Slashdot Mirror
$25M Bounty Offered for Global Warming Fix
SaDan writes "Richard Branson is offering $25M as a bounty for a fix to global warming. The person or organization that can devise a method to remove at least a billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from the atmosphere will be able to claim the bounty. There are a few catches, of course. There can't be any negative impact on the environment, and the payment will come in chunks. A 5 million dollar payout will be paid when the system is put into place with the remainder of the bounty to be paid after 10 years of continuous use."
How much carbon dioxide does a single tree consume in a year of respiration and how many trees could be planted for $25 million?
Either that or find a way to build large scale air scrubbers that simulate plant respiration (stripping the carbon atom off a CO2 molecule and releasing O2), then compress the pure carbon into bricks for use in industry. If it could be done cheaply enough it might not just be eco-friendly, but profitable as well, with the $25 million payment as a bonus.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
All we need to do is drop a large ice cube in the ocean every now and then. Thereby solving the problem.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Ride a bicycle.
Where's my money?
It's called an air-conditioner. Duh.
Yes, Martha, I'm fully aware that the Carnot cycle shows that air conditioners cause a net heating of the environment when the heat dump and the cold reservoir are summed. That is to say the above is a joke.
Why, that's just ~32 tons of CO2 per second. Piece of cake.
Please define.
Why exclude solutions where you would counteracting Global Cooling Gas?
Why bother getting rid of the CO2, Just pump a bunch of dust into the stratosphere. We have a bunch of airliners up there anyway, get them to do double duty by using a sooty fuel.
Global warming? What is that, some new street drug? And $25M for one shot? Crazy...
I have discovered a truly marvelous
After all, I'm sure that a human can take care of the earth better than Mother Nature can.
Love sees no species.
1 billion tonnes/year = 30tonnes/second ...
quite a rate to sustain
Plants absorb c02 as they grow, and they can definitely absorb more than what's needed to mature, resulting in bigger/higher yields of product. The only thing is you'd need to plant thousands and thousands of acres. So the question is, which plant is best for this ordeal?
I call bullshit. I don't think there is ANY technology which, when implemented on a massive scale, will not have SOME negative environmental impact, at least as defined by the various environmental interest groups.
Deep sea carbon sequestration? Think of the oceans.
Nuclear anything? You're joking, right.
The list could go on. Here's the global warming elephant in the room: lower CO2 levels mean massive changes in human behavior. Period. He should be offering $25M for a device to change human behavior.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
This is just stupid. I can't believe it actually made it on /.
The easiest way to remove billions of tons of CO2 would be to have a billion people or so stop breathing. Perhaps these global warming fear mongers can lead the way.
Great idea! All those dead human corpses will just rot and all the carbon of their bodies will be released as CO2! Wait a second...
The CO2 that humans breathe out is not part of the problem. That CO2 comes from carbon you ingested in the form of food, which came from animals/plants, which ultimately came from the air. So when you breathe out CO2, you are just putting back the CO2 that was there only a few months ago. So there is no net impact. The same goes for ANY carbon dioxide that is bio-derived. Only the CO2 released from burning petroleum fuel matters. Period.
My paypal is welcometothefifties@timetobuildthem.com.
Could do it ourselves in the US, It would take just a few easy changes:
1. 2$ a gallon gas tax in the US
2. Train/Metro in every major US city
3. Large installation of windmills
4. A miracle and revolution in the US to a systemm where our representatives do not get campaign money from industries that benefit from pumping pollution into the sky.
The problem isn't coming up with a way to do it, it's getting people to buy into it. There are lots of ways to cut down on our use of fossil fuels (nuclear, space-based solar, etc.) and there are lots of ways to pull carbon out of the atmosphere (though most if not all of the best ones involve plants and sunlight). But we have a huge culture/industry built around the notion of burning fossil fuels and that isn't going away any time soon. Given that they are willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to finesse access to a small fraction of the worlds fossil fuels, a $25 million dollar prize (heck even if they made it $25 billion) isn't going to matter squat. --MarkusQ P.S. And if you want to argue that the war isn't about oil, you need to start by coming up with a non-discredited alternative explanation and at least sketch out why it doesn't apply to any of the more obvious targets who aren't sitting on a bunch of oil.
Trees....lots of trees.
Solar powered. Self-sustaining, self-propagating...pretty much self-everything.
It's pretty obvious to do any carbon dioxide scrubbing on a large scale, it's going to require a process that requires as little artificially-induced energy input as possible.
How about large saltwater algae beds in arid regions adjacent to the ocean? Harvest the algae, press out the plant oil, and make biodiesel. Algae is probably the most efficient crop for something like this.
We need to change over to Bio-diesel, That way we are reusing the waste we accumulate at all those horrible fast food joints!
$25 million is chump change for something like that, especially when you receive it in payments like that over the course of 10 years. Then you got to figure the government is going to tax the hell out of you for it. I say Branson should raise the stakes, its not like he can't afford it.
Carbon sequestration is relatively easy. Plant more trees, create artificial algae blooms...Anything green and growing will take in a lot of carbon. There have been studies recently dealing with certain types of pine trees that even suggest that the trees are growing faster in the higher CO2 environment we're making for them, which suggests that natural processes will step up to take advantage of the carbon rich environment.
The problem is, all these solutions are geologically short term, and they're not as space-efficient as say, coal. Forests catch fire, algae blooms sink to the bottom (which is good) but are bad bad bad for the water ecosystem in which they're created, and everything else gets used and processed.
Basically, we're screwed on a quick fix until someone bio-engineers us some quick growing trees that sequester so much carbon that they're shiny. The best solution is to reduce our output of carbon, and allow the carbon cycle to re-balance itself.
In the meantime, if you're wondering whether to take up snow skiing or water skiing, might want to go water.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Reverse some genes in the human DNA so that the humans breath CO2 and expire O2. It is as easy as writing !true in a programming language.
I for one welcome our Photosynthetic Human Overlords.
It is in the top 10 for CO2 fixation! It has over 25,000 uses of which smoking it is just 1!
:)
We can make cloths, shoes, rope, cardboard, paper, and other goods from the fibers.
We can make bread, cooking oil, ethanol, bio diesel, and bird food from the seeds.
We can smoke the buds to relax.
Problem solved! We just plant it everywhere! Along the roads, in the unused fields, around the government buildings, just everywhere. No more global warming!
Interesting how the CO2 levels started to rise just after the government banned growing it!
We can also reduce the "War on Drugs" budget and redirect it to research on global warming. There is an instant $6,000,000,000 per year to find alternate energy sources.
Problem solved, now take that $25,000,000 prize and give it to the Marc Emery defiance fund.
Richard Branson owns an airline, if he wants he could reduce co2 by a large amount by changing his business.
Of course if he pulls out of the market then others take his place.
Smash two asteroids into each other near the Earth to form a ring of debri around the planet. This can be done by gradual guidence whereby you move a small asteroid slightly to make it transfer motion to a incrementally larger asteroid by repeated passes, stealing motion from other bodies such as Jupiter. It is kind of a snowball-like effect. But it does take thousands of years and a hellova lotta math.
Table-ized A.I.
Stop burning fossil fuels.
Where's my 25 million?
Dropping a nuclear bomb every once in a while on a large cosmopolitan city would definitely do the job...
iTx Technologies: Open source development in Montreal
But it would require energy. The whole reason hydrocarbons are a good source of energy is precisely because the C + O2 -> CO2 reaction gives off energy. So to make it go the other way, you need input energy. Plants get it from the sun, where would we get it from. Then, of course, assuming you have a source the question is why not just cut the middle man and use that source directly?
what, do you expect petrol to burn itself?
Many other sources have similar figures.
Simply declare co2 to be the worlds currency and pretty soon it will all be safely locked away in swiss vaults.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
link
Regardless of whether you believe in Global Warming or not, there is an effort by certin groups (environmental groups and the media in particular) to make the science sound more solid than it is
If everbody wore tin-foil hats, then it would reflect more sun out into space, cooling the planet. I've got mine on.
Table-ized A.I.
There were a lot of studies on the idea in the '80's by the DOE, but it was shelved due to low oil prices at the time.
Refit about 1000 coal power plants with Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle:
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4187912
Not cheap.
Eat the homeless, now we have enough housing. Eat criminals, no more over full jails, possible drop in crime rates. Eat everyone who live in a house with an odd number, halfing amount of cars on the road. And with all that eating we solve third world hunger too.
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
this is crazy... flat out crazy... but how about rather than whining about the problem we use the technology ALREADY IN PLACE???
I live in Idaho the supposed nuclear energy research capitol of the U.S. (The INL). Yet the lab here hasn't built a reactor for 20 years.
and they are getting less and less money each year for research.
Our state is now building five some odd coal plants... (not the gen 3 plants we should be).
When was the last time a nuke plant was built in the US?
You want to see the essence of hypocrisy? Look at the half finished nuke plant in Washington, its construction was blocked by the same
people whining about dirty power and global warming..... stop waiting for the magic technology bullet and use the technology we ALREADY HAVE!
basically, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
Duh, my invention is a bunch of trees and plants strategically placed together on a piece of land, in sufficient quantities to remove a billion tons of CO2 a year. Why make machines to do what mother nature can already do, provided we as humans are good stewards and take care of our natural and biological resources?
Now pay me my money, bitches. I don't have any confidence that any of you ignorant fools are going to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and cutting down our forests. I want my money right now so I can at least live the rest of my life enjoying myself. Nobody *else* is admitting they are responsible for pooping in the fishbowl, and I'm not going to admit my own guilt either. The fish bowl we call the Earth is just pooping ITSELF up.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Nuclear winter! When things get too hot, pop the top, sit back and enjoy the snow.
Particulates in the atmosphere actually have a "warming" effect with respect to melting snow packs and ice. They become part of the snowflake, but they absorb rather than reflect solar radiation, snow/ice melts too quickly.
Nor would the various other schemes.
But my nifty idea is to spin the entire atmosphere. The CO2, being heavier than most air, but heavier than ozone, would form a layer all it's own. Then all we need is planes with ram-scoops to collect the C02, and later pipe it up to space in large tubes.
Are hurricanes/tornados a "negative environmental impact"?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Anyone who thinks global warming is strictly a man-made problem: stop driving cars, stop using airplanes, stop using air-conditioning, stop using electricity, stop eating beef, stop drinking milk, stop farting, and stop breathing. With a billion fewer people on the planet, this problem might just go away.
Do I win $25 million..?
So.. it has come to this
Why not just dispense with the whole "convert CO2 to carbon and oxygen" and just use nuclear as a direct power source? We already know how to do that, quite well in fact. So if nuclear is the answer, why not just use it?
My point isn't that there aren't energy alternatives, it's that there's not a real reason to do the CO2 -> C + O2 thing.
The person or organization that can devise a method to remove at least a billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from the atmosphere will be able to claim the bounty. There are a few catches, of course. There can't be any negative impact on the environment.
That's like asking a baker to take all that unhealthy fat out of a doughnut, but not have it have any impact on the taste. It would be foolish of Branson to think that you can make a dramatic change to the chemical makeup of our atmosphere, but not have any "negative" consequences. Plants need CO2, so removing it from the atmosphere might harm plant life. Temperatures will decrease (probably), and I'm sure that there's at least some species of wildlife that's now thriving with the warmer temperatures. Wind paterns will change. Climate patterns will change. To expect absolutely no "negative impact" on the environment is foolhardy.
Just last week the leading scientific community said global warming is irreversable (at least for several centuries.)
Otherwise the best solution is to nuke China and India.
How about we dont go looking for a short term bandaid fix? We all know what the solution is, and it is to reduce our CO2 footprint in the long run.
We have time, we have hudreds of years, we can phase changes in slowly as we develop them and become tenable.
I worry about some jackass firing off some goofy device of his, without examining possible side effects, and putting us in a worse situation.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
White-out? That would fix it. Now give me my $25 million!
Running out of oil will do this quite effectively, and that will happen within not too many years.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
25 million you say? That's not a very good bounty for an entire planet. Ok... ok.. let me think... right... I'm going to pulp the Amazon rain forest to produce leaflets telling people to switch off their lights when not in use. How's that? Jeezuz. What idiots. It's wrong-thinking tinkering like this that usually makes the solution have worse side effects than the problem. What is it about the last 10 years that makes people expect a dynamic system like the climate to be a static system in equilibrium with humans? You know, we probably evolved our over developed frontal lobes thanks to environmental change. We dominate the planet due to our ability to out adapt other species. Keep banging the rocks together guys. Forward not backwards.
Payment method: 1 $ on day one, 1/2 $ on day two, 1/3 $ on day three, ...
One CS student VS 893 DOS games: Let's play oldies
There's multiple reasons: Political: We had to take Saddam out, because we were the ones that put him in power in the first place. Basically fixing your past mistakes without actually owning up to them. The oil? Eh... there would be cheaper ways than this war to get it. Financial: defense contractors are pretty high up on the campaign contribution list. Religious: hopes of starting Armageddon because you have faith that you are going to be raptured up.
This sort of reminds me when people pledge trivial amounts of money on feature bounties for open-source projects, or in bids on rent-a-coder.
While I appreciate Branson's gesture, I can't help by being annoyed. Extracting CO2 from the atmosphere is incredibly difficult.
I can't imagine that his plege would have any real effect on the parties who are striving to solve this problem.
[Sigh!] A fool and his money...
1. Global warming isn't caused by carbon in the atmosphere -- it's cause by (drum roll please) THE SUN!! [GASP!!]
2. I'll wager Sir Branson his $25M that global warming "mysteriously" reverses itself in 20 years (coincidentally at the bottom of the sun's gamma cycle)
3. Anyone but me remember the "coming ice age" back in the early 70's?
Not going to work. Discover Magazine had an article about the fallacy of trees being the solution to global working. You would barely be making a dent. Not to mention the fact that the trees need time to mature. Fires would completely screw up your solution.
http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-05/features/co
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
Get icecubes from a meteor and cool the oceans.
If that doesn't work transport all robots to an island and bomb it.
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
... parent post is not redundant - the posts for the majority point towards methods *removing* CO2 from the air, because that is what the question is literally. The fundamental question is however: make the total amount of CO2 less than it is now, by a billion tons a year. And ofcourse that can be achieved by burning less fosil fuels. If you can make a device that *allows* people to burn less fosil fuels, and install it so it will be efficient up to 1 billion tons a year: you've won.
Such as - first we attempt to disprove our hypothesis -Doh!! now you are a heretic.
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
There are essentially two groups of environmentalists today, acutal practical environmentalists who (tend to) look for reasonable ways to limit the impact our society has on the environment and socialist anti-coporate crusaders. Patrick Moore was a well respected and important environmentalist who left greenpeace mainly because "He believed Greenpeace became more concerned with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization rather than environmental issues"
You can convince a practical envronmentalist that Nuclear power will reduce greenhouse gasses until we have a better technology available, but the extreme elements in the envionmental movement will not be happy until they have killed the evil "Capatilist".
Ban gas excretion by all living organisms (especially Cows).
If you want to decrease the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, you should reduce consumption on all levels. As a nice side effect, reducing consumption lowers the prices for everybody (and corporate profits), by the simple law of supply and demand.
Global warming is made of people!!!!
(pun intended)
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Every "invention" we have is a revised,accelerated, optimized and controlled process that the nature already did.
Yes, those rocket powered four-wheeled animals are certainly a hoot to watch, skating across the savannah. Do be careful of the ones with fricken' laser beams, though. They might kill you and then microwave you before they slather you with condiments and eat you. They may be dangerous, but the little ones wearing diapers are adorable.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
C'mon, $25 million for solving a problem that by some estimates is going to cost the world trillions of dollars if it doesn't get solved? Poor dig, slashdot editors. This isn't news, it's a joke.
2. Train/Metro in every major US city
Bzzt - negative impact on the environment
3. Large installation of windmills
Bzzt - negative impact on the environment
My method doesn't actually remove 1 billion pounds, rather it prevents that 1 billion from being released. I cannot talk about all the details until the patent is filed, but let's just say it involves Rush Limbaugh and a really large cork.
Remember that the Americans still remain subjected to the same skillfully honed propaganda machinery.
One could argue that in the modern age of the Internet there is no excuse for being so gullible. Especially in the case of the Americans -- they have many of the world's papers and editorials available a mouseclick away in their own language!
Unfortunately, the Americans prefer TV. And seeing through propaganda isn't easy when it surrounds you all the time. So don't despise them.
One difference compared to the Iraq war is that with global warming the catastrophe will be on a far larger scale. This means that the embarrassment will be far, far greater than the embarrassment over Iraq.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Back in the 80's, there was a graph showing percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere vs. year starting in the 1800's and ending at some point before 1980. It was level until 1880, then suddenly shut up until the end of the graph. They never said how they deduced the CO2 quantity and the graph was scaled between 2 rediculously small percentages.
Now wouldn't it be neat if we had a graph of annual CO2 percentage up to today? Such graphs are nowhere to be seen. Google searches don't find them. The media doesn't show them. There are lots of references to CO2 levels but not a single graph of CO2 level vs. year.
This is definitely a Catch-22.
It has to do something, thereby increasing entropy, and at the same not create adverse affects. What constitutes an adverse affect? Does contributing to the heat death of the universe?
Ok, perhaps just looking at entropy is a little extreme. I'm sure that's not actually written in the rules, and apparently there actually is some sort of judging involved here (oh look, Al Gore is a judge. Big surprise. "I took the initiative in solving global warming..."), but Branson's asking for a miracle here. Any work is going to require energy. If you don't just want to suck that billion tons CO2 out and store it somewhere, but actually break it down into more containable form, like graphite or useful hydrocarbons, it will take a lot more energy. This is effectively the same energy issue we've been flogging death for years, but in the guise of removing CO2, instead of avoiding creating it or just plain getting energy in the first place.
As Slashdot has been debating since...um, forever...every energy source we can come up with has adverse affects, not the least of which is cost. I don't know how much energy it takes per ton to filter CO2 out of the air and bury it in an abandoned gas well, but I would bet we're talking several orders of magnitude above the prize level just in energy costs. Not such concerns means much compared to "saving the planet" (TM), but that effectively makes the prize only a formality.
Beyond cost, there's also environmental affects with energy generation. Be it birds struck by wind turbine blades or disposal of the composites they're made out of at end-of-life, the chemicals used in making solar cells, nuclear waste, disrupted fish runs with hydroplants, altered ocean habitats for tidal solutions, possibly altered fault activity and limited supply from geothermal, and of course that practically irrelevant but still amusing increase of entropy problem from all of the above, they are there.
I'm not sure if the story should be flagged Catch-22, vaporware, or inthishouseweobeythelawsofthermodynamics.
A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs./year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings. So my math might be bad but thats, roughly .0225 Tons a year, so you'd need about 2.25 * 10^11 trees in your $25 million dollar forest.
Source: McAliney, Mike. Arguments for Land Conservation:Documentation and Information Sources for Land Resources Protection, Trust for Public Land, Sacramento, CA, December, 1993
the earth might be warming (well at least since the end of the last ice age in the 19th century) but there is still no credible scientific evidence that we have caused it or can do anything about it. why not offer $25 million to figure out how to deal with what the earth is doing? gee, that'd be too easy and not politically correct. when did we begin to think we are omnipotent godlike creatures?
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
It is possible to design a neutron bomb to have very little long term fallout. Dust in the atmosphere from volcanoes can block sun light and slow the effects of global warming. Substitute nuke for volcano and just maybe we've got a relatively safe and economical way to counteract global warming.
I have no idea if this would actually work, but it would be interesting to find out.
Until MacDonalds and other major corporations cut down all the rain forests. :(
Won't they be embarrassed when the leaders of Al-Queda win the $25 million prize with their plan to "kill millions and millions of infidel Americans" to reduce C02 emissions?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/02041 2080812.htm
*props open refrigerator door* Where's my 25 mil?
I think probably nanotechnology would be the best for this. It could be solar powered, and would separate the carbon atoms from the oxygen (being careful to release O2 and not 2 Os). The carbon could then be shaped into something useful, such as bicycle frames or industrial parts.
I know, I know, there might be people that would think about clear cutting such a "Rainforest" for, say, beef or corn. But that would be silly and short-sighted to simply destroy something that would have taken thousands of years to grow and that could provide such wonders and benefit to the world.
Silly me, dreaming again...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
It's a weed. It grows anywhere. Little water, little sunlight, it's happy.
We'd have to find a place with a plentiful water supply, cheap real estate, and lots of sun. My bets are the area's around the grand canyon. Plenty of sun, colorado river has lots of water.
Sure we'd have to build massive irrigation and pumping from the colorado, but that's easy stuff.
duh
If we can put out the sun, it'll fix it. Now, hand over my cash.
if they accidently screw up the environment trying to fix global warming? What's the backup plan?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Drop Al Gore and Heidi Cullen at the North Pole...global warming ends :)
After the recent request to fund the Iraq war to the tune of $245 billion, it really puts our priorities in perspective.
...and when prices rise to the estimated US $5-15 per gallon as a result, people will voluntarily give up their cars in droves. (Google for "true cost of gas" for more information.)
The high cost of gasoline will then pull up the prices of other fuels. People will make more of an effort to conserve energy.
I don't know if this will save a billion tons of carbon dioxide, but it's a start.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
A tree is only a short-term solution to sequestering carbon. Once that tree dies, all that carbon is released right back into the atmosphere.
Maybe I'm not up to date on my scientific theories, but isn't petroleum generally considered to be bio-derived?
My 3 Step plan to ecological balance.
Step 1. Stop amazon rain forest harvesting.
Step 2. Cap all oil wells, and fill in all coal-mines.
Step 3. Wait 10 years.
No negative impact on the environment will be felt.
The only negative impact will be on our ease of life until clean alternatives are developed. ie - Force the issue.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Here's a couple (the second covers from 400,000 years ago to today)
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html
Your Google must be broken...
Well, but isn't the CO2 released from petroleum technically bio-derived as well? (That is, unless you're one of those crackpots who doesn't believe oil is biogenic.) There's no Co2 coming out of my tailpipe that wasn't taken out of the atmosphere by plants millions of years ago. Of course, we'd prefer that fixed carbon to stay in the ground rather than being returned to the air, but it's all biological processes we're talking about, here.
Kill all human beings. I believe natural forces would quickly, I'm sure surprisingly quickly, bring the atmosphere back into a harmonious balance.
Of course, you'd have to leave a few survivors to confirm the results of my brilliant insight into the issue.
Next question?
A tree will consume about a ton of CO2 over its lifetime, maybe 100 years. Since the goal is over 10 years, we need 10 times the number of trees. So that's it, plant ten billion trees. You can pay me by PayPal.
My Freakin Blog
Better idea, we'll just kill off all the people who don't believe that global warming is strictly man made. We'll start with you.
[i]Also, planting $25 million worth of trees would most likely be considered eco-unfriendly since you'd need to find a pretty huge amount of space that isn't already developed[/i]
It's called "Haiti", look into it.
I've got a patch (works over here anyway), but I can't check it into the repository.
Since I was not able to contact the author, and I can't check it in on sourceforge, I'll just make the source available after the weekend.
ROFLMAO DUDE PLEASE
Death sentence to anyone who uses a car. I hope all you city folks can grow a good sized garden.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
Here's the problem:
environmental groups and the media in particular
I don't want to here from environmental groups or the media on this. They both have agendas, and axes to grind. The environmental groups wont donations, so they're going to paint the bleakest picture they can. The media will pick up on this, and generate as much anxiety as they can - because that attracts viewers.
Nope, I want to here from the scientists themselves. The ones without an axe to grind, the ones who aren't on a crusade. The ones who aren't out to say that the world is ending, nor that everything is just fine - the one's who are examining that murky middle ground for the actual truth.
Fuck the environmentalists and the media, and their sensationalistic, bogus science. All the hyperbole and "sky is falling" bullshit is the reason the populace has largely ignored this issue. Crackpots and fanatics hurt their own causes.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Easy enough to find. Here is one graph that goes to 2004. To 2006 should be possible to find with some searching.
I know, I know!
Follow this logic carefully... Take the water, to make the ice cube, from the sea!
Or you could just freeze it in-place, maybe just plug in a freezer, open the door and sink it into the ocean. Oh my bad, that would be adding something to the ocean and making the level rise again. Never mind.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
And unlike CO2, which hangs out in the atmosphere for centuries, water vapor is a variable that changes almost instantly in response to other factors. If anything, it's a positive feedback loop.
Ok, humans breathe in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide. Rather than remove the existing CO2, just wipe out China (the country with the highest population). End of subject. Once a few billion people are gone, the CO2 levels will drop so significantly that the problem will be solved. Of course, I don't want to be labeled as anti-Chinese... so perhaps we could just take out the US? Or maybe all of Europe and Russia?
Here's my fav site so far, has all the issues of Global Warming mapped out. A graph is worth a thousand pictures. Found it through wiki's entry on global warming.
How much carbon dioxide does a single human exhale in a year of respiration and how many humans could be killed for $25 million?
Maybe I'm not up to date on my scientific theories, but isn't petroleum generally considered to be bio-derived?
It was bio-derived hundreds of millions of years ago. That's hundreds of millions of years where that CO2 was NOT part of the atmosphere. We're not talking about putting back what we took out 6 months ago, we're talking about a serious shift of equilibrium.
But you're right, I should have been clearer.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/art/graph3.gif
What are the limits on the cost of the system? There are plenty of ways of removing CO2 but most are expensive. If he wants a plant that can reduce that much that could be built for say 25 mill then that's a tough one. Also can it be either removing that much or a method to prevent that much CO2 from being released? Effectively the same thing.
Seriously. We don't want you 'fixing' global warming.
We like it hot. You silly h-mans won't even look up in the sky to
see the aluminum and barium particles that we have been spreading
via airplanes for the past decade. A nice little insulating layer
to speed things up until the methane pop occurs.
Hang on! It's gonna be a bumpy ride!
-Eym A. Lizardo
How about we artificially create limestone? CaC03. Its formed naturally over millions of years partly do to CO2 dissolving into the oceans. If we can artificially create bricks on limestone we can not only remove C02 from the atmosphere but create materials for housing and reduce the use of wood as a building material.
perhaps a design good enough that it would NOT even need government investment
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
4) Eat the environmentalists; less SUV use, less air travel, less hot air, less sewage. Yuck!
By SUV, I assume you are implying that they get poor gas mileage, and therefore produce more greenhouse gases. Not all do, of course. That said, someone who drives a Yukon is a hypocrite if they claim to be an environmentalist.
6) End Socialism. Economic prosperity will allow people to adjust to the changing climate better. More socialism is more death and misery.
The US, one of the least socialist countries in the world (I saw a picture of a cardboard shanty town in Florida earlier this week that definitely made me think of death and misery) produces a huge amount of greenhouse gas (per person).
Developing communist countries do as well, but compare the CO2 production per person from the US to China shows that capitalism generates more (using your logic). Canada is more socialist than the US, and Canadians generate more greenhouse gas than Americans do. Is it because of socialism? No, it's because it's colder and not as densely populated.
The western industrial democracies are quite capitalist, and we generate per-person more greenhouse gases than many of the poorer, "socialist" countries. Making more like us will make solve the problem? If we are relatively so much wealthier, then why aren't we willing to clean up our act, seeing as you claim the willingness to fix the problem seems to be related to wealth?
7) "repeal" Kyoto protocols. They don't work, they are counter productive, they will cause more global warming.
The US did not sign Kyoto. George Bush did not believe in global warming, so he reneged on the agreement made by Clinton to sign the protocol.
Eco-Nazi talking about spending money
It's his money. You are a big fan of capitalism, and he's a capitalist (that's how he made his money). Who are you to criticize how he spends it? That sounds very socialist to me.
Here's one:_ 400kyr.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide
Take every book, newspaper, magazine or journal article, conference report, and leaflet printed on the subject of global warming, and bury them in desert landfill or under the Antarctic icecap where they can't biodegrade. That should be good for a billion tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere...
It's Richard Branson's legendary flair for publicity.
He's identified a hot-button issue and knows that people are going to listen to him because of it
Don't knock it. It works and it might even cause some good things to happen.
We're talking about him, no?
Incidentally, I still think we could use some global warming here in the Northeast. Personally if the temperature was up by 50 or so degrees from where it is today, you would not see me complaining.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to "suffer" through warm winters and compensate those who are adversely impacted by global warming than it would be to consider it a problem and cool down the planet?
Here's my plan. We send oil tankers up to the Arctic Circle to grab polar ice before it melts and send it down to Saudi Arabia for irrigation. We get funding from Dubai's real estate developers, who want to promote their latest expensive subdivision with an "Arctic Lake" theme.
In no time at all, the Middle East is green and beautiful, and you should see Dubai's new hotel with its private ocean -- it's spectacular! And maybe even grumpy middle eastern Islamists will look at all this new tropcial beauty and decide opening up a new restaurant is a surer thing than a suicide bomb.
Really, is that any more absurd than halting the world's industrial development in return for colder temperatures that will make the bulk of the industrial world a far worse place to live than it would be if we did nothing?
D
PS Global warming might kill some endangered cold weather species but for every cold weather species that dies there are thousands of warm weather creatures who would thrive and find new homes. Do scientists feel there's some special value to being cold and miserable?
Why not offer a smaller amount for achieving an obtainable goal?
The oil companies would still make a profit if subsidizing stopped, even if they didn't raise the price of gas.
The oil companies also know that the current price point is about three bucks a gallon
They also know that with proper force, the price point of oil can rise with time.
They won't price themselves out of business.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You might be the dumbest and most worthless person on the planet. But that's just a guess.
1) Why not create huge 30' tall, 100' wide air air filters? These can be hung between large buildings downtown or attached to blimps and used to "scrape" contaminants out of the air.
:-)
2) Or, have a huge turbines, like those used to generate electricity. Then, take these turbines and attach air purifiers to them. All the air which moves through is then removed of particulates. This large sucking action would particularly work in smoggy areas like L.A.
3) Or, have huge green nets. Just like the nets you use to clean out an aquarium. But, with very fine netting that removes particulates. Use these nets to "scoop out" the bad air.
Hey! Stop copying my sig!!! Stop copying my sig!!! Stop copying my sig!!! Stop copying my sig!!!
If you look at the overall system, CO2 emission is part of the problem, the other is removal of things that consume CO2 (think clear cut rain forest, poisoned ocean surface algae...)
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
but wouldn't wiping out 90%+ of the world population pretty much solve the problem the CDC should ask Branson for the 25 mill I'm sure they have multiple virus that could do exactly what he his asking for.
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
"use duckweed in bio-diesel production. Net effect should be zero CO2 emissions and More food and human usable energy."
umm no. the net effect may be zero over time, but in the short term it is an increase, and since people will always be burning it faster then it's natural decayse, it will always be increasing over time.
Abd bio diesel is cleaner then diesal, it's no match for a really fuel effecient vehical that runs on gasoline.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
10) Reclaim the Sahara. via wind mills pump huge quantities of salt water to the desert, grow mangos and salt tolerant algae. Evaporation might cause it to rain there once again. It might also reduce hurricanes.
Except that wind picks up dust from the Sahara and carries it into the Antarctic ocean, where it provides nutrients for the microscopic marine life there. This plan would probably result in a net carbon increase, because the algae around Antarctica would decrease. In fact, a shrinking Sahara is considered one of the global warming "tipping points", since most climate models predict increased rainfall in sub-Saharan Africa.
It's probably safe to say the vast majority of people commenting thus far will not be remotely involved in working on this problem. You don't assume problems in your specific field are that simple or silly--I hope.
The prize is $50 million if you cure cancer and heart disease too.
It goes up to $100 million if you can prevent all automobile deaths and prevent deaths from terrorist attacks or russian,korean,chinese nukes.
While you make some reasonable points, I'll also point out that the IPCC report is not getting particularly weaker- the range is getting smaller. For example, compare a 9-88 cm range predicted in 2001- now the range is 28-43 cm. The range itself has simply tightened, and that's frankly not unexpected- it doesn't mean that the predictions are getting any weaker, just that they're [apparently] getting more accurate.
More importantly, complaining the summary is not cited is simply semantic bullshit. You want citations, read the actual report. Now, there may be valid concerns as to the summary, and as to the report's science in general, but those aren't them.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
I know this is a crazy idea, but would it work to have very small (microscopic) organisms that would convert the CO2, Methane, whatever, and turn it into something with a lesser warming effect? I was thinking about writing a scifi-story about a plan like that that was a bit too successful and caused another Ice Age.
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
Ban commercial air travel.
What? The guy who owns an airline isn't willing to do that?
is in your fuel.
10: Solar Energy + CO2 + ??? -> BioFuel ( Sequestered Carbon )
20: BioFuel -> Energy to move car + C02 + ???
30: goto 10
almost everything in this cycle already exists...just not a way to make '???' efficient. My personal guess is on bio-engineered algae cultures for producing bio-diesel...almost 250% more efficient that producing bio-diesel from soybeans.
It must be said that some claim that the tecnology to harness algae is a long way from being commercially viable, however, the efficiency, as well as having the answer to food vs fuel makes it a much more attractive long term solution, and should be pursued irregardless if other methods of bio-diesel generation can be brought to market quicker.
just my 2cents.
Or, make up a few hundred thousand square miles of aluminized mylar that you can spread across the Sahara to increase its albedo? Make the desert floor shiny enough, you can send as much heat back to space as you want.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
That was the most fanatic anti-fanatic writing I've seen. If it weren't for environmentalist and the media then some areas of the US would be in bad pretty bad shape. There are fanatics in every aspect of the world, but to shut out the environmentalist as a whole from an environmental discussion is not smart at all. Sometimes the media has to be sensationalist to wake up these people who sleep through everything.
Can I bum a sig?
Are there any by scientists, or are they also written by Gurdjieff-inspired wackos?
Eating the less deserving was one proposal mentioned, but there are more realistic options. Long term, I'd prefer the option of a limited childbirth policy to a hellish existence accompanied by an increased death rate due to environmental influences (disease, pollution, natural disaster). Long term, this is the inevitable solution mother nature will force on us if we do nothing.
The US did not sign Kyoto. George Bush did not believe in global warming, so he reneged on the agreement made by Clinton to sign the protocol.
Clinton did not sign the Kyoto agreement because the Senate voted 98-0 to reject it.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
CAPTAIN PLANET! He's our hero, gonna take pollution down to zero!
The middle ages, when man was far less advanced than today, there was a global warming which allowed people to sail across the North polar regions, normally covered in ice. In Britain, they were making wine from grapes. In Greenland, they were growing crops.
The global warming promoters want you to forget about the middle ages. They want you to ignore evidence that the Sun has an unstoppable 1500 year cycle. Why? Because they want more CONTROL over your lives, to push their agenda. Climate scientists can hardly express another point of view without being threatened with expulsion from their various organizations.
In the 70s, it was the "global cooling" and we were all going to be living on glaciers. Now "global warming" is the boogie man.
I'm sure there are tens of millions of Americans who would love to match $1-$5 of this bounty, on condition it is met. Where can I pitch in?
It's been a while since I've done these calculations, but I think the present value of the so-called $25 million bounty is $6.2 million with the payment schedule given. That's what $25 million with the payments laid out as proposed is worth today at 4% return.
We don't pay anyone already producing lots of oxygen with their undeveloped lands, why would anyone buy the earth-saving properties of the as-yet unmade device?
Not only is the bounty $6.2 million, but the innovator doesn't appear to have any kind of way to sustain the earth-saving properities of this device.
This is an example of why we are in what most indicators suggest is a global warming scenario of our own making.
Despite what the popular political opinion attempts to have us believe, So-called "Free-markets" do not accomodate the health and general well-being of humans or their environment.
Discuss amongst yourselves
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
that's why they're building the space station... use it to hold one end of the straw, venting CO2 into space!
All this research into nanotubes and space elevators, it is for the straw, baby!
That's certainly plausible, but it doesn't explain why we only hit oil-rich countries. North Korea could have been just as costly, and easier to justify.
Sadly, I'd have to admit that this is also plausible. But it still doesn't explain why Iraq.
This one just doesn't hold water. I can't think of a single instance where any nation in history went back to fix their mistakes without some other, stronger motive.
Ah, but they didn't want to get it, they wanted to control it. And they didn't think the war would cost nearly as much as it did. And finally, even if there were cost overruns, we, the tax paying American public, our sons and daughters in the national guard, and the Iraqi's are the ones paying the costs. And note that the cost overruns both feed directly into your other points (war profiteering and PWIFs wanting to hear the last trumpet sound.
In other words, although much of what you said is plausible, none of it argues against the reason we chose Iraq to invade being the oil.
--MarkusQ
This is from the Fraser Institute
Basically, the summary is read by elected (and unelected) officials and the media and is presented as the actual report. The fact that there apears to be a tilt in how the summary is written essentially means that there is a serious effort to make the science look more solid than it is.
Branson is just another of those rich fat cats with multiple mansions and cars who spend half their lives flying around. He's probably good buddies with Algore and Bono. Shutdown Virgin Airlines. GO China GO!
CO2 doesn't cause global warming, it's CAUSED by global warming (it's a trailing indicator, go look at the science). Also begining to think we can do anything about it (or that we caused it) is the height of conceit. Humanity just isn't as powerful as nature or the sun.
Besides, who says it's a bad thing? Might be nice to have greenland thawed out again, like when the Vikings settled there.
-Anon because the non-PC get marked troll, even when factually and scientifically correct.
The bonus is that you DON'T DIE! It's a win-win!
Start with Virgin Airlines. Ground your planes tomorrow and we can fill that requirement no problem. Oh, what? Your still flying on planes!!! Planet Destroyer!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is a preventative suggestion, and with a nod to Chris Rock's 'control the bullets' bit.
Either ban or heavily tax the propellants used in any way to propel some object an offensive or defensive manner (eg: bullets and missiles). People can still kill each other with a variety of state-of-the-art gizmos, NASA can still have its space program, and we'll have a cleaner atmosphere.
genetically engineered floating microscopic algae filled with hydrogen that live in clouds that can be harvested by giant flying mesh nets. Of course, this would cause massive droughts thus killing millions of people. also they would... i dunno... filter the sun's light, shifting it red... taking away superman's powers. thus solving everything. Global warming, and how to kill superman. awesome.
A month ago I was convinced the only way to halt the addition of CO2 into the atmosphere was to eventually stop harvesting it from the ground. However people quite rightly make the argument that we just don't have enough energy to do this. I think I have a better solution.
CBC News had a great article on Capturing Carbon. The idea is to capture CO2 from coal and gas plants and pipe it across country to locations where we can pump it into the ground.
It seems to me that if there are locations for carbon sinks, piping the CO2 to these locations is doing things backward.
Why not instead build a massive coal fired power plant directly over one of these carbon sinks. Generate electricity and pump the CO2 waste gas directly into the ground.
Then *don't* send power anywhere, but next door to the hydrogen generation plant. Convert water (from a stream or lake) into gaseous hydrogen and oxygen, and then pump the *hydrogen* to the cities in a spider's network of pipelines across the country. Transmitting power over power lines is notoriously inefficient, but we should be able to devise a system for near-lossless transmission of hydrogen gas.
Once the hydrogen is in the cities, local power plants can produce energy right in the city core, pollution free. Plus we'd be able to power our automobiles without oil.
By burning all of our coal, oil, and gas into these zero-carbon hydrogen generation plants, we'd still be able to extract fossil fuels and use their energy, but not put any of the CO2 into the atmosphere. Plus if we used only a few *enormous* power plants, we could use the very best CO2 reclamation technology and have the very highest carbon capture efficiency possible.
In the mid-term, hydrogen would run only to power plants, and to "gas" stations for vehicles. In the long term, we'd be able to pipe hydrogen into our homes and build a device that doubled both as power generator and hot water heater.
This I think would be a great solution to Australia's coal dilemma. Stop exporting coal. Start exporting hydrogen.
This idea might be pie in the sky. Could any Slashdotters be willing to take a stab at the mathematics of efficiency? I'm curious what the difference would be from converting from one power source to another and transmission differences over power lines.
Elect Al Gore and throw G.W. Bush into Guantanamo Bay.
I'll take it in cash, please.
That way we can force the oil reserves to run out much more quickly and save our environment from irreparable damage!
(Window seat please...)
Psst: That's already happening but doesn't appear to be doing much good.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_l
In a related story the Bush Administration pledged a $25 Billion bounty to anyone who could prove global warming didn't exist.
If you weren't blinded by Bush-hatred, you would KNOW that Clinton and Gore never got the US to sign the Kyoto TREATY because they would have had to convince more than half of the 98 senators who voted AGAINST that treaty. That's right the US SENATE voted 98-0.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -- Tennyson
I remember an article a while ago about a guy trying to get funding from google for a new type of Boron 11 Fusion reactor http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/ 18/0616205
wouldn't this be an ideal target for the money to go?
at the very least a couple of million would be enough to build an initial prototype proof of concept device
I'm glad that someone is interested in getting our environmental engineering going, but we really need to figure out some causes.
Oh wow, you're 90% sure that it is man made, so what? The point of finding the cause of the change is to reverse it. The only way you can reverse the change now that you've pinpointed man, is get rid of people.
Let's be honest for a second. We don't know the extent to which any of our activities has effected the envirnonment, because we have done so much. Yes we have added a lot of pollutents at the bottom of the atmosphere, we also pollute at other levels of the atmosphere,we've also changed the drag co-efficients of lots of the surface of the planet. We use technology we use to cook, to scan clouds, we changed lots of chemical cycles, and probably lots of other things.
We don't have equations that completely describe the cycles of interaction in place on the earth. we don't knwo how long it would take for changes in our contributions to the envirornment to begin to show up or how long it will take for them to fully be in effect. We don't even knwo the relative magnitudes of change that all of our environmental impact has, except that the net has been an increas in temperature. We don't know if it is even possible to go from the current state back to any previous state in a time frame that is relevent.
But let's go making drastic changes. Really we should just assume that we won't be able to change the environment in time, that the sky is falling and start figuring out how to survive it. What could happen? Can we survive an ice free ocean or the next ice age?
We do not have enough time to learn Global Environmental Science and then Develop Environmental Engineering, to a point where we can keep the world static, before most of the doomsday prophet's have our time being up. We do have enough time to learn about Human Environments and How to Enginerr them to be sufficient to survive many of the potential calamities. That is where we should focus our efforts.
Cause then we'd have nothing to worry about, right?
Unless you're talking about, oh, I dunno... temperature. Now, let's see... normal surface temperature is roughly 300 K, right? (Just picking a round number) So if we bump the average surface temperature up or down 9 K, it's not gonna make that big a difference, right? Well, I mean, except that's about the difference from the last ice age and now.
No, I'm not saying that a 3% increase in C02 is going to cause a 3% increase in maximum temperature, before you try to straw-man this. What I'm saying is that a 3% difference can be a big difference.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
A small back of the envelope calculation seems to indicate that $25M is not enough to produce a billion tons of CO2, let alone remove it.
The science of producing CO2 is pretty well understood - take a barrel of oil and burn it.
At current rates of $60/barrel, for $25M, you get 416,666.7 barrels, which translates into 52,734 tons of oil. Oil contributes the Carbon to CO2 and Oxygen comes form the atmosphere. Assuming the oil's weight is all Carbon, for 52,734 tons of oil, the max CO2 is somewhere around 3.6 * 52,734, or 193,358 tons. That's smaller than the target billion by 4 orders of magnitude.
On the other hand, the science of trapping CO2 is not nearly well understood.
Another way to think about this is that if the CO2 emissions resulting from powering a CO2 trapping effort (e.g. the oil you burn to power the trucks for moving trees around) were the magnitude of the above calculation, the effort would be considered very efficient - and you've still burnt through $25M worth of oil.
The prize appears to be woefully small.
I think the solution you're looking for actually is to plant more humans--six feet deep.
After crunching the numbers, it comes out that a single average sized person breathes out approx. 700 tonnes CO2 per annum, assuming 100% efficiency. If we want to eliminate one billion tonnes of CO2, at the ideal rate, we get rid of 1.4 million people. More realistically, we would have to get rid of a few more, like 3 million.
How do we do that? Birth control. Distribution of condoms around the west (we spew out more extra CO2 per capita than anywhere else), and education programs on how awesome it is to not have children. If other nations can have population reduction, so can America. As an added benefit, if we get a smaller population, we get the benefit of more wealth to go around (fewer people, same amount of wealth = more wealth per person).
If every car had one of these instead, we wouldn't be having this problem.
By the way, if you come across the story about pulleys and not measuring torque on the same axle, remember that it's completely made-up.
I don't know precisely how high the efficiency of a Bourke/VLB-engine is, but it's very high.
The fact that it's been (implicitly) outlawed in the US should tell you something.
Privacy begins with
Before the Iraq war the whole world knew [exactly what would happen in the future].
but "the whole world" didn't have any plan to solve any problem. And they still don't. Maybe we should let sanctions work.
The only major exception was the Americans...
who devised a plan and acted on it, unlike the rest of the world (except Britian, Korea, Poland, Austrailia, and a whole host of other countries who were with "the Americans" -- not part of "the whole world" I guess).
Etc. Your post is pure history revisionism. You're a good advocate for global warming. Made up facts, "everyone knows" nonsense to exert social pressure on people to agree with you, condescension of ordinary people, fearmongering, and anti-Americanism -- you've got it all in there.
For those of you who do not know what a ration is, you get a given a book containing a limited number of coupons, usually by a government, but the current crop of Western Governments don't know the meaning of the word 'govern', so we have to look elsewhere for the coupon issuing authority. As well as parting with money you have to give the product vendor the number of coupons corresponding to the volume of product purchased.
Coupon book empty? So sorry, no more product!
Works wonderfully for food, gas, energy, and indeed products of all kinds. The result is healthy and self reliant communities, to say nothing of a World in which we can continue to live for many generations. Otherwise we face a Venusian future.
Dude, the only way to make people change is to hit them in the pocketbook, which requires taxes and goverment intervetion. It fulfills Branson's requirement to not have any adverse effects on the environment.
Obviously, we need to tax energy usage. so basically,
- Gasoline.
- Electricity.
I bet we could decrease CO2 emissions a whole ton, by just doubling or tripling the taxes on these 2 items alone.
1. Toss all politician into the sea
2. Encourage everyone to use solar heat and solar or wind power on their homes
3. Plant more trees
4. Stop wasting gasoline on mowing lawns
Problem solved. The bulk of global warming will be solved by #1 though, considering how many politicians proclaim themselves to be environmentalists and then oppose clean power projects.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
if US would obey Kyoto we would cut down the polution.
Here's a blindfold and some ear plugs...do not take any of them off... I will accept payment in gold bullion, or direct deposit into my of shore account. If anyone else wants in on my solution to global warming i have a few extra sets available. If you want the tinfoil hat, it will be an extra 5 million. Thanks, ~CYD
//Nothing to see here, please move along.
It is feel-good but mostly unscientific.
The problem is that when the trees die, they decay and release the carbon in them back into the atmosphere as CO2. There is a slight drop as the trees grow, but it is only temporary.
Only if you can bury the trees somehow in a way that will be safe from decay over geological time, thereby making new fossil fuels for some future aeon, will it have any significant effect.
The most effective way is to stop coal mining, making it a death penalty crime against humanity.
You give me 25M and I spend 24M planting trees.
OK, I can't believe I'm going to defend Branson here but...
The $25 Million is for the solution, not the implementation. So if I can figure out how to viably remove lots of CO2 from the atmosphere, I don't actually have to DO it, I just have to show how it can be done.
//Tired of eco-celebrities telling us what WE need to do, but still riding in limos and flying either first class or in private jets
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
Dam it, I thought it would be the solution to all of our problems
I'll knock it if I damn well feel like it. Billboards work, that doesn't mean I have to like billboards. Flamethrowers work too, but I don't think "it works" is a good reason for everybody to start using flamethrowers on each other.
Incidentally, I still think we could use some global warming here in the Northeast. Personally if the temperature was up by 50 or so degrees from where it is today, you would not see me complaining.You don't seem to understand global warming. Some places will get colder, some places will get warmer. It's about a rise in the global average temperature. It will also lead to more extreme weather patterns. So it's not just a matter of it being a bit warmer, it also means more extreme storms and flooding.
Really, is that any more absurd than halting the world's industrial development in return for colder temperatures that will make the bulk of the industrial world a far worse place to live than it would be if we did nothing?I'm confused. Who has been advocating halting the world's industrial development in the face of global warming? If anything, global warming will be solved through technology, which will help improve our industrial development, and open up exciting new markets - increasing prosperity and improving our lifestyles.
If anything, it is the polluters who want to halt our industrial development by sticking with outdated technologies and an industrial revolution mindset. We have the potential to be so much more. But neanderthals want us to keep living wasteful lives, so they can make a quick buck from digging up fossil fuels.
Global warming might kill some endangered cold weather species but for every cold weather species that dies there are thousands of warm weather creatures who would thrive and find new homes. Do scientists feel there's some special value to being cold and miserable?Are you actually serious? I'm not sure whether your post is as intricate satire of stupid people, or whether it is just stupid.
... and then they built the supercollider.
From this picture it looks like Al Gore is turning into his own carbon sink. What Happened? http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/homep age/hp2-9-07ee.jpg
Or we could just plant fewer humans...
Nonsense! We must immediately, and permanently shut down, dismantle and destroy all robots!
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
Okay, so we don't want to block out all sunlight like they did in The Matrix, but the lack of contrails in the U.S. after September 11th had a measurable warming effect on this part of the planet.
So if we can find a way to make long-lasting clouds above the land-masses, we reflect all sorts of solar radiation back into space, and things cool off. Can we do it with plain old contrails, or do we need to add something to the mix to make them stick around longer?
Considering the amount of commercial aviation in the skies, perhaps we can save some money by retrofitting jets already in use to leave behind thicker and/or wider trails.
A possible negative side effect is that crops will be somewhat weaker, but given how far agriculture has advanced since the industrial revolution, I'm sure we'll make up for any losses pretty quickly. (If we're growing our meat in labs by then, there should be plenty of extra, arable land available after most of the food herds are slaughtered.)
OK, so Branson offers $25M to remove 1B tonnes of CO2. Thats uhh 2.5 cents per ton. Is this prize really worth the effort?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The science is already in: more pirates equals less global warming. Assuming an average pirate salary of three shillings and sixpence, adjusted for inflation, carry the one, that's... erm... like a billion pirates.
-- Religion is not an exact science
...$25 million is nothing compared to the profit that his airlines make, for the unfettered right to spew tonnes of greenhouse gases into the air. In fact I think this figure is so low as to be almost insulting.
Sorry Sir Richard, if you ever read this, as much as I admire you (and fly on your planes) I think you should have offered a lot more.
Proof that Slashdot is NOT totally anti-religion!
Now bow your heads as the High Priest of the Church of Global Warming, Algore, leads us in infinite mea culpas and self-flagellation.
It's called the EBOLA virus. Perhaps you've heard of it.
This can kill a prize competition if it isn't preemptively and vigorously rooted out.
Seastead this.
What if CO2 isn't the main culprit?0 69cb5b2-7d81-4a8e-825d-56e0f112aeb5
e dae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=
It seems the enviorment will change into one than will only sustain a reduced human population. But so what?
Where is the net negative of a reduced human population?
FRA: STFU GTFO
I can't believe no one has suggested this yet on a geek site. The solution is a big ass heat pipe with the radiator in space.
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
At least food grows when it is warm.
As I said, it's a summary. It's twenty fucking pages long. a Ph.D thesis is 300 pages if it's it's one, and this was written by eight hundred scientists. I think I heard that the report itself was something like five thousand pages long.
The fact that it's taken as the gospel report just shows how stupid that people can be, just as the fact that you think the summary is somehow representative of the science (which is awfully solid- that 5000 pages is an amalgam of huge amounts of peer-reviewed work) but the fact is, the summary was designed to be read by people who don't actually care what the report says. For that purpose alone, it will obviously be biased to overemphasize everything the report says.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
My scheme involves offering a prize to anyone who can invent a system that can remove a billion tons of CO2 from the air each year without any adverse effect on the environment. To encourage the smartest people I'd probably set the prize level pretty high, say at $24,000,000, paid out in installements. Now, where do I go to collect my $25,000,000 (in installments)?
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
how can you offer a reward for solving a problem that doesn't exist. yep, thats right, i said it.
Just wait 100 billion years or so and the problem will take care of itself. You could also just make it so that no sunlight hits the earth and that will also fix the global warming issue.
I believe, if shown real time fuel economy data, most drivers would be able to improve their driving by about 20%.
Mandate that all new cars have a prominent display and we could see some real results. I wrote some more lengthy thoughts on the subject also.
This would definitely have to be accomplished at thousands of sites.
To remove 1 billion tons of CO2 in a year, you would need to remove about 32 tons/sec. Since CO2 is only about .04% of the atmosphere (and taking into account the sea level densities of air and CO2), one would need to move about 62000 tons/sec of air. Assuming we're talking metric tons, that's about 50 million cubic meters of air every second.
To stay below the speed of sound, the opening into your miracle machine would need to be larger than 14 kilometers in diameter. All of this assumes that you are able to remove 100% of the CO2 passing through your system, so in reality you need to process a lot more air.
Additionally, moving this mass at the speed of sound would take 3.4 Terawatts if your mechanical system was 100% efficient. That's twice the US power production capacity. To slow things down to below hurricane winds (75mph, 33.5m/s) would require a 44 km diameter opening and 35 Gigawatts of power, which is twice the power expected from the Three Gorges Dam in China and about ten times the power of the largest nuclear plant.
Removing 1 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere is easy, keeping it from going back is the tricky part. I suggest we build a 1 mile long circular pipe. At one end, we put a fan that will suck in all that nasty CO2 from the air, and pump it down the pipe. Now, Branson wants this to have no impact on the environment, so we need to replace that CO2 in roughly the same quantity and location, so at the other end of the 1 mile circular tube (roughly 10 feet away), we have a CO2 exhaust vent. Where can I claim my $25 million?
http://www.mhall119.com
We were all astonished when we found that the US, with all its skills and might, not only lacked a plan that would fail, but didn't have any plan at all. We're still reeling from that shock.
It's not the first time that the US has made disastrous mistakes that have raised tension and unrest in the world. Now many of us are hoping that at some point you'll finally notice your embarrassment and see what's happening, so that you'll stop making these mistakes. We don't want skyrocketing terrorism and other tensions created by the US. Etc. Your post is pure history revisionism. You're a good advocate for global warming. Made up facts, "everyone knows" nonsense to exert social pressure on people to agree with you, condescension of ordinary people, fearmongering, and anti-Americanism -- you've got it all in there. You're being extremely vague here. For a fruitful discussion you need to be much more specific.
For example, this label "anti-Americanism" that some of you Americans love throwing around. It seems to imply that everyone ought to agree with everything your government does, or else he's "anti-American". Well, the world doesn't work that way. Everyone has opinions. The freedom to have opinions and express them is one of the most basic fundamentals of democracy and the democratic mindset. When you Americans throw around that "anti-American" label, you show yourselves as lacking this fundamental democratic mindset.
If you take upon yourselves the right to send terrorist recruitment skyrocketing, you can't whine and complain every time those who are affected express an opinion about it.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
I'm going to make a 'wild' prediction and say that in only 10 to 15 years, the CO2 concentration problem will be mostly solved (before it's too late), and may in fact swing the other way - to CO2 depletion. This thanks to the coming molecular manufacturing nanotechnology whose favorite source of building material happens to be Carbon, of which there's literaly TONS of it to extract for "free" from the atmosphere.
A person might not have the land/mining rights to the molecular matter beneath his feet, but nobody owns the air we breathe, right? Free solar energy + Free loosly bonded (C)O2 feedstock + MNT == cheap, clean, boot-strapped material abundance.
Regardless of whether or not carbon extraction from the atomosphere is distributed per person/device or more centralized, it'll be the "artificial trees" and other tiny scrubbers that save the environment. Mark my words.
Power to the Peaceful
Ah. Such flame-bait. I'm sorry that you cannot better anticipiate how your argument might be deconstructed.
"This means that the embarrassment will be far, far greater than the embarrassment over Iraq."
I direct you to the fallacy of many questions; no, I do not accept as true your premise that the Iraq war is an embarrassment.
"Before the Iraq war the whole world knew about and debated the inevitable catastrophic chaos in Iraq, the skyrocketing terrorist recruitment, the extreme difficulties in preventing civil war when pulling out, the lack of exit strategy, and so on."
If you think this why so many opposed the war, you are over-generalizing. True some people did fallback on the "chaos will reign" position, but that was hardly predominate in the European press. Moreover, few argued cogently and consistently that it was so. Let me instead suggest that two independent events took place:
1) Certain European governments opposed the war for the sake of valuable contracts they had made with the ruling regime. They were also sour on a non-leftist government in the US--one that opposed the ICC on civil liberties grounds and opposed the Kyoto accords on effectiveness grounds. Too many thought it better to demonize the US government than to engage the substantive issues.
2) The handling of the war was largely blotched.
Whether things could have been better is not entirely an academic question: The 101st airbourne division handled Mosul quite well; however, we will never know.
Please true to be a bit more humble on such a topic as this; there are other explanations consistent with the available evidence.
Kill 300 million Americans. End of problem, at least for a little while.
> The US did not sign Kyoto. George Bush did not believe in global warming, so heh
> reneged on the agreement made by Clinton to sign the protocol.
How ignorant of real history!
Clinton signed the agreement, but never submitted it for senate ratification,
since every senator (even Kerry and others so pro-kyoto now) preemptively
blocked it. So Clinton's signature was purely figurative (as in, a PR gimmick)
and the treaty was never active, thus never needed to be "reneged".
I don't know which is worse, your ignorance or your arrogance.
We all know what we need to do. Join with me!
EARTH!!
FIRE!!
WIND!!
WATER!!
HEART!!
GO PLANET!!
Obligatory Captain Planet Themesong Link
By itself replacing the mass of trees that have been clearcut from rainforests in the past century won't fix global warming, due to all the fossil fuels we've dug up out of the ground and burned, but it isn't an insignificant amount of carbon. Continuing to clearcut rainforest is just compounding an already bad problem.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Most of the people I work with are very pro Nuclear these days. We've pretty much run out of rivers to dam, where we are. Right now we're developing wind farms like crazy, and the guys who believed anything to do with photovoltaics was only for hippies have either retired or changed their minds about solar. They've had to. Even the suits at the top know it's time to try something different.
Setup a solar array in Northern Siberia (where temps drop as low as -70F), and use the energy to sublime the carbon dioxide out of the atmopshere for underground storage. The low ambient temp reduces the energy needed to freeze and store the dry ice.
:)
And a billion tons of CO2 would form a cube only about 2700ft on a side
Ok, so it's insane - but it still requires far less energy than trying to break the CO2 bond.
People like Al Gore and Richard Branson can't really be expected to understand actual science outside of what they are spoon-fed. They probably have no idea that the human race as we know it only thrives because of a completely unprecidented and unexplained stable warm period since the last ice age. (Previous interglacial periods were accompanied by strong temperature spikes, warmer than our current temperature; however the planet has never experienced anything like the sustained, near-constant high temperature of the last 15,000 years.) They probably don't realize that net ice loss will continue, and ocean level rises will continue, even with a constant global temperature -- and that short of starting down the slope of increasing glaciation, there is nothing that is going stop coastal cities from being threatened by the sea eventually.
To start the planet cooling means to bring about the exinction, or near extinction of the human race. So naturally the most logical thing for a Billionaire Genius to do is offer $25M to the first person who can remove AT LEAST a billion tons of CO2 per year from the atmosphere. While it would be the most appropriate thing it the world if we were to wipe out our species by our own arrogance, I for one don't want to see it happen.
I have the solution. It's been the solution to many problems, and since this "problem" seems to come from the same people, I'm sure it will work.
Other problems that have been solved:
The population bomb (~1970)
Invasion of Killer Bees (1977)
The coming ice age (~1974)
The ozone hole (~1980's)
Acid rain that makes kids stay indoors (1974)
Theory of operation: Any problem that can only be solved by sending money to Washington DC can wait.
This party has quite a track record of the Chicken Little role. And each time the only way it'll be solved is to shut down our factories, turn out pockets inside-out, while the rest of the world, somehow, can go on without a single change of their own habits. (See also: Kyoto Accords).
When a political party owns the media, games like these can be played.
Sure there's climate change. Happens all the time. The LCO, for example, which gave Greenland it's peculiar name. But saying that THIS TIME it's because of raising our standard of living is just ridiculous. Using the same tactics these people are using, I could start a movement based on cats falling from the sky. "It musta been because we invented Television!" (See? Ludicrous)
Guys, the Earth is SO VERY much larger than we are, no matter what EarthShare.org suggest. This is just a media fad; it will pass.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Giant blimps circle the earth high up in the atmostphere with enormous beds of algae that eat carbon dioxide and fart oxygen.
the blimps have solar panels that power the guidance systems and avionics packages. They are also transparent so the algae beds inside can get the light they need.
These algae live and reproduce inside the blimp. The electronics package controls the air flow through the blimp body. The avionics package controls buoyancy. These blimps could, given enough algae area, cure the problem in about 3 years.
They're using their grammar skills there.
We do NOTHING, and the world goes on efficiently, and it self corrects by growing more plants. I therefore claim the $25 million prize for the least expensive solution.
It's the only solution. Absolutely the only way to "fix" the global warming problem:
Be God.
Short of that, the ONLY reasonable thing we can do is to learn to adapt to a perpetually changing climate. The climate has NEVER.... EVER.... EVER been static. It has ALWAYS been either warming or cooling, and it ALWAYS will be. Forever.
Joe Mainusch http://www.weber-amps.com
"Operation Vaccu-suck". Suck all the air out of the atmosphere - no more CO2 problem.
I can't believe none of you saw Spaceballs!
that we keep trying to think of clever ways to continue destroying our biosphere by massively consuming items that we don't really need and that we don't reuse. I've seen a crazy design to fight global warming by putting mirrors in orbit around the earth. How frigging stupid are we? As humans, we need to come to terms with the fact that we don't have unlimited resources and that we are going to kill ourselves off if we don't change now. The only way I can think of at least allowing for the fact that we're going to continue doing what we do until the temperatures get so hot that millions start dying is to at least use biodiesel. Biodiesel is carbon neutral, as the plants that are burned have converted C02 to O2 + plant material during their life. But the real problem is that the majority businesses will always do what is cheapest and provides the most profit instead of what's right, so we're basically screwed. I'm doing my part by riding my bicycle, using a rainwater tank, using greywater, and buying local veggies or growing my own. But I still fly quite a bit, so in the end, I'm still making things worse.
There must be some catalyst that can turn one hundred million tons of carbon dioxide into its constituent carbon monoxide and ozone.
How to get rid of the carbon monoxide and ozone? Well... it depends on what the next prize is.
Not following the spirit of the contest? This from a guy making a living off aeroplanes?
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.11/ecohackin
"Ecohacker Michael Markels claims he has a megafix for global warming: Supercharge the growth of ocean plankton with vitamin Fe and let a zillion CO2 scrubbers bloom."
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Sagan mentioned it in "Cosmos", some other scientist came up with it in the 1970s. The environmental data collected on 9/12/01 supports the theory.
m l
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2002/2002-08- 08-contrails.htm
http://why.michaelpatrick.org/2004/12/jet-contrail s-artificial-clouds-affect.html
We make additive for our jet fuel that makes the contrails more reflective to bounce the sun's rays back into space. It's cheap, easy to do, and people won't even notice. If a couple European governments (I know the U.S. won't do it...) required all aircraft that land in their country to use that kind of fuel, I think it could be implemented very quickly.
Here are a few links:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0210/p14s02-sten.ht
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. -Confucius
I do not accept as true your premise that the Iraq war is an embarrassment.
With terrorists killing hundreds of people every week, you don't consider that an embarrassment? With kidnappings and extortion rampant, on an industrial scale, financing terrorism and mafia on a huge scale? With a huge brain drain because those who can are fleeing the country? With no functioning police and justice? You don't consider this an embarrassment?
that was hardly predominate in the European press.
It was certainly predominant in the press that I read. The problems of unbridgeable chasms of rivalry and enmity among Islamic sects and ethnic groups was discussed quite a lot. The idea that the US had a solution to these problems seemed very strange.
But Europe is extremely diverse, maybe we read different papers.
Note that if you base your statements on US media reports about the European media, I get the impression that the US media often present European fringe radicals as if they were mainstream, thus giving a very weird picture of European opinions. For instance, many Americans seem to believe that Europeans hate them, something I certainly can't see in the mainstream, such feelings are considered extreme and weird.
Certain European governments opposed the war for the sake of valuable contracts they had made with the ruling regime.
Quite possible, but that would then be an argument for those governments, hardly for the press. The only times I can recall seeing that factor discussed in the press was when discussing the motives of some governments.
They were also sour on a non-leftist government in the US
On the contrary, the respect for the democracy in the US was at an all-time high, what with the sympathy after 9/11 making many people re-think their political stance. In fact the US had a tremendous chance to get an enormous cultural and political influence, it really had an unprecedented level of sympathy and respect. I, and many with me, were deeply distressed to see this great chance botched, because Europe and the US really ought to be close allies, seeing how we have common democratic ideals. We should not try to be identical, far from it, we should be different and complement each other, but still we should be very close allies. It was terribly unfortunate that this great opportunity was lost.
One simple example of the many things we could do together would be that Europe could say to recalcitrant countries "The US is itching to go to war, but as their allies we think we can hold them off, but only if you can offer enough in return. We understand your difficulties but the US doesn't, they'll demand something really substantial from you. Let's see if we can find something that will appease the US." Sometimes good-guy bad-guy games can get you very far, but such things were never tested. Lots of possibilities open up when you're very close allies and yet are very different and have very different opinions. We really should work together to exploit such possibilities, in common efforts to spread democracy, stability and economic well-being.
Too many thought it better to demonize the US government than to engage the substantive issues.
On the contrary, as I said you had tons of sympathy and respect, and many people were re-thinking their political stance quite radically.
I certainly can't recall any demonizing of the US government (except on the fringe of course). However people did get very perplexed at Bush's "Either you're with us or you're against us". What kind of argument is that? We have a tradition of debating and discussing until a solution is found. Bush's stance was perceived as extremely impolite, and also very strange, and certainly no answer to our concerns.
In debates with Americans, when we expressed our worries about the inevitable consequences of a war on Iraq, you Americans interpreted this as "anti-Americanism", this strange American excuse for g
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
His got:
Major financial interests in the airline industry where global warming and aeroplans go hand in hand
Stands to be have restrictions on his businesses in the event the warming problem increases
Stands to gain some fame from a mere $25 million money spinner
More chicks to shag if his seen to be saving the world
Life at the top has never looked this good!
You just got your ass handed to you by hippies. hehehe. they're probably LOADED right now, too.
Ignore it.
The beauty of my solution is it will save trillions of dollars.
Besides, it's not like we've had any luck controlling the weather anyhow. We can't even predict it two weeks out much less a hundred years. Just don't buy beachfront property. The sea level has already risen over 200 feet from what it was back when glaciers covered half of California. And guess what? The world didn't break in half.
We'll adapt. Relax.
Just build an artificial lake and seed it with geneticly engineered algee, seaweed or a complete artificaly biology dedicated to creating massive amounts of limestone. Powered by the sun. The artificial lake would be shallow but would probably need to cover an area equal to the size of the great lakes. A project equal to building the Panama canal. It's not going to happen for 25 million.
This paper details how our CO2 emissions could be completely counteracted, by converting about 25% of our grain-based agriculture to agriculture based on nut trees.
Now where's my check?
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
--
Solar is carbon free: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
....for just 10 seconds a day, that would save 10 times the amount of Co2 required to claim the prize.
Co2 is not a pollutant. You emit it when you breathe idiots.
or maybe we shouldn't worry about it at all since the apocalypse will be here in 2012 anyway.
cd shower ; make clean ; cd
Solar competes now with retail electric rates in all markets except those with big hydro. Check out the map on any of the links at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html. Click on any non-white state to see rates. They'll
go down to $0.07 per kWh but not lower so some potential customers in Washington are left out. Dark blue means all utilities are
required to offer net metering, but not all utilities are listed in Washington. Elsewhere, solar can compete. That means
it costs less than coal, oil, gas and nuclear. I'm always looking for more feedback on this article: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-renewables -displace-nukes-first.html. Post a comment if you think of something.
A mere $25 million for solving a problem of this magnitude? I think that it's worth a bit more and must include:
"Oh, and none of them wanna pay taxes again... ever."
So sure, it takes energy to consume CO2 and produce O2 (and producing too much O2 would be just another sort of problem, besides), but even as we pour out CO2, we are also hacking away at our forests. But what if... what if we developed modules at the top of our buildings, possibly either onsite solar powered (not unlike plants) or grid powered, BREATHERS. I'm not saying I know exactly how we would do this, but if we could mimick the process and add modules onto the tops of our skyscrapers and houses and such, that effectively either scrub or breath CO2, it would, at least, be buying back some of the re-estate stolen from plantlife. Combine this with good city planning, or urban sprawl that is directed into less arable landscapes (such as desert, badlands, etc) where we aren't blotting out more vibrant landscapes, and the net regain might be notable!
I dunno; it just seems a simple answer... learn, adapt, mimick the lifeforms that are good at CO2 sequestration (plants) and incorporate that into the very fabric of our lives... if that fabric means sprawling metropoli, then make those sprawling metropoli a net positive influence rather than the current negative one. Give incentives to make the do the research (as this project tries to do), and further incentives to make the switch... so some jobs are at risk, but new jobs are created... but continuing as we are means more than just jobs being at risk... it means lives... and a lot of them.
... with solar panels, and still not have enough capacity to power Chicago. Much of the world does not live in Southern California! We have strange weather phenomena, like clouds! And this isn't a once in a while problem, its EVERY FREAKING DAY! In the spring, at least. In the winter, we have clouds and snow and ABSCENCE OF SUN for weeks at a time. Perhaps we could put Lake Michigan on stilts and use it as a battery. (Seriously, most pumped water storage is like hydroelectric power, heavily constrained by having local geography which is conducive to it. If you don't happen to have two bodies of water at vastly different elevations nearby then you get to build one or both of them yourself, and it AIN'T CHEAP -- per MW capital investment is similar to building a nuclear plant, and that is on top of the cost of the solar/whatever you need to actually fill the battery. It also isn't ecologically neutral -- ask the million folks China displaced to get their Three Gorges facility working. You need an awful lot of water falling from a relatively high place to a relatively low place, and that does not just spontaneously happen frequently in nature.)
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- greens need to get over their dogmatic, irrational reluctance to use nukes.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Make a movie out of "state of fear" and sell tickets for $2...
Plant respiration is half a solution. Then you need to sequester the carbon in the plants.
I particularly like Engineer-Poet's plan as a solution for this. In particular, steps 1 (gasification) and 7 (burial of charcoal) are in themselves a solution, with 2 (electricity generation from the gas) and 8 (sequestering CO2) as good additions. By his calculations, we could make >500 million tons of charcoal, which is basically pure carbon, just in the United States. That equates to over 1.8 gigatons of CO2, so there's a good deal of leeway. The gas could also power up to half the United States with electricity, offsetting the cost of the plan.
The biggest issue I see is that charcoal is better than the highest-grade coal you can dig out of the earth. So instead of burying charcoal while digging up coal, at the moment it would just make sense to burn the charcoal.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
Create a nuclear winter.
Industrial Hemp (aka the non-party kind) has the potential to provide more than 1000 gallons of methanol per acre as opposed to 400 gallons of ethanol per acre of corn. The solution is right in front of us, but is ignored due to prevalent negative social attitudes towards marijuana which is a different argument altogether.
The benifits of hemp-based fuels vs corn/ethanol include:
Seriously. Let's get over it and start developing hemp-based fuel and energy solutions. Contact your congressman/senator and ask them to revive and back the Industrial Hemp legalization bill H.R. 3037. This would legalize the cultivation of Industrial aka non-psychoactive, non-drug, non-marijuana HEMP.
Free markets lead to development and while development might temporarily harm *aspects* of the environment it is an immediate win for health. So the landscape gets a little less pretty in the interim while you're wealthy enough to have factories but not quite wealthy enough to have a class of people who have so much free time that they can do little else but attend Greenpeace meetings and post on their $2,000 laptop on Slashdot about how terrible capitalism is. Take a look at life expectancy and, well, any QOL measure you want in a pre-industrialization and post-industrialization society. Innovations like pharmaceuticals (eww, petroleum derivatives! Make them stop, Gaia! I want to live my life the natural way and die by age thirty!), modern water filtration systems (Pop quiz: when is the last time the US, or any other developed nation, had a cholera or typhoid epidemic?), etc.
Take a look at China, a country which is making fits and starts in the direction of the free market, and which no one would accuse of being overly environmentally conscious. The average life expectancy has gone from 41 years (1950) to 71 years (2002). Even Africa, that perpetual basket case of a continent, has gone from 38 years to 50. Africa's health problem isn't that they have free markets, its that they don't have nearly enough of them (for example, governments there cause famines with some regularity by seizing all the farms to reward political supporters -- many nations in Europe haven't seen a non-war famine in *centuries*). All the whining about GMOs, "Don't make us slaves to Monsanto", etc, ignores the facts that people who most certainly ARE dependent on Monsanto and the other green revolution companies (like, oh, the US) aren't exactly doing that badly for themselves in the whole "feeding the population" thing.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Those Americans. The bullies.
I think the reason I react this way is that I'm still reeling from the arrogance with which the US shoved aside Europe's concerns about the Iraq war with the non-answer "Either you're with us or against us", and then went on to fuel terrorism and create horrendous instability right in our backyard.
I'm not only reeling from this, I'm also deeply worried. I wish I could shake the American people awake, and make them notice what their media and government are doing. I wish I could somehow get the US to stop counteracting their own interests and ours.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Just plant some kudzu in your backyard. As many southerners have found out, it can tie up a lot of carbon (and your entire backyard as well).
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...(they affected mostly the innocent)...
I might believe you cared about "the innocent" if you could bother to support any plan that isn't "just continue to allow Saddam to torture and kill them".
Devised a plan and acted on it indeed.
Absolutely indeed. Sometimes things don't go exactly the way you wish they would. In wars, things never go exactly the way you wish they would. The enemy doesn't cooperate.
Apparently, some folks think an entire society should either be completely reformed to become like Belgium in 2 years or be left to rot forever under a brutal dictator or destroyed in a massive regional war.
fact most debaters, both pro and con, assumed that the US had some plan for post-war Iraq, presumably kept secret for strategic reasons.
Or maybe it was kept "secret" because no one knew the future. When you don't know how a war is going to go, you can't have specific timetables, events, and milestones pre-planned.
When you don't know the future, you really have to just deal with things as they happen.
I'm sure that's never happened to you though. Because you know the future. Please tell us the future so we can act accordingly.
The US plan was never a "secret". The plan was/is: Hold elections, draft a constitution, hold elections, form an elected government. Establish an army and police force. Gradually turn over security and command over to the Iraqis. Leave off actively supporting them on a province-by-province basis until the Iraq government is strong enough to take over.
We were all astonished when we found that the US, with all its skills and might, not only lacked a plan that would fail, but didn't have any plan at all. We're still reeling from that shock.
Yeah, there's no Santa Claus either. America doesn't have magic pixie dust that makes everything go perfectly without any struggle or difficulty.
One thing America used to have was the character to take on tough jobs and the determination to see them through to a successful conclusion. I'm not sure we do any more. I guess we'll find out.
You're being extremely vague here.
Also, I forgot to note that you seem to believe in conspiracy theories.
Everyone has opinions. The freedom to have opinions and express them is one of the most basic fundamentals of democracy and the democratic mindset. When you Americans throw around that "anti-American" label, you show yourselves as lacking this fundamental democratic mindset.
My opinion is that you're anti-American.
Regarding nuclear waste, I've always wondered why the first and only option every discussed or utilized is storing it in the ground.
Why can't we attach a container to a missle and send it on a one-way trip to the Sun?
Do the decision makers feel there is that high of a chance of early-stage accident causing the spread of radiation and waste throughout the planet?
I'm sure the short-term expense of single-use rockets is less than the longer-term costs of storing and later cleaning up the storage sites.
42 Where are my 25M $ again?
The US is big and sprawling. Socialism doesn't cut down CO2 so much as high density (thus enabling mass transit).
Grasslands can sequester enormous amounts of carbon in the form of soil organic matter, especially humus. Unless disturbed by plowing or poor land management, humus can remain stable for hundreds or thousands of years. Healthy grasslands can sequester considerably more carbon than forests, because grasslands can keep growing soils indefinitely. This is how grassland soils 1-4 meters (3-12 feet) thick -- the agricultural soils of today -- got built over much of the temperate zone.
Advantages of sequestering carbon with grasslands:
Let's do some calculations:
How do grasslands sequester carbon? Here's how it works:
This is how grasslands and grazers evolved to function. This type of "pulsed grazing" can sequester enormous amounts of carbon, and grow 10-30 mm of new soil per year.
Animal behavior is crucial
The trick to making this work is the behavior of the grazing animals. Grazers must behave in the ways grass plants are adapted to. That means moving onto the land in a tightly bunched herd (as wild grazers did because of predation), grazing and trampling intensively, then moving on and giving plants adequate time to recover before they get grazed again.
If grazer behavior is correct, the grasses don't much care whether they are grazed by bison, kangaroos, or cattle. If the behavior is incorrect (too-frequent grazing that weakens plants that are not yet fully recovered, or too-infrequent grazing that we
Yeah, you nailed it.
And when China, India, and the entire EU attack the United States for denying them corn rights, your "no war for corn" buddies can come act as human shields for you.
I sure wish that the United States would put 2.5 million people out of work by decreasing enlistment by 90%, too.
FairTax baby!
The only people using the word "proof" are the ones trying to debunk global warming. "Proof" only exists in mathematics, and the word does not apply to science. The preponderance of the evidence has convinced the scientific community (of climatologists) that global warming is largely anthropocentric. That does not constitute a religion, myth, dogma, creed, or even tenet. It's just the consensus of the scientific community. And are you saying that man has no influence on the environment? That would make man the only living creature whose actions had no effect on its evironment--all life affects its environment, and is capable of rendering its environment unfit for its own continued survival.
The article isn't talking about your money. But even if it was, let's look at that idea. Your money. Do you own an automobile? If so, the exhaust of your vehicle is toxic, and causes pollution that causes thousands of asthma deaths every year, lost workdays due to bronchitis and other respiratory ailments. Exhaust from your vehicle creates pollution that lowers my quality of life, and can even affect property value once a city is known for having bad air. When you start paying the full cost of driving your vehicle, you might get some sympathy. Right now, oil companies and auto companies want you to think that your responsibility ends with driving, but shouldn't you be responsible for the results of your choices? I'm not talking about the spotted owl or some endangered slug--I'm talking about some six-year-old who is having an asthma attack because of air pollution directly resulting from auto exhaust. But let me guess--you aren't responsible, no one who drives is responsible, and dammit we better not raise your taxes to deal with air pollution because that's just crazy environazi fantasy talk. Right.
War is an extremely costly way to try to build something. Sometimes things don't go exactly the way you wish they would. In wars, things never go exactly the way you wish they would. Of course. But when what you wish for is that a country more explosive than Yugoslavia, with many inhabitants considering bin Laden a hero, become peaceful and friendly, then you're wishing for the utterly impossible. Apparently, some folks think an entire society should either be completely reformed to become like Belgium in 2 years Of course not. But war is an inadequate instrument when the country is ready to burst with deadly religious and ethnic enmity.
Note that before your war on Afghanistan, debaters everywhere were far more optimistic about the outcome of that war. With good reason. The situations in the two countries were dramatically different. Or maybe it was kept "secret" because no one knew the future. For God's sake, everyone knew that Iraq was more explosive than former Yugoslavia. How could the Americans miss that, when it was totally obvious to Europe, Russia and many others? It's not a matter of pixie dust and knowing the future, it's a matter of observing the existing relations between the groups! Those are available facts!
Sadly, you Americans were blinded by a rally-around-the-flag frenzy. That nationalistic frenzy is your greatest vulnerability, it makes you ignore facts and truths. The plan was/is: Hold elections, draft a constitution, hold elections, form an elected government. Establish an army and police force. Gradually turn over security and command over to the Iraqis. Leave off actively supporting them on a province-by-province basis until the Iraq government is strong enough to take over. Those are the easy parts. That's no plan for dealing with the difficult parts. The difficult parts are coping with the (pre-existing and well-known) hatreds and tensions that strive for civil war, the power vacuum that mafiosi and other destructive forces will inevitably try to take advantage of, and so on. Those were the problems that everyone was worried about and tried to bring to America's attention. But you were in your blind rally-around-the-flag frenzy. Also, I forgot to note that you seem to believe in conspiracy theories. That's a first! Where's the conspiracy that I seem to believe in? My opinion is that you're anti-American. Well in that case I suppose you're anti-European. How enlightening.
What's your definition of anti-American? Someone who disagrees with America?
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Richard Branson is offering $25M as a bounty for a fix to global warming.
Shut down Virgin Airlines and its carbon spewing planes!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
B.
Carter recently stated (I believe it was on CSPAN) that he supports nuclear power and that it can be handled in as safe way. (Not as much the case back when he was president and we still had a large nuclear bogyman. Don't forget the total lack of security when it came to nuclear missile defense, which Carter fixed. He couldn't counter an actor playing president let alone calm the publics' fears; remember when 3-mile-island occurred.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
energy farm the globe.
Okay, start killing off the cows in Central America, and start replanting the rain forests... Seriously though, a TV campaign encouraging plants would be a great start... Even in more desert communities, like Arizona. Water is, for the most part. A constant... it merely changes location... so watering plants IMHO isn't such a bad thing.
It's kind of like protesting paper towels because trees die... Trees are a renewable resource, and most trees harvested for paper, for a while now, are planted for said harvesting....
Okay, enough of my rant... I know some conservationists won't like what I've said here.. but hey, it's still true. I'm all for relative conservation, but some arguments are just silly. Not to mention the climate change is bringing different cloud formations, that cause cooling... I think there is global warming, but the long term affects aren't an absolute... the planet is an echosystem that is very adaptive and resiliant... sterilizing half the population would probably have a better overall impact.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Would Branson pay $50M to prevent the next ice age?
It's not in infinite supply, it is a finite resource. Just as oil wells in Texas go dry, no amount of money makes them refill.
I actually find that comment surreal.
Money is an artificial construct, used to buy goods made from Materials+Energy. It cannot exist separate from the cost of those.
The thing is (before you dismiss your brainstorming), your idea may be a(n arguably important) part of a multifaceted solution. Its unlikely there will be just one, grand panacea that fixes global warming worldwide. More likely a comprehensive solution will be a combination of things, not least of which is emitting less carbon into the atmosphere. Reforestation, planting the tops of every flat-roofed building with foliage to consume a little carbon here and there, switching from fossil fuels to solar (not necessarily photo-voltaics, but perhaps large chimney turbines driven by air heated in large greenhouses in desert regions), etc.
Any solution will almost certainly involve dozens, perhaps hundreds, of smaller solutions that make a modest impact here and there. Which unfortunately is not a solution Branson's $25M is likely to find (though it is likely to generate ideas that lead to components of such a solution, and therefore remains a valuable contribution in its own right).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I bet if the human race could somehow be made extinct the ecosystem of this planet would be back to her old self in no time.
Nick Powers
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
It is hypothesized that we can control the temperature of the planer by controlling the albedo of the Tibetan plateau for example, http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2002/20/c020p001 .pdf (or just search on Tibetan plateau albedo Asian monsoon. We can control the albedo of the Tibetan plateau simple by "dusting" the plateau with substances of varied reflectivity. We should easily be able to control the effects of global warming by inducing global cooling using this method.
If we really want to get ambitious, we could just blow a big honking hole in the Tibetan plateau, and let Siberia warm up while India cools down. This would, most likely, solve most of the major climate problems on the planet (Hurricanes in gulf, drought in Africa, the Moonsoon systems, the freezing temperatures in lands north of the Tibetan Plateau, since most of them were generated by the uplift of the Tibetan plateau in the first place. Better yet, all those defense contractors would have a way to make money on explosives WITHOUT starting a war.
AS an additional bonus, right now, 50% of the human races gets it's fresh water from melting of the snows on the plateau. The increased melting, plus the warming of Siberia to Southern American temperatures, would result in someplace to put all the excess population of China (such as the Uighirs) without undue hardship, as well as other cultures in danger, such as those in Darfur.
Cheap Bastard.
UNIX is truth, the Console is life. Use Evolution to send e-mail and not virii.
Simple: Since the global warming ideologues believe human activity is the source of global warming; the right answer is to remove human activity from the planet will remove the source of global warming. (Almost all of the methods described above are to mitigate human activity by destroying economies, anyway.) Therefore: My solution is to immediately kill off 30% of the population of humans -- about 2 billion people -- and another 3% of the remaining population every year thereafter. Though, since I am skeptical of the "humans cause global warming" theory, I propose that only those altruistic souls that want to save the planet are killed first. I, and the rest of the skeptics, will be driving my SUV around much less congested freeways with $0.10/litre fuel. Where do I get my cheque?
Making this profitable seems a little difficult at first blush, but the article mentions that fish were attracted in the second experiment. Since world fisheries are collapsing all over the place, one might consider this a form of aquaculture: build your own fishery. Some of the big harvesting ships might carry iron out, fish, deliver and repeat. This could take pressure off the natural ecosystem and give it a chance to recover. Owing to the Law of the Sea, it is very hard to come to fishing arrangements that avoid over fishing. It needs to be done at the diplomatic level usually on a species by species basis and even then enforcement is very difficult in international waters. This is sometimes called the tragedy of the commons. Perhaps a deal could be struck to allow real enforcement on fishing of non-fertilized species in exchange for economic territories in the desolate low iron zones.
s -selling-solar.html
Since the prize is for reducing the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the scheme mentioned at the end of the article won't work with regard to winning the prize. Any carbon credits earned would have to be retired wihout being traded.
With regard to measuring sequestration, one would want to subtract the carbon in the fish since in this case we'll breath it back out to the atmosphere, but this should be only a small fraction of the carbon flux. If anyone wants to help with the numbers, I'd be interested in forming a group to consider entering this for the prize. What do you think denis-The-menace?
--
Switch to solar http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Paint everything white streets houses sidewalks grass lawns sand everything.
Around ten years ago scientists were investigating something somewhat similar to what you are proposing, except minus the genetic engineering and toxic blooms. Some parts of the oceans are iron poor. Iron is of course an essential component for life. By adding small amounts of it to these parts of the ocean, significant quantities of phytoplankton grow, consuming large quantities of CO2. There is an article on this here.
i) Will Branson get tax relief for the £25 million?
ii) Willthe recipient be liable for tax on the 'prize'?
[Why Iraq?]
... war is an inadequate instrument ...
Iraq was a terrorist-supporting regime with WMD programs. We were already at war with Iraq because they violated the terms of the cease-fire after the Kuwait war. It had been the official policy of the US to remove Saddam from power in Iraq since 1998. That's why.
Why not somewhere else? I guess we'll wait and see. North Korea has China's protection, so they're a difficult target. Iran has internal groups who might solve the problem without US military intervention, but they haven't done it yet.
The US could try to solve a problem somewhere where Europe would be willing to help us solve it. But there doesn't seem to be such a place.
War is an extremely costly way to try to build something.
Again, what alternative do you propose? What's your plan? Anything?
You criticize war, but you have no plan to solve anything.
would be our best bet. In fact, I've been wondering why a natural increase hasn't already started to happen naturally (although a stoy on slashdot a couple of months ago did mention possible reasons - I just don't remember them now.) If we can either help encourage large scale increases in their growth or help to slow-down what is stopping this from occuring naturally, it might help bring a more favorable CO2 balance.
And smallest polluters per $ of GDP. sure, we could live in huts and pollute less that way, but so what? And you bet that factory will use less energy if it's capitalistic owner has to pay for every 1kWh out of his own pocket, instead of out of government's.
Tree-Nation is an ecological project with a focused objective: To plant 8 million trees in the Sahara to fight desertification! Large-scale plantation of trees will increase the land's productivity and re-generate the soil.
Tree-nation is an online community in which you can buy your own tree and become the guardian of a real and happy tree that we will plant in our park in Niger.
Our objective is two-fold:
Primarily environmental, but also closely linked to the humanitarian aid that it will provide in the long term. The project will benefit local populations in terms of welfare, education and farming practices. And that's not all... The benefits of preventing desertification extend beyond trees to other kinds of plant and animal life. Any opportunity to re-introduce and/or help prevent any endangered species will therefore become an integral part of our mission.
Source: http://tree-nation.com
Could that be enough bribes in the Brazilian government to get reforestation of the Amazon going?
stop burning coal-based stuff...actually...stop using coal-based-stuff for anything...alternatively....do an orbit-exchange -program with Mars and 'chill-out' in the outer parts of the solar-system for a while.. now show me da money!!!
This text has been written completely with recycled bits and bytes.
You've taken my initial assertion that free markets do not benefit what can be described as "common goods" with substantial scientific support. Biodiversity is a common good. An environment that is not substantially altered by human activity is another common good.
Instead, you introduce a new factor that has nothing to do with my initial assertion.
Please examine your logic carefully. I welcome discussion and debate when you are ready to debate the issue at hand, free markets do not have a mechanism for encouraging "common goods."
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Also, I might add that saying "why not somewhere else besides Iraq" hardly shows that you care about "the innocent" in Iraq, does it? That's why your concern for them is unable to be believed. You criticize plans to help "the innocent". When asked what you'd do, you offer no solutions. And when it's pointed out that you aren't concerned, you try to change the focus.
Please stop pretending to be interested in "the innocent" people of Iraq. You can oppose the war without the pretense of caring about them. There are lots of honest arguments available; there's no need for dishonest ones.
If we kill everyone blaming themselves for global warming, the cumulative effect of their lungs no longer producing carbon dioxide would be more than enough to free the world from their stupidity.
Some places will get colder, some places will get warmer.
Yeah, well, you may want to look at the data before you go any further...
There are other places with better data, but the reality of the situation is that Canada and further north get the bulk of the warming, and most of the warming everywhere is the winter getting warmer. The summers and places that are currently hot remain about the same temperature (with some exceptions). (There is a better temperature increase distribution graph that shows the entire planet - it is much more obvious on that graph, because north of Canada shows up on it.)
If anything, global warming will be solved through technology
I totally agree - technology is the answer. I think most of the people shouting about global warming would disagree though.
Do scientists feel there's some special value to being cold and miserable? (I know, this was the original poster)
I think what it comes down to is a war between people fighting for stasis and people trying to move forward. The global warming argument is a stasis argument - it is gettting warmer, and any change is inherently bad. Florida coastline propperty values will decline sharply, and that must be avoided.
The problem is that there is a flip side to the argument. Florida values decline, but Canadian values increase (like, you know, you can actually live there now...). Many people say that the right of Florida to maintain value trumps the right of Canadians to increased value - but there is no real set law/moral there. Throw in the fact that saving Florida destroys the economy (or at least puts heavy strains on it) and perhaps the answer is to allow change.
I know that many people are now saying "we don't need to do much, just make slight course adjustments in the economy." My only answer is that this is a new development, and my support for the "fix" for global warming is inversely proportional to the effect it has on the economy. Until recently, no one has been paying much attention to that - they just wanted to make all sorts of laws to tell me what I can and can't do. This new perspective is a welcome change.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
-- From Wikipedia.
So, were you ignorant of this fact or just being disingenuous? Neither option lends much credibility to your opinions, I'm afraid.
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
Global Warming is easy to fix!
Create more "Global Dimming" and lets party through the next great ice-age!
Nothing much to worry about, unless you are Canadian, Russian, or in some other far reaching northern or southern country.
But how can you fix something that doesn't exist. The Earth has been heating up and cooling of since it was created.
Plus, if it does exist, whats the problem? Washington DC in January 60 degrees. Come on, that rocked this year!
Obama = Socialism.
No, actually, GP is right. The people offering the "Prize" are just cheap. Tell ya what, I'll offer a prize of $25 to anyone who can produce a Lamborghini for me and leave the vehicle with title and a big red bow in my driveway. What? No takers??
PS. The problem was solved quite a while ago. So take your $25 million and go lobby congress for some pollution credit trading scheme that doubles your price at the pump and pays for ocean fertilization. Next!
So you're just saying that it's more profitable to pollute. No kidding. It's also cheaper to ignore health and safety regulations, ignore fire code when building the factory, use slave labor, murder your competition, and so on, but we generally recognize that profit does not justify everything. We don't tolerate sociopathic activity in individuals, and we shouldn't tolerate it in corporations just because someone wants to make a buck. Just because it's cheaper for me, more profitable for my business model, to dump the toxic chemicals from my factory onto your land, into your air for your children to breathe, doesn't make it okay. I shouldn't be able to pollute your land and cause respiratory problems for your kids to make a profit, and if cleaning up my toxic waste means that my business model is no longer tenable, then that's too bad; I just just find another business model.
_
Execute 2 billion people and shut down all the industry needed to support them (and that they aren't around to run anymore). A good way to dispose of them is to have them dig their own deep underground grave in various robust geologically stable regions and carry a small amount of nuclear waste down with them too.
Naturally the lottery is an international lottery to see who heroically saves us all.
...and a better spell-checker!
Why do you think that? Because it makes you feel superior to pretend that people "shouting" about global warming are luddites or something? Show me any evidence of this. The vast majority of environmentalists are pro-technology.
I think what it comes down to is a war between people fighting for stasis and people trying to move forward. The global warming argument is a stasis argument - it is gettting warmer, and any change is inherently bad.Uhhh, not. It's not that any change is bad - it;s that the effects of global warming will be bad.
Also, your contention that scientists want people to be miserable is totally stupid, and based on a fallacy. It's just as miserable to live in a place that's too hot. Many people LIKE living in cold areas. Why is it that you correlate misery with cold weather? Some of the most horrible places to live in the world are deserts.
but Canadian values increase (like, you know, you can actually live there now...).Newsflash: you can actually live in Canada now. Several million people do so, and enjoy it. Anyway, what's the big deal about "property values"? Surely quality of life, and sustainability of living is more important than how much a house costs?
My only answer is that this is a new development, and my support for the "fix" for global warming is inversely proportional to the effect it has on the economy.For starters, it's not a "new" development. Secondly, the economy stands to suffer a lot more if global warming and pollution issues aren't tackled.
Until recently, no one has been paying much attention to that - they just wanted to make all sorts of laws to tell me what I can and can't do.Utter bullshit. Environmentalists have been talking about the economic value of environmentalism for a couple of decades now, and demonstrating how efficiency and environmentalism improves the economy as well as our lives. Maybe you should have been listening to them, rather than idiots? Most politicians have just been full of shit, because they pump this propaganda (that you seem to believe) that the environment and the economy are naturally opposing forces, that you can't help one without hurting the other. That's what polluters want you to believe, but it's just not true.
Remember WWII? There were massive recycling programmes to provide industry with materials. Farmers grew hemp to make parachutes and rope. Everybody benefited from conservation back then, and it didn't hurt the economy. If it could work in WWII, why can't it work today?
... and then they built the supercollider.
Thanks for your response to the parent. i didn't have research to back up what i'd vaguely remembered, which made my message seem more mushy than it really deserved to be.
:-).
You've probably read Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist, which makes a similar point. From all the evidence I've seen, I don't think it's possible to stop global warming and so we had might as well make the most of it.
Will Florida coastline values really decline that much? Seems to me temperatures will increase somewhat but true haters of the cold are still going to want to stay in Florida for the winter. (That paper was a bit too technical and dense for me to follow well, so please correct me if I'm wrong).
As long as we have rich people inclined to spend more time in Palm Beach during the winter than NYC, we have a pretty powerful group of people who will want to do something about sea levels, thus saving Florida. Are there any technologically viable ways to prevent sea level increases? There's a lot of money involved down there.
Personally, I'd like to see warmer temperatures AND save Palm Beach
Thanks!
D
What I'm really opposing is the mentality that says "global warming is bad! Run for the hills! Blow up everyone's SUV!".
... but one designed to make you think. I don't know enough to know whether my idea would be feasible. But gee, what a cool idea, really. We have one place with a surplus of water and another place with a shortage. People have been sending boats around the world, often in very difficult situations, to adjust those situations for centuries ... and making piles of money at it, too. Why should this be any different?
I'm saying, gee, really I think a lot of people would like warmer winters better, so why are we so upset about the world warming up? Could we not do things to mitigate the impacts on areas this would damage, and then help them and enjoy the genuine advantages warming obviously has?
My proposal to ship the artic ice pack down to the Middle East, where it could do some good, was a joke
Global warming, then, should inherently create opportunities as well as problems. By looking only at the bad side of it, you miss the full truth. Will global warming benefit us or make us worse off? It seems intuitively that, since (as my fellow poster has said) the temperature increases are mainly in during winter in areas that could use them, global warming would be a definite positive development for humankind.
To just bring up the negatives, without trying to balance negatives and positives, scientists and journalists are being irresponsible in my opinion. I would like to see a more balanced picture including both costs and benefits. I suspect that if that was computed, we would find that global warming is more or less a wash overall, and spending trillions of dollars to prevent it would be an enormous waste of resources.
Divert a small portion of those resources to buy out the people who will be harmed strikes me as a far better solution than trying to prevent global warming.
Hope that helps.
D
Actually, that's the general plan. --Except you need to increase the kill-off rate from 30% to about 97%. And sorry, but sceptics will be going through the grinder along with everybody else; they'll just be more surprised when the axe falls. Only the elites who are driving WWIII and the various disease outbreaks, etc. are wealthy enough to have their own underground bunkers.
Your cheque will be worth exactly nothing when the economy crashes.
Have a nice day.
-FL
Unfortunatly the problem of Global Warming is a problem of Greed. And putting up a bounty of $25 Million Dollars-is doubtable to produce results. But at least it gets some gears turning, the most efficient way to stop global warming is to reduce it as much as possible. This means figuring out how to create and market hydro-eletric/water cars at the same price as regular cars-within a short 15 years the majority of gasoline based vehicles will be circumventelated out of the market. On the other end some type of machine or bio engeneered solution will most likely be necessary. We need a two-edged blade-not a quick-fix to the larger problem.
very few people believe that, so why bring this strawman into it? This is something you are putting into people's mouths, because most people who want to do something about global warming are not saying this.
It seems you would rather argue with sensationalism and imaginary people, rather than what the debate is really about.
Could we not do things to mitigate the impacts on areas this would damage, and then help them and enjoy the genuine advantages warming obviously has?Yet you don't demonstrate any "geniune advantages" from global warming, and basically dismiss the negative consequences.
It seems intuitively that, since (as my fellow poster has said) the temperature increases are mainly in during winter in areas that could use them, global warming would be a definite positive development for humankind.What's so bad about cold winters?
I suspect that if that was computed, we would find that global warming is more or less a wash overall, and spending trillions of dollars to prevent it would be an enormous waste of resources.You suspect. I see. Even though you haven't done the computations. I think that increased storm ferocity and the massive wave of refugees from places like Pacific islands would outweigh any marginal benefits from warmer winters. Warmer winters also have a negative impact, because some species like those cold winters.
Anyway, the argument of "trillions of dollars" is a straw-man. It doesn't have to cost ANYTHING to deal with climate change. In fact, smart people could make a PROFIT from it! I really don't understand why people think that being efficient and environmentally conscious is always going to be a cost, and is always opposed to ecdonomic prosperity. There is no evidence of that. In fact, it is quite easy to show how certain measures actuallly save money. Since when did wasting less reources cost more?
Divert a small portion of those resources to buy out the people who will be harmed strikes me as a far better solution than trying to prevent global warming.Do you think that's even possible? Even if there was the money to do that - it would cost less to avoid the problem in the first place.
Then there's politics. How many people in Western countries do you think would be happy with a sudden influx of refugees from the Pacific and Asia, regardless of how much money there was to pay for it? Those people have to go somewhere - or just drown in the sea. Even quite liberal people often get scared when thinking about the prospect of a massive migration of outsiders.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Honestly I think the people of Iraq were better off with Saddam. Would you rather live with an abusive father, or have the Americans come in and kill him and then have drug dealers and rapists take over your house and behead your sister?
Iraq was a terrorist-supporting regime with WMD programs. We were already at war with Iraq because they violated the terms of the cease-fire after the Kuwait war. It had been the official policy of the US to remove Saddam from power in Iraq since 1998. That's why.
Why not somewhere else? I guess we'll wait and see. North Korea has China's protection, so they're a difficult target. Iran has internal groups who might solve the problem without US military intervention, but they haven't done it yet.
Those countries are/were hostile toward the United States. Getting any kind of major influence in those countries would require war. As I said, war is an extremely expensive way to try to build something.
You need to stop looking for war.
You need to stop looking for countries that are hostile toward you. That's immensely inefficient. Getting a strongly hostile country such as those you listed to become friendly is far more difficult than getting a cautiously friendly country to become more friendly.
Also, getting a country with rudimentary democracy to become more democratic is far easier than getting a profoundly non-democratic country to become more democratic.
As I understand it, one major aim of the US is to spread democracy and stability. This would certainly be in the interest of the US.
For spreading democracy, the most important requirement is an enlightened populace. If you're serious about spreading democracy, you have to strive to spread such enlightenment. Spreading education, that is. Without that, people are likely to elect oppressive leaders.
For spreading stability, the most important requirement is a middle class that is sufficiently well off economically that they are strongly motivated to defend peace and order, and sufficiently large that they are everywhere. This way you have people everywhere defending stability. Also the lower class must be either sufficiently well off, or sufficiently hopeful about their future prospects, to not want unrest and revolution.
The next requirement for stability is rule of law. Rule of law is also necessary for ownership and trade to function efficiently. To spread rule of law you need programs to stop corruption, education for lawyers, judges and law enforcement, and so on. (You do not need the bad example of prisoners held at Guantanamo without rule of law. That's an extremely destructive bad example if your aim is to spread ideas and principles of democracy and stability.)
Thus you need to look for friendly countries, and having found them you need to help them with education, libraries, news media, building wealth, making sure that the wealth is spread out sufficiently to avoid unrest, and so on. In the process you can spread American ideals, and spread lots of ideas and principles from the American way of life. A kind of benevolent cultural imperialism.
Consider the extremely large costs of the war on Iraq. Consider the stability and friendship that you could get by instead using those extremely large sums to improve education, provide libraries, spread American ideals, and so on, among people who are already cautiously friendly toward you. You could achieve a lot.
Look also at what I say about the possibilities of closely allied European-American collaboration in this comment.
[From your other comment]
saying "why not somewhere else besides Iraq" hardly shows that you care about "the innocent" in Iraq, does it? That's why your concern for them is unable to be believed. You criticize plans to help "the innocent". [...] Please stop pretending to be interested in "the innocent" people of Iraq.
I have only mentioned "the innocent" once. I mentioned them in passing, between parentheses, when I said that the sanctions against Saddam's Iraq were worthless and shameful because they affect
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Summary: Focus on the easy problems. Leave the hard ones to fester forever or until we're attacked again.
Also, give money away to people for worthless anachronistic nonsense like libraries. Because everyone who builds libraries is safe from attack.
Nice plan.
You seem to think we want countries like Iran to be friends of the US. Well, we do. But mostly we want them to be unwilling or unable to attack us. War can solve the later if the former fails.
Unlike Europe, the US doesn't have a fallback position. Europe can afford to be weak because the US is here to solve problems Europe fails to solve (like Kosovo). Who does the US have?
As for Europe, Europe's future can be determined demographically. And it's not really a bright one.
The war may not be going perfectly as planned, but it's going better than if we sent teachers and librarians to protect us.
Not a single WMD was found.
No, not a single one. Hundreds of them.
Europe would be willing to help in a US plan that actually has some hope of alleviating the terrorist threat instead of sending their recruitment levels skyrocketing. But there doesn't seem to be any such plan.
There's no evidence of Europe being willing to help the US. There's no evidence of terrorist recruitment "skyrocketing" either. It's just spin. And if they're recruiting terrorists to go to Iraq to be killed by the armies there, then they're not coming to the US to blow up car bombs, are they?
Just because I have no plan for putting out a fire does not validate your plan of throwing petrol on it.
Maybe not. But what good are you then?
An imperfect plan can be revised and improved as conditions warrant. Complaints and hindsight, on the other hand, are simply worthless. Why should anyone listen to you if you have nothing constructive to offer?
Friendly relationship, cultural exchange, sharing of ideals, trade, stuff like that. Don't despise teachers and librarians. It's thanks to to people like them, and many others, that war between us is extremely unlikely.
We have trade and cultural exchanges between the US and Europe, and war is highly unlikely. If instead you chose to attack Europe with bombs and cannons, the relationship would be far less friendly and stable, to say the least. You seem to think we want countries like Iran to be friends of the US. I said cautiously friendly countries. Unless I'm very mistaken Iran is very hostile.
You should get countries that like you to develop a deeper friendship with you, acquire modern democratic ideals and structures, and so on. Then their neighbors will see that the friendly countries do much better than them. This is inevitable, since modern democracy and capitalism are inherently vastly superior, compared to their backward systems. They'll want in on the fun. For that purpose they'll befriend you. Your influence spreads. Stability spreads.
More countries similar to Europe and the US, and in similar relationships. That would be a healthy development. But mostly we want them to be unwilling or unable to attack us. War can solve the later if the former fails. You still haven't explained how skyrocketing terrorist recruitment makes them unwilling or unable to attack you. Unlike Europe, the US doesn't have a fallback position. And therefore you promote skyrocketing terrorism to protect you.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
First, let me point out that I am not the original poster - I think you had me confused with someone else.
...
;-}
Why do you think that?
So you take my perception of reality and tell me that I am wrong because I am dumb. Very convincing...
The evironmentalists I hear about all want to legislate a solution - forcing treaties, laws, etc. I think any law on the environment makes things worse, not better. For example, one of the most expensive part of a rocket launch is filling out the environmental impact assessment. You are never denied for it (so it does the environment no good at all), but you must spend a few million on it. I want to build rockets. Environmentalists are in my way. Therefore, environmentalists are anti-technology (at least for me).
scientists want people to be miserable is totally stupid
That would have really hurt my feelings if I had every said that...
And noone lives in Canada - it is an illusion
what's the big deal about "property values"? Surely quality of life, and sustainability of living is more important
Ah, but is not the quality of life captured by the property values? Why do you think Florida is so expensive? (If anyone cared about sustainability, noone would live in huricane zones.)
the economy stands to suffer a lot more if global warming and pollution issues aren't tackled.
But an economist reads this sentence as "the economy will not let GW and pollution remain untackled" whereas a politician reads this as "I must tackle this for the economy." Let the economy sort this out as much as possible - the economy is much smarter than politicians.
Most politicians have just been full of shit, because they pump this propaganda
Explain to me that I will not need to spend millions on an environmental assessment for my rocket and then I will believe that environmentalists are not anti-tech. Until then, their actions speak for them.
Really, if you don't think they are anti-progress - what do you think the propper action for politicians is? What should Gore do - what laws do you think he should pass?
If you don't think he should pass any laws, but merely educate, then we agree. But then you would not be an environmental activist, would you?
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
How do they appear if recruitment hasn't skyrocketed? It's just spin. Are you saying that the violence in Iraq isn't real? Where's your proof? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Complaints and hindsight, on the other hand, are simply worthless. It's not hindsight when it's known well in advance. It's not worthless when the issue is to get the US to stop promoting terrorism. Somehow we need to get you to stop promoting terrorism. And if they're recruiting terrorists to go to Iraq to be killed by the armies there, then they're not coming to the US to blow up car bombs, are they? Iraq has become an extremely fertile breeding-ground for terrorism. So far only a little has spilled over the Iraqi borders, but it seems highly unlikely that that's the end of it. So far they are busy fighting each other, but it seems likely that sooner or later a fraction will appear that considers the West to be their main enemy.
Apparently the Madrid and London terrorist bombers were inspired by bin Laden and the Iraqi suicide bombers. If it can spread to modern places like Madrid and London, it seems very likely that it will spread elsewhere.
When I've worked as a replacement teacher here in Stockholm, Sweden, sometimes I've heard kids of immigrant origin express rapt admiration for how "bin Laden and Al Qaeda manage to defeat the United States", a few even discussing whether they would have the courage to do a suicide bombing.
You don't realize what a dangerous breeding-ground for terrorism you have set up with your ill-conceived Iraq adventure.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
You are wrong because you are wrong. I can only speculate why you hbelieve in such an inaccurate stereotype, but it's definitely wrong. I never said you were dumb. I said you wanted to use stereitypes to feel better about yourself, and to demonize mythical opponents.
The evironmentalists I hear about all want to legislate a solution - forcing treaties, laws, etc. I think any law on the environment makes things worse, not better.How many environmentalists do you speak to? Or is it all just a media-driven persception?
You are never denied for it (so it does the environment no good at all), but you must spend a few million on it. I want to build rockets. Environmentalists are in my way. Therefore, environmentalists are anti-technology (at least for me).Sounds more like the government and bureaucrats are in your way.
Ah, but is not the quality of life captured by the property values?No. For example, America is an expensive place to live, even though the quality of life is much lower than other places. Likewise, living is cities is usually more expensive than living in rural areas, even though quality of life is usually higher in rural areas.
the economy is much smarter than politicians.Reality shows us that both are pretty damn stupid. Look at the internet bubble for example. The "invisible hand" is too often masturbating to be doing the right thing.
Explain to me that I will not need to spend millions on an environmental assessment for my rocket and then I will believe that environmentalists are not anti-tech. Until then, their actions speak for them.Uhhh, what? There are very few environmentalists ion government. So, it is not environmentalists who are responsible for those regulations, it is politicians and bureaucrats.
Really, if you don't think they are anti-progress - what do you think the propper action for politicians is? What should Gore do - what laws do you think he should pass?I think he should create incentives for the conservation of resources, and punish waste. He should teach people how they can make a difference. He should fund research.
If you don't think he should pass any laws, but merely educate, then we agree. But then you would not be an environmental activist, would you?How so? That doesn't make any sense. Many environmental activists don't believe in government, and take direct action instead.
... and then they built the supercollider.
did anyone think of phytoplankton yet? all you need to do is seed the ocean with iron. you really cant "prove" the negative effects (e.g. toxic algae blooms)
You don't realize what a dangerous breeding-ground for terrorism you have set up with your ill-conceived Iraq adventure.
If we change our policies to keep the terrorists happy, then the terrorists are in control of our policies. Period. This is unacceptable. Wait 2 years and terrorists attack again. We say "we did what you terrorists wanted last time". The terrorists will say "now we want something new".
And so on. Rewarding terrorists leads to more terrorism. Everyone knows this.
On the other hand, dead terrorists seldom repeat their attacks. Terrorists who spend their time desperately running ahead of the US military are unlikely to be able to attack the US. Terrorists with no base of operations are ineffective. Why do terrorists need to recruit anyway? Because the US military keeps killing the old recruits.
And I have yet to hear of a workable alternative plan.
"Time" is the solution to those problems. Trust is earned over time by showing yourself worthy of trust. Other problems can be solved over time. Insurgents can be defeated once the local Iraqi forces are strong enough and numerous enough to fight them effectively. Over time, local folks will learn that they can benefit by helping the US and the Iraqi government forces. When the government is able to protect them, and the US is willing to pay them to hand over the insurgents, it's not too hard for the locals to decide what course of action benefits them.
This is a simple problem. It's not an easy problem, but it is a simple one.
I actually disagree with this kind of analysis. War is something people decide to do. It's not something that just happens to people based on chance. It's not like a lottery, where buying an extra librarian or teacher gives you an extra chance to win.
It's true that Europe is unlikely to decide to go to war with the US in the near term. In the future, when Islam is the dominant culture of Europe, the motivating factors will change. That's why it's so important to establish a modern multi-ethnic, multi-sect state in Iraq that can prosper. There needs to be a model for success for Islamic folks. And it has to be clear that Islamic countries friendly to the US are better off than those who are enemies of the US.
And I have yet to hear of a workable alternative plan.
So, it is not environmentalists who are responsible for those regulations, it is politicians and bureaucrats.
OK, I can see how you would think that. But I believe that you are responsible for even the unforseen/unwanted effects of what you have done. Absent environmentalists, these dumb laws would not have been passed - but they were passed. Environmentalists must take on that blame - blaming politicians doesn't work, they are a known entity and there reaction was predictable. If the environmentalists really wanted to avoid this outcome, they could have.
create incentives for the conservation of resources, and punish waste
Well, I kind of agree with this - except that when the government does these things, they never seem to turn out right. Governments are reasonably good at enforcing/following a plan. They are terrible at creating/optimizing a plan. So if you want the government to do it right, tell them exactly what you want, with clear delineations. For example, is my rocket a waste? Why or why not? (It does use up some fuel resources, but does not noticably change the environment) Personally, I think government involvement should be limmitted to the gross problems like wholesale pollution of rivers, etc. But where do you draw the line? As I have said, currently the line was drawn as "anything that involves the government (such as flight licensing) must include an environmental assessment", which lead to enough problems that the meaning was removed (no one ever fails their assessment) but the cost remains (you still have to do the assessment). By anyone's reasoning, this is the worst of both worlds - destruction of economy and destruction of environment.
I am not worried about people choosing to buy efficient cars, or people choosing to pollute less. I am concerned with the people that are running for office on these issues, or that are lobbying on these issues. Those are the people that want to destroy my dreams.
(And all that said, I walk to work and hardly ever drive anywhere. But that is my choice, and the government is never here to help.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Do you think the terrorist networks are unhappy about terrorism running rampant in Iraq? Do you think they're unhappy about youngsters sacrificing their life every week for their causes? Unhappy about the enormous continuous publicity? Unhappy about misguided youngsters around the world feeling rapt admiration over bin Laden and Al Qaeda "defeating the US"?
You have allowed the terrorists to steer you policies in ways that are quite astonishing. Your entire country is all about terrorism. It's on the agenda all the time.
The terrorists want to spread fear. That's why they're called terror-ists. Your government, authorities and media seem obsessed with helping the terrorists spread the fear.
Europe has had plenty of terrorism. IRA, ETA, RAF, post-9/11 Madrid and London. Compared to the US we have taken it with a stiff upper lip, whereas you've re-arranged your entire society around your perpetual terrorism panic. I'll grant you that 9/11 was extreme, but that's no excuse for giving in to the terrorists the way you do. Rewarding terrorists leads to more terrorism. Everyone knows this. Exactly. Precisely because of this, please stop rewarding them by letting your society be all about them, and by fostering their recruitment with ill-conceived war. On the other hand, dead terrorists seldom repeat their attacks. On the contrary, dead terrorists have uncles, brothers and sons who become swayed by the death and decide to avenge their dead family member.
You can't break this chain of family bonds. Even if you nuked all of Iraq there would be plenty of people in other countries with family bonds to those killed. You'd have to nuke every place on the Earth including the US. You can't break those family bonds.
Fighting terrorism with war is like fighting the Hydra by cutting off its heads one by one. For every terrorist that you kill you tip the scales for two who decide to avenge him.
With every kill you make terrorism grow larger. Terrorists who spend their time desperately running ahead of the US military... These terrorists do not run away, desperately or otherwise. They suicide. They seek out death.
...are unlikely to be able to attack the US. On the contrary, they are fully willing to approach you wearing a bomb belt and die. Terrorists with no base of operations are ineffective. How smart of you, then, to give them this huge base, the lawlessness of Iraq.Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
[...]
[In Europe] It's true that Europe is unlikely to decide to go to war with the US in the near term. In the future, when Islam is the dominant culture of Europe, the motivating factors will change. You're saying that in Iraq the trend will go from mistrust to trust, whereas in Europe it will go the opposite way. In Iraq, where Islam predominates, you will earn trust over time. In Europe, because of Islam, you will unearn it over time.
Yeah right. And I have yet to hear of a workable alternative plan. Of course you can't hear it when you refuse to listen.
You have yet to give a single concrete, specific criticism of what I've proposed. All you have given is vague generalities like "anachronistic nonsense" and irrelevant strawmen like "everyone who builds libraries is safe from attack".
Decades ago your nation did great, founding the UN to get countries to talk to each other, and using the Marshall plan to civilize Germany. Today you don't even understand what the UN is for. It's astonishing that your country has lost its grip so completely.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
That said, someone who drives a Yukon is a hypocrite if they claim to be an environmentalist.
Not true, there are legitimate uses for SUV's, especially in the sorts of environments that legitimate, serious environmentalists tend to find themselves when doing research. You know, despite the efforts of alt.pave.the.earth, very little of the planet is actually paved.
Myself, I drive a Jeep Wrangler. It gets about 14 miles to the gallon, on average, and I have uses for it that most of the population of the planet cannot even comprehend. I make no apologies. I do wish it got better mileage, however. It's not impossible, it's just that it's about as aerodynamic as a brick, or possibly even less so.
You're saying that in Iraq the trend will go from mistrust to trust, whereas in Europe it will go the opposite way
Yes. Pendulums swing from one side to the other, not around and around in one direction all the time. Iraq is a poor country. The US has a lot to offer there. Europe is wealthy. The US has less to offer to Europe.
Europe's demographic issues will lead to worse relations with the US, unless the US intervenes in some unforseen way. Europe's good relations with the US are based on historical ties and events of the past. As Europe's population balance shifts toward folks with no historical European ancestry, that basis will be undermined. The future difficulties in relations between the US and Europe will be a reflection of the difficulties that Europe will face internally.
Iraq started out with extremely bad relations with the US under Saddam. They are better now and the trend is for them to get better still.
You have yet to give a single concrete, specific criticism of what I've proposed.
It evades the problem instead of solving it. The problems are Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and some other enemies. Your plan to send teachers and librarians to somewhere else (Monaco?, Belize?, where?) to improve relations with the US simply doesn't address the difficult problems.
I also don't see the benefit of improving relations with countries that aren't hostile. It seems like spending money for absolutely no return.
And we have the Internet now. The value of libraries is in rapid decline. In 10-20 years, their value should hit zero. Hence "anachronistic".
That's an incorrect (but, I'm sure, politically useful) characterization. If you read what the terrorists themselves write, this is simply not the case:
No, the terrorists aren't happy. That's just one example. There are many.
If the US presence in Iraq is so useful to the terrorists, why do they want us to leave? Why do they praise the anti-war factions in US politics?
Compared to the US we have taken it with a stiff upper lip, whereas you've re-arranged your entire society around your perpetual terrorism panic. I'll grant you that 9/11 was extreme, but that's no excuse for giving in to the terrorists the way you do.
We're not into "taking it". I personally prefer fixing it.
You have incorrect information on US society. It's 99% the same now as it was before 9/11. Government policies have changed, but government is not a particularly important part of society in the US.
There's a lot of politics, but most people don't pay attention. Some of us want to fix the problems we have with terrorists and are being thwarted by people who want the terrorists to be protected from the US and hope the US loses in Iraq. But both sides combined are not our "entire society" or even a majority.
On the contrary, dead terrorists have uncles, brothers and sons who become swayed by the death and decide to avenge their dead family member.
Not an unlimited number. Not willing to die for no hope of success in fighting the US. Taking that hope of success away is key. The anti-war folks bolster the terrorists' hope.
These terrorists do not run away, desperately or otherwise. They suicide. They seek out death.
Problem solved then. Also, by the way, a good case for taking Iran's nuclear program seriously.
How smart of you, then, to give them this huge base, the lawlessness of Iraq.
Iraq, under Saddam, was a safe haven for terrorists. Now, it's not.
1) Grow millions of acres of hardwoods 2) Harvest 3) Tow them out into the ocean 4) Sink them. 5) Go to step 1. Can I get my money now, in cash?
Off course if these genetically engineered plankton warriors could be adapted to survive extended periods "in stasis", they could get stuck in the icecaps should they reform, locking them securely away until needed! A simple feedback loop is thus set up, the icecaps release or absorb plankton proportional to how they are heating/cooling. Fantastic.
// cinn
It seems to me that if plankton is responsible for removing tons of CO2 from the air and whales are eating tons of plankton then the right whale population recovery is the reason for global warming. Just a thought. OwenDMoney
There are, but most SUVs seem to live in an urban environment.
We got a Subaru Forester (for the space - two kids, and for safety), which is 21/27 mpg according to the EPA. We need something bigger, so I think we'll get an older diesel Toyota Landcruiser which will actually get slightly better mileage but give us a bit more space for hauling kids and stuff.
So there are better choices for SUVs; that said, neither one can tow anything substantial.
Headline seen this morning: 'Lawmakers Cancel Global Warming Hearing as Mammoth Snowstorm Heads East' Glad I just put new tires on my SUV. ;-)
If you read what the terrorists themselves write, this is simply not the case:
[...] There is no doubt that the space in which we can move has begun to shrink and that the grip around the throats of the mujahidin has begun to tighten. With the deployment of soldiers and police, the future has become frightening.
Wow! A glimmer of hope!
Whenever I see a glimmer of hope for Iraq I start wishing and hoping. If terrorists and their ilk could be cornered, and democracy and stability could prevail, that would really be great. I start hoping, in spite of my strong misgivings.
The fact that I believe that the United States refuses to learn unless it gets a really painful lesson of course does not diminish this wishful hope. Stability and democracy would be wonderful, and the US has suffered enough, and more than enough, even if I doubt strongly that it has learned.
Unfortunately that page doesn't make it very clear-cut. In the paragraph directly after the one you quoted he sounds quite hopeful:
Despite the paucity of supporters, the desertion of friends, and the toughness of the times,. God the Exalted has honored us with good harm to the enemy. [...] Praise be to God, we have made good strides and completed important stages. As the decisive moment approaches, we feel that [our] body has begun to spread in the security vacuum, gaining locations on the ground that will be the nucleus from which to launch and move out in a serious way, God willing.
I'd say he sounds hopeful. And after that he discusses strategy in a way that doesn't sound despondent at all. Quite possibly he mentions adversity only so that afterward he can show that they are strong in spite of adversity.
It can be interpreted different ways.
That text seems to be from February 2004. As I understand it, terrorism in Iraq has increased since then. On average, every day roughly a hundred people are killed by terrorists in Iraq. In numbers of people killed, that's one 9/11 disaster a month.
It would be great if the terrorists were frightened, but seeing the numbers I find this unlikely.
As I understand it, it's extremely difficult for an army to defeat a guerrilla. In my view terrorists are much more difficult than a guerrilla, since terrorists are not bound to a territory that they defend, but can instead operate anywhere in the world, and they do not limit themselves to attacking the soldiers of an army, but instead will attack people indiscriminately anywhere.
If the US presence in Iraq is so useful to the terrorists, why do they want us to leave?
There is almost certainly a distinction between what they say and what they actually want.
Judging by the results of most revolutions, revolution leaders tend to be selfish bastards looking for personal power for themselves, willing to send people to their death just to increase their own power. Just think of the many Communist revolutions and their ruthless leaders. Note that power can be very inebriating. Such leaders spread and strengthen hate to create a mob frenzy of hate that lets them manipulate the mob. In my view the document that you quoted may confirm this, seeing the many enemies listed and the contempt and hate expressed.
The fact that they say that they want you to leave doesn't mean much, except that it's useful for whipping up hate. The longer you stay, the longer they can use your presence for whipping up hate.
Why do they praise the anti-war factions in US politics?
My guess is that they have two aims, they want to trick their people into believing that America is weak, and they want to sow conflict among Americans.
As for the latter aim, I find it deeply troubling that some Americans seem to fall for this tactic. The US is a democracy, and debate is a fundamental basis of democracy. Debate is not a weakness, it's a strength. It's one of the things that makes democracy much stronger than any other sy
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Europe's demographic issues will lead to worse relations with the US, unless the US intervenes in some unforseen way.
I only skimmed rapidly and superficially through the page that you linked to about that subject, because I found it very ranty and unconvincing. But it seems his main point is that in a future Europe with lots of Muslims we will see the end of our Western values.
Note, however, that for many, many centuries, Muslim parts of Europe have been far more tolerant than Christian parts of Europe. Where is the fundamental difference that changes this age-long difference?
Today, in Muslim countries, small groups of extreme religious fundamentalists that are intolerant and hateful have gained tremendous notoriety. But in our countries the extreme Christian fundamentalist are also often intolerant and hateful. Fundamentalism is conducive to intolerance and repression.
Christian fundamentalists are less extreme, but this seems to be because modern society influences them to be less extreme. In medieval Europe Christianity was repressive, intolerant and murderous, as exemplified in the above links. Most of the notorious Muslim fundamentalists either live in, or have their roots in, societies that remain largely medieval today. Medieval conditions are conducive to intolerance, and to giving intolerance a stronger influence.
Another factor that is conducive to extremism is that in most Muslim countries the people are repressed by undemocratic governments.
Note also that one of your closest friends in Europe is a Muslim country, namely Turkey.
Affluence and commerce tends to lead to more tolerance and openness in society at large. This is to a great extent because you have a large middle class that has very strong incentives to achieve and protect stability. If the number of Muslims in Europe increases, they will in due time be a large part of that middle class, and will have this desire for openness and stability.
It evades the problem instead of solving it. The problems are Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and some other enemies. Your plan to send teachers and librarians to somewhere else (Monaco?, Belize?, where?) to improve relations with the US simply doesn't address the difficult problems.
Sheesh, am I that unclear? Obviously Monaco and Belize have nothing to do with the problems at hand. And do you really consider Monaco cautiously friendly?
Countries where such programs might have good effects would perhaps be Jordania, Pakistan or Bangladesh. You need Muslim countries that are cautiously friendly, where you can gain substantial goodwill by helping them raise people's economic independence, well-being and democratic influence, sufficiently so that the peoples of other Muslim countries will yearn for similar prosperity and democracy.
Another interesting country is Afghanistan. You have already invested heavily in removing the Taliban government. You should protect this investment, and get substantial goodwill, by making sure people there get substantially better opportunities. Since conditions there are generally pre-medieval, you can probably get more noticeable improvement at less cost, compared to many other countries.
With judicious foreign aid you could really get lots of goodwill and influence. Clearly this is unmined territory. Both in foreign aid per capita and in foreign aid as percentage of GDP your chart bars look pitiful.
Give some really noticeable contributions to raise two countries out of poverty and illiteracy toward economic independence -- say A
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.