This is pretty well known stuff. Here's some reading material for you, the ban on DDT was fear mongering nothing more. The estimate is 50m-500m dead since it was banned, there's no solid figures because no one actually knows solidly how many people have died since the ban. But you can do out the math if you really want since 40% of the worlds population lives in areas where you can contract it.

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF...
http://junkscience.com/2012/03...
http://www.worldwatch.org/node...

Interesting read, thanks! So true, you comments reflect the adage "taxes are the price we pay for civilization..." And also, capitalism tends toward privatizing gains and socializing costs...

If you see my other posts above though, I am not concerned about the technology to feed the world even without the Haber process (and perhaps better without it). As at this link, we have the technology through organic farming:
"Can Organic Farming Feed Us All?"
http://www.worldwatch.org/node...

Whether we have the political will is a different issue, with so many vested interests in the current synthetic-chemical-based agricultural system.

Another aspect of this craziness:
http://www.seriouseats.com/200...
"The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has posted an easy-to-understand visual on its site that shows which foods U.S. tax dollars go to support under the nation's farm bill. It's titled "Why Does a Salad Cost More Than a Big Mac?" and depicts two pyramids -- subsidized foods and the old recommended food pyramid. It's interesting to note that the two are almost inversely proportional to each other."

Are you sure?

Absolutely positive?

Seems to be quite a few.

TANSTAAFL. Coal and oil are pretty good at rendering large areas uninhabitable. Water (tidal and hydro) is pretty good at major ecosystem change and rendering areas uninhabitable. Wind and solar might look like ok in the area of _deployment_, but if you look at the manufacturing... [ok, I'll save you googling it, here's one that took me all of 30secs to find: http://www.worldwatch.org/node... ]

All ground water is being pumped full of gasoline, which turns it into a toxic mess. And it cannot be filtered out because of additives in the gasoline which make it cleaner to burn, more air soluable. People out in rural areas are especially effected, literally bathing in toxic water that's causing cancer, burns, and other injuries, and it tastes / smells really bad like chemicals.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/481

They both grow in dirt (organic and conventional), they are the same plant, they don't, on balance, have more or less of anything than the rest of the fruits and vegetables

Aside from the fact that your claim is completely, utter and demonstrably false, it neglects to take into consideration that most of the soil on commercial farms in the U.S. has not only been depleted of essential trace elements but has also been so thoroughly abused and mismanaged over the years that even the basics need to be supplemented by appliying synthetic fertilizers.

Bottom line if you want to pay 3X as much for your food buy organic.

Yes, sometimes there's a 200% (or greater) premium for organic produce but in many cases, it's more like 25 to 50%. A more useful metric would be determine the value that buying organic adds, and that depends on the item. For example, the growing methods for conventional and organic tropical fruit (pineapples, mangos, bananas and avacados come to mind) likely don't differ much if at all; it's about the auditing, certifying/verification. etc. In other cases, (peaches, strawberries, leafy greens), it's common-knowledge that the quantities of pesticide resides in convenionally-grown varieties are through the roof (no doubt a non-issue for a shill such as yourself but for those of us watching our health or that of our children, it's something we might want to take into consideration). Of course, these are the very same items that often require exhorbitant premiums like you stated - but you get what you pay for (where have we heard that before?).

And don't forget, we can't feed the world's population organically. Can't be done!

This is a partial truth which ignores the bigger picture (which, of course, at the end of the day, means it's still a lie): doing things the way "Big Ag" currently does them, yes, you're right: organic farming simply can't be scaled up and achieved using the wasteful, petroleum-dependent methods and practices that are currently employed (as I said above, the dirt just won't allow it). Nope; you'd have to change how you go about it (imagine that).

For those who aren't paid shills and have a genuine interest in the subject, I suggest looking through some of the following:

http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/latest/organic-foods-benefits-460110-5

http://eartheasy.com/blog/2011/10/7-ways-organic-farms-outperform-conventional-farms/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/07/10/us-farming-organic-idUSN1036065820070710

http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/organicfarming.htm

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4060

http://youngagropreneur.wordpress.com/

http://theurbanfarmingguys.com/our-story

http://seedstock.com/2012/02/01/wisconsins-future-farm-sustainable-cow-powered-aquaponics/

http://bioponica.org/

It is only cheaper if you buy organic from a supermarket. The local organic farmers market and organic co-op are as cheap as commercial foods. And organic does fine commercially too.

If you think commercially grown monocultures are as nutritious as organic crops, you are sadly mistaken. And too believing of Slashdot stories

plus GM crap encourages more use of pesticide. See...
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5950

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5442
^^^ majority of soybeans (and many other crops) are grown and used primarily as livestock feed.

if all of the worlds farmers switched to organic, a huge percentage of the world would die from starvation.

False:

Reviewing 154 growing seasons' worth of data on various crops grown on rain-fed and irrigated land in the United States, University of California-Davis agricultural scientist Bill Liebhardt found that organic corn yields were 94 percent of conventional yields, organic wheat yields were 97 percent, and organic soybean yields were 94 percent. Organic tomatoes showed no yield difference.

Wind and solar alone will never meet our energy needs.

Wind alone can meet our energy needs: offshore wind potential in the U.S. is 900,000 MW, which is just about equivalent to our current generation capacity. Add solar, and efficiency improvements and a wind-solar world is in our reach.

It actually takes more energy to transport food than it does to grow it

Incorrect. While this is an article of faith among "localvores", in point of fact food production and processing uses more energy. According to the Worldwatch Institute, 17 percent of U.S. fossil fuel consumption goes to "the production and consumption of food: 6 percent for crop and livestock production, 6 percent for processing and packaging, and 5 percent for distribution and cooking." More information on energy use in food production here.

Buying locally produced food is not really meaningful (ecologically speaking), compared with the need to shift away from animal agriculture and processed foods and towards less-processed plant-based diets. (Which are also far more healthful.)

[citation needed]

Because some the reports that I've seen say agriculture production had already fallen due to negative climate change effects. For instance, this report says that many of California's tree crops may die off because the "winter chill" which protects the trees from some pests will no longer consistently occur. As I understand it, the reason that actual output hasn't fallen is because technological advancements are (so far) outpacing the negative climate related effects.

A warmer climate means you get a longer growing season in the northern areas that are already the most productive. This is good for places like the US.

I can't find it right now, but there was an article that said over 50% of the U.S. mainland was afflicted by either flooding or droughts this year. As the average temperature increases, the average amount of area covered by those conditions will increase. Neither condition is good for growing crops. It doesn't take much land area consumed by drought to negate all changes from a "longer growing season".

Near the equator in areas where it's already too hot for most cereal crops, additional CO2 will make tree farming much more profitable - trees grow better due to additional CO2 fertilization.

As far as I'm aware, additional CO2 has a negligible effect on plant growth, few plants are struggling to get more carbon, they tend to be limited by competition, pests, water, and sunlight first. Even in perfect greenhouse conditions, additional carbon dioxide seems to only boost growth by a few percent (~3%).

Further Reading.

Every time a story like this about a massive particle physics project surfaces, my stomach turns. I am by no means anti-science; I did my undergrad in physics, and am a graduate student in engineering. It all just seems like a massive misappropriation of resources. One can blow the horn of scientific inquiry all day, but there are incredibly daunting and very real challenges facing the world today (e.g., energy, toxicology) that need the attention of intelligent people. We live in such a unique time in human existence, when we have this massive supply of cheap energy.

So do we have an energy problem or not?

Your inconsistency notwithstanding, you could pick something better to complain about than spending

trillions of dollars into understanding physical effects which will bear no consequence on the extreme challenges we will face in the very, very near future.

Try military spending, or even luxuries like cosmetics and perfumes. Besides, I doubt anyone can say with certainty that those poorly-understood physical effects bear no consequence. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that such understanding could provide the keystone to overcoming the challenges you point out.

I'm with you - and given that the largest single source of GHG emissions are from livestock (18% according to the UN FAO study Livestock's Long Shadow - http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM, closer to a scary 51% if you consider what the Worldwatch Institute rebuffs with: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294 ).

Also consider that "three-quarters of the world's agricultural land is devoted to raising livestock, either for grazing or for growing feed" - http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Food-Farming/2011/10/13/food-meat-double-study/

Plus, it's more ethically consistent with how most people (at least Westerners) think. If you wouldn't harm a cat or dog for pleasure, why would you do it to a cow, pig or chicken?

...the United States is pretty unmatched in agricultural exports because of the natural resources at its disposal. China seems to be the biggest importer of agricultural goods from the U.S.

That's not an unreasonable speculation. The United States is one of the most efficient agricultural producers in the world, we have a tremendous amount of arable land, and are only employing less than 2% of our population in the agricultural sector. To compare, the real population density (population per km^2 of arable land) for the U.S. is 179, whereas for the PRC it is 943. Every year China is losing more and more of its arable land due to pollution and desertification.

During the end stages of the Cold War ('87-'89), the United States was one of the largest exporters of wheat to the USSR, which was incapable of growing a sufficient amounts to feed its population. A similar type of agricultural dependency could develop between China and the United States in the future.

This is factually wrong. Ocean going transport represents a significant portion of all pollutions, including green house gasses.

Really? So put some numbers on it.

According to this, there were 531 MILLION cars on the Earth - six years ago.

Half-a-BILLION cars - damn near all of them spewing pollutants.

And how many TENS OF MILLIONS of large trucks?

How many THOUSANDS of large-seagoing vessels that would be able to take advantage of the technology in question are there? And get this - the diesel engines of large merchant vessels aren't all that huge - 20,000 HP would be a monster. Note that there are probably 1,000 HP automobiles you can buy for some decent coin, and 300 or 400 HP cars are pretty damn common.

And that's ignoring large trucks - it wouldn't surprise me to find out that there are some trucks with bigger diesels than most ships. And there are a helluva lot more trucks on this planet than there are ships.

Now, toss in the fact that the relatively tiny engine on a ship has all kinds of space to hold pollution-abatement gear that won't fit on a car or even a truck, and I must come to this conclusion:

YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT.

Of course, you didn't provide numbers, you pulled weasel-words like "a significant portion of all pollutions" out of your ass. So even if you do manage to pull some numbers that put ship-generated pollution as being six orders of magnitude lower than automobile pollution, you're going to still call that pollution "significant" and feel oh-so-smug about yourself.

This kind of open and honest debate is what makes me proud to be Canadian. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada seems to 'get' the technology of DPI and why we should be concerned about it.

On a side note I'm not so proud of the dirty oil being produced here in Alberta. But, at least no one is being killed for our oil. - well except for migratory birds.

While I, as you, am preparing to welcome my new Chinese overlords, there is one area of weakness in China's global domination plan you may not considered in your post:

China's arable land barely above critical minimum
Shrinking Arable Lands Jeopardizing China's Food Security
China not to Sacrifice Arable Land for Infrastructure Construction

You might not have a "shortage" in the USA (and I don't, in Europe), but try asking some people in a developing country. Their prices have increased more than ours and there's less international food aid. Some countries have banned wheat exports. Government stocks are low.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5539

" Despite /.ers insistence that it is dying, coal will be around in the US (and certainly in China) "

Maybe. But China has more solar deployed than any nation on earth (Wikipedia).

See also: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/41

"China is also a world leader in solar thermal production and use, accounting for 55 percent of global solar heating capacity (excluding pool systems)or 52 million square meters of collectorsby the end of 2003, reports Worldwatch Institute senior researcher Janet Sawin in Vital Signs 2005. China aims to boost its production capacity of one specific type of collector, solar heat panels, to 51 million square meters by the end of 2005, which would make it the world leader in solar heat panel production, according to an official from the National Engineering Research Center for Renewable Energy.

Several upcoming events, such as the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, Shanghai Expo 2010, and the 2007 World Conference on Solar Energy, will further stimulate Chinas solar energy industry. According to China Daily, solar power and terrestrial heat will be used at various Olympic venues; for example, 2-3 megawatt solar generators will power the sports facilities. The Shanghai city government, meanwhile, has drafted a three-year plan to boost municipal use of solar energy by 2007, including setting up several power generators with a combined capacity of 5,000 kilowatts, undertaking 30 projects that combine urban construction with solar energy, and installing solar panels at the factories of 20-30 heavy industries. A proposal has also been approved to install thousands of rooftop solar panels on commercial and residential buildings and educational institutions, according to Shanghai Daily.

With these and other initiatives, China is playing an important role in providing global solar energy markets with the policy support and legal protection they need. Worldwatch Institute statistics show that world PV cell production reached an estimated 1,200 megawatts in 2004, while the global market for solar thermal collectors grew some 50 percent between 2001 and 2004. As Chinas solar market emerges, it will be instrumental to moving the world to greater energy efficiency and environmental sustainability."

Switchgrass just got pwned by a quick google. Thats right, algae all the way. Just need to spend a bit of time developing the technologies to harvest it agriculturally because we've had little reason to do so earlier. Couple this to a CO2 producing coal plant and you've got a gold mine. Ofcourse, someone needs to make the initial investment. . .perhaps oil companies?

Strangely, I value detailed analysis and facts over sensationalism and boogeymen.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/77

Please note that there have been presidential-level national security briefings echoing this exact sentiment from the dirty-hippy-fest also known as the U.S. Intelligence community,

This is old data, but I found it quickly. It should paint a pretty clear picture:

http://www.gwu.edu/~econ270/Taejoon.html#a.%20Urba n-rural

Here's a more recent article that shows the trend continuing: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4469

Again I didnt take time to find "just the right data", because I dont care enough :)

"I know that population rates decline on industrialized countries"

You want a real flame - try the truth, like this:

The US is going to be among the worst offenders in contributing to over-population over the next 40 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

During 2005-2050, nine countries are expected to account for half of the world's projected population increase: India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, United States of America, Ethiopia, and China, listed according to the size of their contribution to population growth.

China, with 4 times the population, will grow less than the US.

Now keep in mind the US's environmental footprint (5% of the worlds' population, 26% of all energy consumption) - so as the US population more than doubles to 650 million, you're looking at some serious shortages.

Of course, there's always this "inconvenient truth" http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810

An estimated 65 % of U.S. adults are overweight or obese, leading to an annual loss of 300,000 lives and at least $117 billion in health care costs in 1999.

In 2002, 61 % of U.S. credit card users carried a monthly balance, averaging $12,000 at 16 % interest. This amounts to about $1,900 a year in finance charges--more than the average per capita income in at least 35 countries (in purchasing power parity).

A nation drowning in debt at all levels, addicted to junk food, junk credit, and junk science for its environmental "policies".

Its the truth, and its also flamebait :-)

Man is this idea played out - 5000+ years. Both the Hindu and Mayan calendars started at about the same time and both point to a time close to 2012 when a new cycle for the Earth begins - not the end of the world (EOTW)! http://hinduism.about.com/od/basics/a/goldenage.ht m

Sure the power grid may be overloaded and transformers fried if this is what you mean by the EOTW then yes the current system is very fragile. "During the last maximum in 1989, a power surge triggered by solar energy damaged transformers of the Hydro-Quebec power system, leaving 6 million people in Canada and the northeast United States without power for more than nine hours. The event also knocked satellites out of orbit and disrupted radio communications." - http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ solar_max_sidebar_000131.html

What this actually may do is again wake people up to suppling their own basic electrical needs via wind and solar and to use the grid power less and less. "Among the innovations that could have the greatest impact in the next decade: a new generation of lightweight, quiet electric cars that can be re-fueled at home; the conversion of coal plants to efficient gas turbines; mass-produced wind and solar generators that are cost-competitive with the most advanced fossil plants; tiny fuel cells and rooftop solar panels that allow people to generate their own electricity." - http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1073

Alright, sarcasm aside, surely there are bound to be some less-than-good effects on the surrounding enviroment if large amounts of water are 'sucked' out of the atmosphere prematurely?

Sure it can have a negative effect on the environment, just like the negative effects from the millions of cars on the road daily.

It can also have a very positive effect on the environment -- Mosquitoes breed in stagnant pools of water, and they transmit Malaria, which kills millions of people every year.

Right now fresh water is becoming really scarce, too, -- China is having a huge groundwater crisis as their pollution is contaminating their groundwater supplies. Their huge demand for water is sucking water out of the ground and sucking the pollution into the major underground aquifers.

There are a lot of places where the water table is seriously being lowered because of our greed for water, and this is causing real problems, in the California, Texas, and India amnong many other places where the water table has been lowered hundreds of feet. The ground can subside because of loss of support from the water table, and seawater can start contaminating it, rendering wells useless. Conserving our groundwater can be tremendously helpful.

Wind turbines are only useful if the average wind speed is above 10 mph. The unit illustrated doesn't even cut in until 8 mph, and achieves its rated output at a wind speed of 20 mph.

Biodiesel from fast-growing algae might be a goer. Biodiesel from conventional crops is a stunt.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4289

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publis h/article_10002825.shtml

To quote the above article -

"Nobody beats the U.S. when it comes to the difference in pay between CEOs and the average worker. In 2000, on average, CEOs at 365 of the largest publicly traded U.S. companies earned $13.1 million, or 531 times what the typical hourly employee took home. The corresponding ratio in 1980 was only 42, and in 1990 it was 85."

The norm seems to be for CEOs to help themselves, while they downsize away -

http://www.educationforjustice.org/index.fpl/1200/ article/4995.html

The problem is that doing something significant about global warming involves very strict controls which will cripple the economies of developing nations.

The main problem with using farmed vegetable oil directly for fuel (rather than recovering it after use in cooking, deriving it from crop wastes, etc.) is water.

If I remember my WorldWatch correctly most soybean farming in the U.S. is dependent upon fossil water, primarily from the Oglala Aquifer.

As a stop gap measure, to validate that there are viable alternatives, soy fuel isn't a bad thing. In terms of retooling our transpo/liquid fuel infrastructure, using salt water in coastal desert areas to grow algae bred for oil content is far more likely to be successful.

Sorry, but what percentage of energy is used for lighting? It must be tiny.

If by tiny you mean up to 34%. Most figures I've heard suggest around 20% though, plus another 5% accounting for the need to run cooling systems to counteract the heat of the lighting systems. Of course, it's more significant to talk about this in quantitative rather than relative terms - so out of the 3,858 terawatt-hours consumed in 2003, that would be between 900 to 1300 terawatt-hours per year. And growing.

Personally, I think thats a rather significant figure.

Indeed, turning the lights off when you don't need them and using more efficient lighting saves a great deal of energy, particularly in commercial operations. Low surface-to-volume ratio and all. But for home use, daylight counts for a lot.

As for oil, mining operations for coal or nuclear fuel and virtually all small-scale generators run on it. The cost of oil also has an indirect effect on the cost of other fuels by making them more attractive for certain applications and allowing them to charge a steeper price.

as can be seen by the narrowing gap between the rich and the poor.

You mean this gap?? If by narrowing you mean widening I guess....

Do you deny it? Because it's true. The disparity between the rich and poor is increasing in the united states and the world. Incidentally this is a strategy that appears to be a good one for the armed forces, because the poor no longer have a choice; they simply have to join the army, or starve/be homeless/die.

We should respect the poor more than we do. They're the ones fighting for us right now, fighting on the orders we give them.

Worldwatch Institute has a Climate Change Online Feature targeting The Day After Tomorrow, and trying to use this movie as a chance to educate people about more reasonable climate change realities.

Worldwatch Institute has a Climate Change Online Feature targeting The Day After Tomorrow, and trying to use this movie as a chance to educate people about more reasonable climate change realities.

Insurance companies have paid out $91.8 billion in losses from weather-related natural disasters in the 1990s so far, close to four times the weather-related claims handed out during the entire decade of the 1980s. ( worldwatch.org link

Biodiesel
Alcohol fuels
Biomass
Thermal Depolymerization

All viable ways to "grow" sources of energy...

...and maybe if we give the farmers something useful to grow (Energy crops), we won't have to pay them to not grow anything (ween them off subsidies - Nearly $75 billion spent last year in the US alone to keep farmers employed because there isn't a market for the stuff they grow). May as well earn their money growing sometihng useful!

Not like the market for energy is going to be going anywhere anytime soon, and this might just put the US back-in-black in terms of energy production vs. usage. With the USA's crop production capacity we might even be able to generate a surplus and export it...
=Smidge=

Good question, though not too hard to research as there's a volume of data and it's a hot issue. Of course, it's controversial, since much of the research is influenced by agribusiness (esp. here in Canada -- AgCan is in industry's pocket) and that means that research is overly reductionist or just plain skewed.

Keywords to look for in your reference search: loss of topsoil in green revolution scenarios (effects of tilling, bare soil, industrial watering, monocrops, heavy feeding crops, pesticides); dependence of farming on chemical inputs; loss of seed sovereignty; crop diversity reduction; the effects of large-scale monocropping on the environment; water usage; permaculture; loss of local knowledge (microclimates, local pest management, seed varieties --again--, plant companions, etc); misguided pest management (overused pesticides etc.); distribution and ownership models that reduce local food security; and so on.

Some good places to start looking outside of google:
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Sustainable Farming Connection
FarmFolk/CityFolk
The Ram's Horn
World Resources Institute
WorldWatch Institute
Pesticide Action Network
Sustainable Agriculture Network
Permaculture
ETC Group

There, that should get you started. You want evidence? there's plenty out there.

Oh, your system is great at nutrition and has no problem with hunger, women are safe, and causes no health problems.

because their "goverments" are stupid and evil

Hm, yes, we should bring these international criminals to justice. Oh, wait...

there's a plank in your eye.

Most people seem to be focusing on the "paper" or energy use aspect (often in conjunction with paper/recycling), but are ignoring the chemical factor of computers. Every computer takes hundreds of different types of deadly chemicals and chemical products to produce, most of which goes strait into the environment. Those who don't, go inot the computer components that are quickly finding their way back into landfills, causeing just as much polution. Also, unlike naturally produced things like paper, computer components cannot be easily or cost effectivly recycled (some components, often the most dangerous ones cannot be recycled at all). This is causing very serious environmental damage. for more info, Google, or:
Cleaning Up Computer Trash - TechTV
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition Web site
Virtual Ecology: A Brief Environmental History of Silicon Valley
Computers in a Sustainable Society
The next revolution in computers: Think Green

Most people seem to be focusing on the "paper" or energy use aspect (often in conjunction with paper/recycling), but are ignoring the chemical factor of computers. Every computer takes hundreds of different types of deadly chemicals and chemical products to produce, most of which goes strait into the environment. Those who don't, go inot the computer components that are quickly finding their way back into landfills, causeing just as much polution. Also, unlike naturally produced things like paper, computer components cannot be easily or cost effectivly recycled (some components, often the most dangerous ones cannot be recycled at all). This is causing very serious environmental damage. for more info, Google, or:
Cleaning Up Computer Trash - TechTV
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition Web site
Virtual Ecology: A Brief Environmental History of Silicon Valley
Computers in a Sustainable Society
The next revolution in computers: Think Green

For my part, i enjoy fairly technial reading, but most people do not, and they are the ones who have so very much to benefit from making science reporting interesting. some of the most approachable science and environmental reporting i've found yet is from The Worldwatch Institute.