Slashdot Mirror
Carbon Releases in Asia
ninthwave writes "After previous discussions on global warning, I thought I would post some interesting research in the affects of forest fires and drought in Asia on carbon output. The Guardian has this article. More detailed information can be found in these articles from
Leicester University
and the
BBC"
I work on this type of stuff and I think it's to early to determine anything on the subject at the moment. I don't usually say this but it's true in this circumstance.
We have government officials (Bush) that think they know everything, that's the dangerous thing
I think it is about time that the dominant species on this planet (i.e. you and me) start taking some responsibility for climate change.
I believe that the greatest threat to the environment is over-population. While many do not agree with this, I believe that this may be the key to living in a sustainable and habitable planet for the next 10,000 ro 100,000,000 years.
What do Slashdotters think?
I must need more sleep. I thought the headline related to Apple releasing a version of the Carbon API to Asia. Now they can have a sluggish interface full of worthless eye candy... just like the West.
My God! what were they thinking?
Don't they know that Carbon is the most sinister of the basic elements. Superficially less threatening than Plutonium, Carbon can change into diamond, graphite OR coal at will! Nothing can hope to compete with sucha a combination of hardness and combustibility. We are all doomed.
Mankind must vacate Asia at once and put all our resources into developing some Element Hero to combat this element villain so foolhardily released.
Rumor has it that Carbon bonds freely with Hydrogen... perhaps this can be a clue to it's weakness... we can only hope.
lysergically yours
As a typical knee jerk reaction to such findings, obviously organizations such as the EPA need to seek laws to outlaw these wildfires!
I know I'm going to get flamed for this. But we Human beings are part of the ecosystem. As opposed to watching over it. If we were to pollute the earth and kill ourself off. In a millennia or so the ecosystem would cylcle and bring forth a whole plethora of new species. I'm not saying we should do as we want. But I do think peopel should just admit we are protecting our own posterity and not "mother earth" As george carlin used to say all the earth has to do is shake us off like flees. Balancing our use of resources so that it doesn't affect the environment is more to protect us.
Yesterday I read an article in the Seattle P-I about how global warming is making it possible to use the Northwest passage for commercial purposes during certain months of the year.
You know: shorter voyages, less diesel burned, less pollution, falling amounts of carbon in the air, colder climate, northwest passage not navigable, longer voyages, more diesel burned, more pollution, rising amounts....
Pat
--
"Turn, turn, turn..."
668: Neighbour of the Beast
We can't do anything to the planet.
We can destroy human civilisation!
If another ice age turns up then the planet doesn't care, its had them before and will have them again. However, agriculture as we know it and the industries that require a well fed population (i.e. all of them) will cease to work and civilisation will cease.
Sod the planet, we need to learn how to terraform nature for our own survival.
Support Global Thermonuclear War!
Best Slashdot Co
I just got back to reading /. a bit... But I see a whole bunch of Enviro-spook articles. One's about the magnetic poles switching, andother's about ice melting around the Northwest (southeast?) passage. And now this...
True, it is quite scientific, but there's no good arguments being made. It's a Trollfuck for envirowackos.
Where is there level-headedness? Where is there impartial studies (as in NO funding to Greenpeace)? Where is the "Whole Story"? I'm sure Global warming has goods and bads.
Ya right, you can't fool me. I just know it's all those Hibatchi's that's causing it!
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
While some of that carbon was emitted as soot and other particles that will eventually come out of the air, that's still a lot of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere.
That is in addition to what started the problem, which was using fire to clear land for farming.
It was recently noted that the planting of forests to be carbon sinks is actually detrimental for the first 10 years, as disturbing the soil to do the planting released 10 years worth of carbon dioxide into the air.
Add to this the push to use more coal in the U.S. as part of the national energy policy (coal is nearly pure carbon, and thus releases more greenhouse gas than, say, natural gas, which has hydrogen as a major energy contributor).
It seems like the problems are going to get worse before they get better. We need to put a lot of effort into clean and renewable energy -- make it affordable, instead of relying on the altruism of those who run their cars on biodiesel or solar electricity and install compact fluorescent lights. It's one thing to try to legislate a solution -- but using economics to solve the problems is more likely to work.
Free book: Science Toys You Can Make
While I most certainly agree with the sentiment their *is* a certain level of restraint we should get used to using if we *humans* want to keep living here.
More notably stupid friggin US disposable products. Who the fuck thought up the "swiffer" or whatever its called. Ever heard of a fucking broom? Fuckin middle class idiots have probably killed more people than all of the worlds tyrants put together.
Similarly yuppies with cars, eight TVs, 6 million 40W lights, etc... [I'm guilty of some of these to an extent]. I still laugh at people with SUVs when I think of gas prices, hehehehehe
While we won't affect the existance of Earth *our* survival depends on us taking care of the place.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I'm not conviced that our global warming trend has anything to do with the greenhouse effect.
Does anyone think that maybe, just MAYBE, that thermal emissions from our inefficient machines just might have an effect on the one-degree-over-a-century global change that the EPA has researched?
Perhaps that the effect of 6 billion humans breathing in 70 degree air and breathing it out at 98 degrees JUST MIGHT have a noticeable effect in populated areas?
That cars setting small portions of air on fire for extended periods of time perhaps could increase the air temperature just a little bit?
That factories, air-conditioners, heaters, and power plants, due to their less than 100% efficiency, might be emitting heat as a byproduct?
Could this possibly explain global warming? That we constantly find new ways to harness the suns energy to work for us, and the byproduct is always heat?
Maybe I'm just a wacko, but this seems a lot more reasonable than a minute change in atmospheric gases.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
There is a COST to putting carbon into the air. This is the cost of either cleaning it up, or the cost of the consequences. Unfortunately there is no money being set aside to cover these costs, so the cost will build up and fall on people at a later date.
A carbon tax would help a lot. If we were taxed for the amount of carbon we put into the air we would have the cash to clean it up, or the incentive to begin conserving and/or using alternatives.
So why no carbon tax?
Instead of having a discussion on who or what is responsible why don't we drop the blame game and figure out what we're gonna do. Whether it's a the result of Industries polluting or just a change in the climate because of some things we aren't aware of.. what are we going to do to prevent it from killing us ?. I don't think anyone will argue that if this continues, people are going to die..
I understand the need for trying to find the reason behind the warming, so we can possibly try to slow it down.. but this really won't get us anywhere.. what if we aren't to blame ?..
we know what is bound to happen, part of the world gets really warm, and other parts fall into an iceage.. how are we gonna survive this ?.
this is not opinion...
o ls /
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/Aeros
just look for yourself. Asia and the Euros take the cake for winter-time pollution because they have no effective way of running clean heating sources... they are the ones who are fscking up the environment, not the US.
If instead of implimenting the Kyoto Protocols they simply spent time cleaning up the air NEAR Kyoto, then they'd actually be doing something..
but, as usual, its news to everyone except for those that look at the facts that the US and Canada does more to ACTUALLY protect the environment than a whole room full of UN Anti-Americanists TALK about protecting it.
Just go look for yourself - and tell me where the dirty air is and is not and at what times of the year....
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
And that guy that says hey, everyone, we may not know for sure but we should all start talking about the best way to deal with the whole big complex issue of energy and power consumption and pollution just in case, that kills me, it's like the twentyfirst century version of "can't we all just get along."
And when it's all over, opinions and attitudes will be changed! We will all be closer to the Truth because of the measured and well-reasoned discussion and debate! Conservatives and Liberals will share a cyber-hug, remarking that "we may have our little differences, but at heart we all want the very best for the Earth and all our brothers and sisters we share it with."
And the world will be a little bit better for it.
'Cause this is Slashdot, damnit!
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Is this really anything all that new? I mean, havent fires been occuring since the dawn of time? Im not denying the fact that a climate change occured, but Im thinking that it isnt anything that we should worry about. Do climate records exist that date back far enough so that an accurate comparison of carbon levels and the resulting effects may be made? Whos to say that the earth is or is not experiencing normal or even below normal levels of carbon in the atmosphere? Without a larger collection of information, can we really make an accurate judgement?
...trees really DO cause pollution!
Now, about ketchup being a vegetable...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
The question isn't whether we'd destroy the planets enviroment completely (unlikely) but whether we could damage it enough to make the current human population unsustainable (very likely) due to drowned land , drought and/or flodding causing food crops to fail. The asteroid that supposed to have hit the earth 65 million years ago wasn't a big deal to the planet as a whole but it didn't do the dinosaurs any favours did it?
Wow, I heard a clip about this the other day when I was listening to NPR. It's a really interesting audio segment that explains the problem and how it might happen again soon due to an El Nino condition this year. The link to the page that has the audio story is here. Note: This is in RealAudio format.
Regards, Montag
Actually, we can change this planet enough to seriously affect people's health and welfare.
And thats all that matters. Not even the greenest-of-the-green is trying to say that we can destroy the planet. For that matter, what does destroying the planet mean, anyhow? I think if you stopped and tried to apply context to most people who talk about damaging the earth, you'd realize they're really talking about damaging the ecosystem and conditions _we_ need to live.
Everytime there's an environment article, someone has to go point out how we can't destroy the planet. Of course we can't, but we can and have adversely affected the environment _we_ have to live in.
Congratulations for scoring a +5 on a moot point.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Europe and the United states went through their own industrial ages where lots of forests were cleared, lots of pollution was injected into the environment. We know more about the devastating effects of pollution now, but what right do we have to tell developing nations that they should not grow as quickly? Rather, I believe we should make every effort to assist them in growing quickly in an environmentally conscious manner.
It's arrogant to think that we can destroy the planet. We can make it inhospitable to humans (destruction of arable farmland, poisoning of waters). We can make it more expensive (increased cooling costs, increased food costs, deleterious effects on health leading to increased medical costs, etc.). But if all humans die out then other species will take our place. Maybe it'll be armadillos. Maybe cockroaches.
There's a need to balance environmental responsibility with progress and the economy and the current lifestyles. Lots of people talk about being environmentally conscious but don't want to give up their six computers, SUVs, air conditioning, etc.. Think globally, act locally... Many debates seem entirely polarized around the two camps with few people taking the middle ground. The arguments often go along the lines that choosing the middle ground is akin to joining one of the camps or that the other camp is so extremist that it forces extremism in this camp. Blah blah blah.
I was surprised to learn that burning coal seams in China contribute nearly as much greenhouse gases as all of the cars in the US. (http://www.discover.com/oct_99/break.html).
It's easy to fall into the Malthusian trap of thinking that overpopulation is the problem. I suggest you read Bookchin's classic essay Which Way for the Ecology Movement?, which lucidly and rationally debunks this idea.
In fact, the most recent estimates that I would consider objective are that post-2050, population numbers will decline significantly.
We need to stop blaming world population growth for climate change, when in fact the more static populations in the west are responsible for far more man-made pollution per capita. The focus needs to be on the real problems of pollution and climate change.
Couldn't we extract it from the atmosphere and turn it into something useful like inanimate carbon rods?
An inanimate carbon rod saved the space shuttle you know.
If the goal was simply to protect the earth, then you would be right.
But consider the effects on humans if we continue to change the world we evolved to live in. Our crops might survive, and we might not starve due to lack of enough food to feed billions. But as the heat expands the oceans like the liquid in a thermometer, our coastal cities become threatened. And whole island nations in the Pacific can be inundated.
The earth will survive. But I rather like it the way it is. I have an economic stake in preserving it.
So far, the change has been gradual enough that we can cope -- indeed we hardly notice. But there are positive feedback elements in global warming that cause the pace to accelerate. At some point, our abilities to cope will be overwhelmed.
Free book: Science Toys You Can Make
"The World" will survice, one wau or another. The question is, can we control how we change it so it will continue to support us?
To say removing all the rain forests has no impact is contradictory to what we know.
It is a species responsibilty(to itself) that it figures out how to live within the confines of the enviroment that it was created in, or it will become extinct. We are different then most species in that we can figure out how to change are enviroment to suit us. Unfortunatly, what suits us may not be very forward thinking and self defeating, in the long term.
Yes, I know, in the long term we're all dead, however I would like my grandkids to go swimming in the ocean not have to fear biologic contamination. That is goin gon at some very popular beachs right now.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Has anyone considered that the most probable ecological disaster is an Ice Age?? Our global environment has been in fluctuation between warm and cold for 900,000 years!
Maybe the CO2 will save us from the next one! Maybe we're just delaying it. Who knows how much environmental change is natural vs. mankind? I'm not sure we have enough of an observational timeline to say that we have caused any of it.
My point is that the global climate is dynamic. Maybe we should stop flipping out about every tiny variation. It's obvious that pretty extreme fluctuations occur normally!
Here is a timeline of past ice ages.
Cronus
We couldn't do anything to this planet if we wanted to short of using massive amounts of nuclear weapons, and even if we blew ourselves to hell with all the nukes we have it wouldn't mean jack shit it 10,000 years.
The point of environmental laws isn't that we think that we are going to 'destroy' earth it is that we think we will destroy our ecosystem. The ecosystem is actually very frail and many extinctions have been tied to minor changes in the ecosystem. Wether or not the planet is here in 10,000 years is an irrelevent point in terms of how we make environmental decisions.
From a certain point of view, overpopulation is the problem. In terms of resource use, carrying capacity, and sustainability, the Western World as we know it is incredibly overpopulated. See, the thing with overpopulation is (what you folks don't get), it's not the sheer numbers, it's the footprint left by those numbers. Therefore, if your land area and available resources can support x number of people at y standard of living, it can only support x-p people at y+q standard of living, where the ratio is most probably an exponential inverse proportion. And because our standard of living is so out of balance with the carrying capacity of where we live, we're drawing resources away from other areas, and, in some cases, causing the diminishment of their standard of living and carrying capacity.
In short, I will agree with you that no matter which way you look at it, we're the problem.
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
Reducing Greenhouse CO2 Through Shifting Staples Production To Woody Plants
Woody Agriculture: Increased Carbon Fixation and Co-Production Of Food and Fuel
It's a Trollfuck for envirowackos.
... but I digress...
As opposed to a trollfuck for technowackos? Personally, I saw "Carbon releases in asia" and though -- "You mean OS X hasn't come out in asia yet?"
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
Whenever I heard about "global warming" I had this sneaking suspicion that somehow, some way, Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda were behind it all.
Now my fears were addressed. No longer should I subscribe to the lefty rhetoric that claims that the arrogant use of the SUV has anything to do with "global warming" and its ill (but useful) effects.
First Dinosaur farts then this!! Yet another reason for getting rid of nature. It just screws with everything!
That season (1997/1998), the fires spread because the forests were unusually dry. This was partly because it was an El Niño year, which caused severe drought.
But human activity was probably a more important factor--in the mid '90s large drainage canals were cut in the peat forests (as part of the Mega Rice Project), which dried out large areas of peat; and large areas of the forest have been damaged by other activities, especially logging. So the fires spread along the banks of the drainage canals (see this article from the Guardian), along logging roads, and in general, areas where humans had damaged the forest--pristine areas were far less affected by the fire, even when they did burn. (See Satellite shows how logging makes forest more flammable, which is based on an article in the Nov 22 2001 issue of Nature.)
So, yeah, I'd blame humans for this fire--they started the fires, human use of the forest made the fires both larger and more damaging than they would have been otherwise. El Niño was a huge factor in the spread of the fires, but humans made it way worse.
While the carbon released by the fires is something to worry about, these fires also caused a big loss of biodiversity. Borneo is one of the few places where orangutans are found in the wild, along with other endangered primates. The fires are thought to have killed thousands of orangutans and destroyed much of their habitat. This wouldn't be such a huge problem--forest can grow back, after all--except that Borneo is being heavily deforested, because of (largely illegal) logging, conversion to farmland, and so on. At current rates of deforestation, some think that Borneo's forest might be essentially gone in two decades, driving orangutans, proboscis monkeys, and other species to extinction.
Incidently, since these fires were burning in peat, some of them never really stopped--the peat has just been smoldering for years. It's an El Niño year right now (much weaker than '97/98), and there are fires on Borneo again (or at least there were, as of August--it's hard to find current information, though you can look at the Global Fire Monitoring Center's webpage for southeast Asia). Another chance to take measurements of carbon emissions, I guess.
And I think the very greatest resource is human intelligence, so the more folks we have, the better chance we have of finding solutions for our various problems.
In the near term, we should certainly be working on helping the developing world implement cleaner forms of energy, sources of building materials, and better farming methods for the developing world.
The current course seems to be dominated by blind faith in some invisible hand, which seems to me just replacing "God" with the "free market" rather than a sensible attempt to find and implement the best solutions.
I agree with that, we need to figure out how to control the weather so that changes efforts to make a decent, healthy, and productive life to every human being don't enhance the wild swings of the natural cycle.
in the long term are probably more good than harm for our economies, I would say.
We know burning oil causes health problems, and we know the supply is not going to be sufficient for the next century, so getting going with cleaner and more efficient forms of energy is a good idea.
And of course the nations that get going on this idea soonest will be the ones selling the power to the ones that just muddle along trying to find a few more barrels of heroin *cough* I mean oil...
So while orbital solar, better photovotaic ground based solar, pebble bed fission, etc. are expensive to research and get started with, the folks who get good at it can turn around and sell it to the rest of the world as the oil runs low and folks get tired of breathing gas fumes instead of air...
The thing is x species include human species.
I for one think that the idea here is as a species are we going to make it through the conditions we have to live in, with enough of society intact to carry forward the advances we have made or do we suffer a massive trama to the species and hve to wait another 100,000 years before we can look towards space travel or disease control, or any advance that is worthy to the species.
We are tied very closely to our ecosystem how far we can be removed from its working I for one would not like to test. But in this lifetime I believe it won't bother me much, I can keep my standard of living and probably do ok. Two three generations down the road who knows, but I would rather try to have some legacy other than problems to hand that generation.
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
If those Asians wouldn't eat so much spicy food, then there wouldn't be so much "carbon emissions" from Asia!
...what do you mean "Methane"?
Ed Wedig
Graphic design services
docbrown.net
The world leaders, diplomats and power brokers, (many of whom are really, really smart; Rhodes Scholars and crazy high IQ's, as many of them are, believe it or not. I know a few, and I tell you, they breed that way. You don't get to be fucking powerful by being a dolt. Unless you happen to be a Bush on a String, but that's a whole different ball of wax), anyway. . , what if they actually listened to their scientific advisors? 'Cuz they're certainly not eating from the same trough or reading from the same books that the rest of us schmucks are. What if they knew, for real, in advance that a big pile of shit was going to hit the fan? --And by 'shit' I mean ecological collapse, country-killer comets, ice age returns, possible magnetic pole-flipping, and a train load of other dark and nasty things I won't even touch on. What if. . ?
See, there's been this mega-cheesey, bad sci-fi idea floating around for the last fifty years or so called, "Alternative 3". --The idea being that all the rich and wealthy build a big pretty space ship and leave the planet while the rest of us die in filth and misery. Pulp fiction fairy tale nonsense, of course. But fairy tales have their roots you see. .
I've gotta ask. . . "Why are there so many damned tunnels dug under the U.S.?" Underground military bases which go deep, deep, interconnecting throughout much of the continent. --I'm serious. Look this stuff up if you don't think it's true. If you have a friend or two in the military who work on one of the big bases, well they might just be able to nod at you and say, "Yeah, half the damned military is underground, forcryingoutloud!" --The Denver Airport, like a big pimple, for some reason is one of the places where it hits the surface. Big scandal. Tunnels galore. Look this shit up. LOTS of digging. What's up with all of that? Why? Fear of nuclear strikes? Nuh-uh. They've been digging this shit since the the 30's. There's a damned base 3 hours north of where I live, and everybody in the whole town knows the army is lying when they tell us the base closed down in the nineties. Not with that many soldiers around, it didn't! --Not with the transport trailers vanishing into hillside tunnel mouths where there ain't no other side to come out of!
Shadow governments? Everybody knows about this. Some people even know about Fema; (Which they even tried to make sound pretty on 'The West Wing', (more sleepy-time propaganda about how nice things aren't. All is fine here in the fairy tale. Go back to sleep while we bleed and ass-rape you.), --Oh, everybody knows, and it scares the shit out of them; it touches a nerve. When Jay Leno cracked his Shadow Government joke one evening back when the facts were surfacing into indisputable pop culture last year, the audience sure didn't laugh. No way. --They made an awkward, unhappy and nervous sound. None of them saying it aloud, but all thinking in that flash moment, "Oh, Yuck! I don't like it. I don't like it. I don't like it! Jay! You're supposed to calm us and lie to us! Let us sleep in the belief that everything is fine. Please stop it with the Shadow Government! How it bothers me!"
Not that those who know a few things are any less confused. There's a mind game a-raging; a massive misdirection game. "Can you find the Boeing?" "Who REALLY bombed the WTC?" "WHY is the economy going to tank right when it would really help plunge us into war?" And "Why, oh why are there so many storms and earthquakes and volcanos?"
Douglas Adams called it the "Interconnectedness of All Things", (and if he didn't, then it's only because he used better wording than I can summon or recall at the moment.)
And what's with this made up war? It came out of nowhere! Could it be any more contrived? I've never seen any global event which has been more desperately engineered than this one! There's a rush-darn schedule to keep, by gosh! (Of COURSE the Kyoto agreement got ditched and all those coal reacters got fired up back in 2000. What does it matter when the signs are screaming. Just a quick cash grab before the curtains.)
It doesn't matter how far up one's head is stuffed, or how much Leno minces out his trademarked litte high-pitch voice. Even the real dopes are beginning to get a clue. The freekin' clocks make you hold your breath these days! The days aren't just a little shorter. . . Fact is, for the last few years time has been more and more quickly scurrying willie-nillie that even the damned muggles are beginning to get wise. "I say, Honey, doesn't it seem like we just got out of bed a very short time ago?" "Why, yes, dearie! But let's discuss such things. It flusters by blusters!" "Oh, terribly sorry, Honey!" "Quite okay; just don't do it again!"
--We've got Christians who don't want to get, "Left Behind", we've got Alien huggers who dearly want to believe that they're going to get lifted by their UFO friends when the time is right, (nevermind the fact that those alien buggers sure seem to like their bovine lips and cow plasma; hey, everybody's got a fetish or two, right? Me, I waste my time spouting off on Slashdot, so I'd be a right hypocrite to blame somebody for a cow-lip and blood fetish.). And shit! We've got freekin' Cruise and Travolta smug in whatever bullshit their twisted little cult is pumping them full of. (Travolta was in their damned movie!, for crying out loud!) No matter how far under your rock you happen to be jammed, it's getting harder to shut out the fact that some weird shit is up! And those who are well tuned in are making travel plans and enjoying their last few milk-shakes but good!
So waddaysupposedtado? Huh?
Well, I tell people to keep their heads together and try not spill their coffee when the shit begins to fly. That and sell your damned stocks while the selling is good! The PPT (Plung Protection Team) is going to let the cash run dry and the gold stocks soar when the time is exactly right. . !
The U.S. was born under the sign of Cancer, and in about seven months time, Saturn returns with a vengeance for two and a half years. Whoopie. Hard times ahead, by gum! --Course, that's just some sort of astrology shit, and so long as one is safe under a cool and cozy rock, one can rationalize all day long, watch 'Friends' and eat their Taco Bell Smurf Food while sucking down some Sodium Benzoate enriched beverage like a good little consumer.
-Fantastic Lad
Here's a graph of atmospheric CO2 showing that the sigmoid (resource consumption) curve fits the data withR^2 > 0.98. That means all but about a percent of the variation can be explained by an equation in four variables. That does not bode well for anyone's ability to do anything about the problem.
Fascist Christ wrote:
> I wonder how many people who are against cutting
> down the trees are also against nuclear power.
Trees are a renewable resource. Cut down all you like, as long as you replace them. Burning them, and fossil fuels, releases pollutants. Even if you don't subscribe to the global warming theory, the particulant pollution is nasty for people with chronic sinusitus and other health problems.
> A conflict of interest I'd say.
No it's not. Nuclear power can be even nastier than a coal plant, especially when run by stupid people. Just ask the nice folks in Tokai how they liked Godzilla's 1999 visit to their plant.
> If we had more research in nuclear power, maybe
> we can make less radioactive waste (more
> efficient) and dump it all in Nevada's desert
> (to lazy to make link).
Making less would be an improvement, but we already have a Godzilla-sized lump of it to dispose of. In 10 years, we will have made enough to fill up Yucca mountain (77,000 ton capacity, larger than even the largest Godzilla at 66,000 tons). Yucca mountain will take 25-38 years to get all the waste there, and will be hot for at least 10,000 years. What are you going to do with waste in ten years? How will we keep Yucca Mountain safe, when worse case scenario has it destroying the life carrying capacity of this planet? How many more Yucca Mountains are you prepared to create?
Godzilla's definition of clean energy forbids both fossil fuels and nuclear (including fussion). It pays to listen to the big guy, as he has a tendency of destroying plants he doesn't like. Search Google for "tokai nuclear criticality" if you don't believe me.
Sonora:"New Godzilla reading. He's moving inward toward Tokai."
Shinoda: "The nuclear plants, I knew it.
Sonora: "Afraid so."
Yuki: "Well, that's just lovely. Another Chernobyl."
"Godzilla 2000" (US version dialog)
www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
(Article from Newsweek April 28, 1975)
In the early seventies, the world's climate scientists were paranoid about global cooling. Has the system really changed that much in 30 years due solely to human intervention? I would think the climate would have more inertia than that; are we just reading signals in the noise?
A quote from the article:
-- Heisenberg might have slept here.
Indonesia Wildfires Release Carbon
But they're talking about fires that occurred in 1997. The news is still up-to-date, since it's recent analysis that's being reported on, but the headline is just a little ludicrous. It's like if they discovered that the Titanic had hit a rock rather than an iceberg, and reported "Titanic Hits Rock, Sinks!"
My deviantArt site
I see a lot of people are quick to lay it on heavy with China, but balance this article with the Three Gorges hydroelectric plant they're building. It will be absolutely huge, and they're sacrificing a lot of cultural identity to get it. Once it's in place and the rivers start rising, they'll wash away litterally thousands of archeological sites dating back to before the Ming Dynasty. Equate that with flooding Rome or Greece.
All that is to produce clean, renewable energy and to prevent the incredible loss of life those rivers cause when they flood.
these are for protection of demonstrators from the nasty gasses released by cops at demonstrations. sort of stylish...
fear is the mind killer