Yes, if we're to combat global warming, China needs to help too. But the excuse that they have to cut emissions first is ridiculous, when we have been emitting CO2 for 150 years.
Please, show me where I have suggested that China needs to cut theirs first. I have said that they are the monster on the block (they are) and that ALL OF US need to cut emissions. BTW, China will surpass America in total emissions in the next 3 years. And from most ppls POV, population REALLY DOES NOT MATTER. Heck, the vast majority of emissions is not related to population, but to industry and development. That is what needs to change.
Actually, I like to think that emissions WILL be cut all over. The simple fact is the one or more countries will soon take the approach that I espouse. It is the ONLY possible solution to get a nations emissions down and not watch industry move to a place that emits and pollutes more.
Why are they not working hard at getting the power plant going? If they really wanted power and not nukes, they simply would have built the plant, and then bought processed uranium on the open market. At this time, it is DIRT DIRT cheap. After a few years, THEN they could have done the processing. In fact, the size and number of their refinement plants, as well as having been started BEFORE the power plant and being hidden, says that it is NOT about a civilian program.
Actually, that is false. First, CO2 emissions is not pollution. If we were talking pollution, China is by far the biggest and the worst out there. They account for far more than 1/2 of all mercury emissions. In fact, they own #1 on nearly all transportable pollution. The reason is that China refuses to buy pollution controls or even use ones that they own, but it would bump the resource cost to implement. A truly immoral gov.
Now, as to BURNING CO2 emissions, in 2007, NA emitted 6,780 million tonnes, with America at 5769.3. China emitted 6,071 million tonnes. So, yes, in 2007, China DID emit less, though not by much. The problem is that NA has pretty much quit increasing, while CHina (and a number of smaller countries) continue to increase in massive amounts. For example, over the last 5 years, how much did China increase by?
1997 @ 3 132.9
3 197.1
3 090.2
3 077.6
3 124.8
3 348.3
2005 @ 3 871.8
2006 @ 4 586.4
2005 @ 5 099.1
2006 @ 5 645.2
2007 @ 6 071.2
If you look at the last few years, they have increased by more than 500 million tonnes EACH Year, and we know that it is increasing. THere is LITTLE doubt that last year that China DID pass North America's total. In addition, in another 2 years, they will have more emissions than all of NORTH AMERICA, Europe and latin america COMBINED. Finally, if they simply slow down 400 million tonnes increases, by 2016-2017, they will have accounted for about 1/2 of all CO2 emissions by man. And yet, if you want to hold it in per capita, they do not account for 1/2 of the world's population.
Basically, CHINA is the one responsible for taking the world into fast global warming. AND it is ppl like you that push this insane approach by arguing that China has the RIGHT to emit large CO2 as well as heavy pollution. China's Action are not just irresponsible, but are the actions of a nation that is in a cold war.
It really does not matter. Multiple large fisheries are about to collapse all over the world in the next couple of years (due to overfishing). When they do, it is possible that the world will lose a significant chunk of food.
No, the REAL problem is the large and exponentially growing HUMAN population. THAT is what is making ALL of these methods of protein production unsustainable in the medium term. More efficient food production methods are being found - aquaponics, for example. But if we don't stop breeding, well, it's the crash part of the J curve in an earth-sized petri dish for us.
You have it RIGHT on the head. That is why when ppl speak of CO2 on a per capita basis, I just want to shoot them. Basically, it rewards nations that breed like f***ing rabbits. Instead, it should be based on emissions per SQ KM. In the end, it will not matter. I suspect that we are headed for a major collapse on food due to AGW combined with our already being overpopulated. The next 20-30 years will be interesting.
And no doubt that many of them WILL serve as food for others. BUT a number of them WILL make it. To be honest, I would be less concerned about the fish eating them and wondering what happens if they DO take? The lower fish are depleted as well. That is why we are seeing bad fish passed off as Tuna or other species. Basically, somebody is gaming the system.
Actually, the idea is to breed the fish and then release millions upon millions of fingerlings into the various oceans. The real problem is how we got here and what will change. Basically, countries need to change. For example, the Atlantic tuna is about collapse. The reason is that overfishing is being done. By who? Well, America and Canada have STRICT limits on Canadian/American fleets which are checked pretty thoroughly. We also have foreign ships here that are under restrictions. Most are Chinese and Japanese. The japanese ships will dock at our ports, be checked, and then take the whole load back to Japan. OTH, The Chinese ships come in, drop off their max allowed load, and then show up back in China with a full load. IOW, they are taking another load on their way back (illegal, but easy enough to pull off from what I have heard). But that is not the full issue. EU has been horrible about putting restraints on their taking of the Tuna. And those nations that do, simply look the other way when the ship is over.
What needs to happen is that ALL OF THE NATIONS that have fisheries need to protect these. It can not be so half ass anymore.
Just recently, Tuna was able to be bred. Prior to that, Tuna pretty much had to be caught in the wild. It would be nice to see DECENT aquaculture come to fruition.
Wow. What a warped perception of life. Not everything is based on per-capita. In fact, far far from it. If it is, please go to China and tell the leaders there to give up their mercedes and other items. Likewise, you need to quit emitting so much. Germany is still a VERY large polluter in the world. In fact, it is more than double China. So, why do you not quit living like you do, and give it to CHina?
Iran is not trying for Nuclear Energy. They are working on Nuclear bombs. BIG difference.
As to capping low end countries, ok, that makes sense to allow them to go up (i.e. those that are at ~0 Co2 / sq km should probably be allowed up). When I was thinking of the cap, I was thinking of Developed nations and those like China, Brazil, etc (which IS developed in terms of jobs, simply not of infrastructure).
First, this is not a tariff. A tariff is something is applied to IMPORTED GOOD ONLY. Secondly, I WANT THEM TO APPLY IT TO US (would not matter; China's imports from Western nations is pretty much resources only); Heck, I want to see ALL NATIONS APPLY IT ALL GOODS. I would esp. like to see it applied to China AND America. We are the worst on this. America has 48% of electricity from coal and 18 % from Natural Gas (both are dropping). China has nearly 80% from Coal (and climbing fast) and 10% from Natural Gas (again climbing fast ). Likewise, Countries in EU are fighting emissions such as Germany and Poland. Apply this and EVERYBODY (politicians, Business, and citizens) have a strong incentive to drop their CO2.
But good luck getting the forced per capita emissions garbage. If you take that route, it will NEVER solve a thing, and the CO2 will continue. In fact, it will make things worse in the same way that Kyoto does. Right now, if everybody emitted at the same rate as what China PER CAPITA does, the world would have nearly 20% more CO2.
a problem with this statement is that according to "An Inconvenient Truth", the CO2 emissions per capita, and even on a total basis in India are much lower that those of the US
IIRC, there was a difference of 10 times in the per capita emissions b/w US and India
Except of course you are looking at per capita emissions, which is a worthless way of looking at things. The reason is that CO2 emissions is not just humans, but it is GDP, plants, etc.
IIRC, there was a difference of 10 times in the per capita emissions b/w US and India
Ideally, shouldnt all the countries have similar per capita emissions??
It would be nice, but that is not the 'fair' thing. I think that all countries should have similar per sq km emissions. Look at it this way. China is hurting for water, and it is about to hurt more. OTH, Russia is sitting on the LARGEST AMOUNTS of fresh water in the world. In fact, they have more than all of North America. And yet, Russia has a fairly small population. Should they be required to give up that water to China and India? Likewise, should the middle east be required to give up their oil? It is a small amount of ppl that own it. These would be fair in the same way. Likewise, China emits well over 1/2 of the mercury in the world (no pollution control and some of the worst coal in the world). The same is true of Sulfur oxides, etc. Far far more than their "fair share". SHould they be required to drop it all right now?
It gets better. There is ZERO chance of being able to get everybody to agree to any of this.
So the answer is absolutely no.
Instead, max emissions should be tied to simply seeing how much emissions come from a region. And how to control it? Other nations are taxing your goods based on the CO2 from your air. Period. Then it is up to each nation to decide exactly how they want to control it. There can be no cheating on this.
Really? Please show me where "aging liberal hippie douches" are blocking Solar Farms or WInd farms. So far, about the ones that I have seen blocking these are those opposed to AE (under a pretext of caring about the environment). Now, a small minority do object to individual projects, but that is about certain locations. In general, the vast majority of the protesters against these projects are ppl like you; AC that lie.
So...basically...we're all going to die, and take the planet with us, right?
Not even close. We MAY kill ourselves (not likely, but possible), BUT the planet will continue. In fact, I imagine that some future race of lizards (or aliens) running around exploring our areas and commenting on how a toilet seat is actually a necklace, and the toilet is where we sacrificed to the gods (and when I was in my teens, that is pretty much what I did, like others).
Seriously. They have an EASY answer, but do not want to take. China wants the ability to pollute at will until they are the largest superpower. India is in the same boat (though it really is about bringing their ppl up to a higher standard, not about being a superpower). America does not want to give up its position by doing the largest cuts (for starters, it would likely not be allowed by voters in light of China). Europe, Japan, and Canada are all cutting corners and trying to blame the other guy. Most of the Asian, African and Latin American countries simply want a free hand-out (which is why their focus on lots of money to them, rather than on dropping their own emissions).
So, how can we solve it?
Have the nations that are concerned (I wish that it was all, but it is not) put a cap based on current emissions. IOW, you will not raise the CO2 at all. To get a handle on things, we need to stop the growth first.
Then put a tax on ALL GOODS, INCLUDING IMPORTS, based on the CO2 emissions from the region where it was built AND where the primary component comes from AS WELL as the CO2 cost of shipping.
The 2'nd above requires that it be a percentage based on how much CO2 is from your area based on sat measurements ( and skip the garbage about population; that is about spreading responsibility; it will not happen). In addition, it has to be known that the base amount will grow. BUT, by allowing other nations to clean up their act, they can lower the amount that they pay.
This is probably the ONLY fix for all this. WHy? Because it prevents politicians from cheating. It keeps pols from claiming that another nation is emitting more, and they will. The reason is that this is measurable by sats, it can be easily seen by all.
In addition, it takes into account ALL EMISSIONS. Want to lower it, but can not cut back on CO2 right now? Plants trees. Route the CO2 from cement and power plants to algae and greenhouses.
Until a nation has the courage to do this, nothing will change. It is only when ALL NATIONS have to partake, will it change things.
Hmmm. You DO realize where nearly all of our current hydrogen comes from. Yes? From the oil companies stripping it from Natural Gas. Basically, all of your current hydrogen cars ARE oil powered.
That is probably the best response on all these posts. The simple fact is, with money behind H2, it COULD pull it off. I have often thought that oil companies will not go down easily.
I'll take those fuel cells and raise you by more than 10x the li-ion
I will also note that those fuel cells who were developed in the 80's have gone nowhere. In addition, I am guessing that not too many will want molten coke in their crafts or car.
First, how quiet is it? Can you place it say 200' over an enemy and not have them hear or feel it? If so, then yes, that should be the big winner. But, I would bet that you will lose that.
Also, do you think that the hummingbird can use less fuel than this? Again I doubt it. Keep in mind that these is intended for a place like Afghanistan where it costs money to bring fuel. You hummingbird will suck the fuel out in one trip, what this would use in a year.
Far more problematic, production and transportation of hydrogen will remain highly inefficient compared to battery or far more likely ultra-caps. Oddly, I have seen the pro-h2 side claiming that it is more efficient to build fueling stations in which the hydrogen is generated from water vs. batteries. So, now, they want to transmit the power the same distance and then convert, store locally, fuel a car, store on the car, convert to electricity vs. storing on a battery. Keep in mind that each step has lose of efficiency, and batteries are more efficient than any of the steps just mentioned (and one step vs 4).
The only issue will be energy density of a battery/ultra cap. And that is increasing rapidly. Even now, the lithium air with 10x increase in energy density over lithium ion, will likely take out all hopes of the fuel cell being a commercial success.
In general, Fuel cells (and oil powered engines) are going to lose out to batteries. Battery (and ultracaps) tech is improving at a quick rate. HOWEVER, at this time, hydrogen fuel cells will win out if you disregard costs. I have little doubt that this craft will costs more to build than will either battery or engine based, but it does something that the other 2 do not do; The demands of the job.
Actually, the world get more than 80% of its power from fossil fuels. After all, power includes cars, tractors, trucks, rail, planes, etc.
HOWEVER, if you are talking ELECTRICITY in US, America gets under 70% from fossil fuel AND it is slowly dropping.
The carp about Air from the engineers remains the same. They are saying that the efficiency of using air power inefficient. They are dead on the money. WHY would you want to put a system in place that is inefficient? There is heavy infrastructure costs associated with this. In the end, the costs of air will be far too high for countries to put this forward. Instead, the price of electric cars will go down.
BTW, what nation has a 70% renewable matrix, enlightended, and is developed?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, if we're to combat global warming, China needs to help too. But the excuse that they have to cut emissions first is ridiculous, when we have been emitting CO2 for 150 years.
Please, show me where I have suggested that China needs to cut theirs first. I have said that they are the monster on the block (they are) and that ALL OF US need to cut emissions. BTW, China will surpass America in total emissions in the next 3 years. And from most ppls POV, population REALLY DOES NOT MATTER. Heck, the vast majority of emissions is not related to population, but to industry and development. That is what needs to change.
Actually, I like to think that emissions WILL be cut all over. The simple fact is the one or more countries will soon take the approach that I espouse. It is the ONLY possible solution to get a nations emissions down and not watch industry move to a place that emits and pollutes more.
Why are they not working hard at getting the power plant going? If they really wanted power and not nukes, they simply would have built the plant, and then bought processed uranium on the open market. At this time, it is DIRT DIRT cheap. After a few years, THEN they could have done the processing. In fact, the size and number of their refinement plants, as well as having been started BEFORE the power plant and being hidden, says that it is NOT about a civilian program.
Now, as to BURNING CO2 emissions, in 2007, NA emitted 6,780 million tonnes, with America at 5769.3. China emitted 6,071 million tonnes. So, yes, in 2007, China DID emit less, though not by much. The problem is that NA has pretty much quit increasing, while CHina (and a number of smaller countries) continue to increase in massive amounts. For example, over the last 5 years, how much did China increase by?
If you look at the last few years, they have increased by more than 500 million tonnes EACH Year, and we know that it is increasing. THere is LITTLE doubt that last year that China DID pass North America's total. In addition, in another 2 years, they will have more emissions than all of NORTH AMERICA, Europe and latin america COMBINED. Finally, if they simply slow down 400 million tonnes increases, by 2016-2017, they will have accounted for about 1/2 of all CO2 emissions by man. And yet, if you want to hold it in per capita, they do not account for 1/2 of the world's population.
Basically, CHINA is the one responsible for taking the world into fast global warming. AND it is ppl like you that push this insane approach by arguing that China has the RIGHT to emit large CO2 as well as heavy pollution. China's Action are not just irresponsible, but are the actions of a nation that is in a cold war.
It really does not matter. Multiple large fisheries are about to collapse all over the world in the next couple of years (due to overfishing). When they do, it is possible that the world will lose a significant chunk of food.
No, the REAL problem is the large and exponentially growing HUMAN population. THAT is what is making ALL of these methods of protein production unsustainable in the medium term. More efficient food production methods are being found - aquaponics, for example. But if we don't stop breeding, well, it's the crash part of the J curve in an earth-sized petri dish for us.
You have it RIGHT on the head. That is why when ppl speak of CO2 on a per capita basis, I just want to shoot them. Basically, it rewards nations that breed like f***ing rabbits. Instead, it should be based on emissions per SQ KM. In the end, it will not matter. I suspect that we are headed for a major collapse on food due to AGW combined with our already being overpopulated. The next 20-30 years will be interesting.
And no doubt that many of them WILL serve as food for others. BUT a number of them WILL make it. To be honest, I would be less concerned about the fish eating them and wondering what happens if they DO take? The lower fish are depleted as well. That is why we are seeing bad fish passed off as Tuna or other species. Basically, somebody is gaming the system.
Actually, the idea is to breed the fish and then release millions upon millions of fingerlings into the various oceans. The real problem is how we got here and what will change. Basically, countries need to change. For example, the Atlantic tuna is about collapse. The reason is that overfishing is being done. By who? Well, America and Canada have STRICT limits on Canadian/American fleets which are checked pretty thoroughly. We also have foreign ships here that are under restrictions. Most are Chinese and Japanese. The japanese ships will dock at our ports, be checked, and then take the whole load back to Japan. OTH, The Chinese ships come in, drop off their max allowed load, and then show up back in China with a full load. IOW, they are taking another load on their way back (illegal, but easy enough to pull off from what I have heard). But that is not the full issue. EU has been horrible about putting restraints on their taking of the Tuna. And those nations that do, simply look the other way when the ship is over.
What needs to happen is that ALL OF THE NATIONS that have fisheries need to protect these. It can not be so half ass anymore.
Just recently, Tuna was able to be bred. Prior to that, Tuna pretty much had to be caught in the wild. It would be nice to see DECENT aquaculture come to fruition.
Wow. What a warped perception of life. Not everything is based on per-capita. In fact, far far from it. If it is, please go to China and tell the leaders there to give up their mercedes and other items. Likewise, you need to quit emitting so much. Germany is still a VERY large polluter in the world. In fact, it is more than double China. So, why do you not quit living like you do, and give it to CHina?
Iran is not trying for Nuclear Energy. They are working on Nuclear bombs. BIG difference.
As to capping low end countries, ok, that makes sense to allow them to go up (i.e. those that are at ~0 Co2 / sq km should probably be allowed up). When I was thinking of the cap, I was thinking of Developed nations and those like China, Brazil, etc (which IS developed in terms of jobs, simply not of infrastructure).
Also, India is a MAJOR emitter (in total quantities and in terms of per sq km). It is only when looking at per capita that they are low.
First, this is not a tariff. A tariff is something is applied to IMPORTED GOOD ONLY.
Secondly, I WANT THEM TO APPLY IT TO US (would not matter; China's imports from Western nations is pretty much resources only); Heck, I want to see ALL NATIONS APPLY IT ALL GOODS. I would esp. like to see it applied to China AND America. We are the worst on this. America has 48% of electricity from coal and 18 % from Natural Gas (both are dropping). China has nearly 80% from Coal (and climbing fast) and 10% from Natural Gas (again climbing fast ). Likewise, Countries in EU are fighting emissions such as Germany and Poland. Apply this and EVERYBODY (politicians, Business, and citizens) have a strong incentive to drop their CO2.
But good luck getting the forced per capita emissions garbage. If you take that route, it will NEVER solve a thing, and the CO2 will continue. In fact, it will make things worse in the same way that Kyoto does. Right now, if everybody emitted at the same rate as what China PER CAPITA does, the world would have nearly 20% more CO2.
Why would you say that? Most nations of Africa are some of the lowest emitters. Right now, most would have little to no tax applied to their goods.
However, do you want them to industrialize with coal, and oil making things worse or do you want to use Nukes and Alternative Energy?
a problem with this statement is that according to "An Inconvenient Truth", the CO2 emissions per capita, and even on a total basis in India are much lower that those of the US
IIRC, there was a difference of 10 times in the per capita emissions b/w US and India
Except of course you are looking at per capita emissions, which is a worthless way of looking at things. The reason is that CO2 emissions is not just humans, but it is GDP, plants, etc.
IIRC, there was a difference of 10 times in the per capita emissions b/w US and India
Ideally, shouldnt all the countries have similar per capita emissions??
It would be nice, but that is not the 'fair' thing. I think that all countries should have similar per sq km emissions. Look at it this way. China is hurting for water, and it is about to hurt more. OTH, Russia is sitting on the LARGEST AMOUNTS of fresh water in the world. In fact, they have more than all of North America. And yet, Russia has a fairly small population. Should they be required to give up that water to China and India? Likewise, should the middle east be required to give up their oil? It is a small amount of ppl that own it. These would be fair in the same way. Likewise, China emits well over 1/2 of the mercury in the world (no pollution control and some of the worst coal in the world). The same is true of Sulfur oxides, etc. Far far more than their "fair share". SHould they be required to drop it all right now?
It gets better. There is ZERO chance of being able to get everybody to agree to any of this. So the answer is absolutely no.
Instead, max emissions should be tied to simply seeing how much emissions come from a region. And how to control it? Other nations are taxing your goods based on the CO2 from your air. Period. Then it is up to each nation to decide exactly how they want to control it. There can be no cheating on this.
Really? Please show me where "aging liberal hippie douches" are blocking Solar Farms or WInd farms. So far, about the ones that I have seen blocking these are those opposed to AE (under a pretext of caring about the environment). Now, a small minority do object to individual projects, but that is about certain locations. In general, the vast majority of the protesters against these projects are ppl like you; AC that lie.
So...basically...we're all going to die, and take the planet with us, right?
Not even close. We MAY kill ourselves (not likely, but possible), BUT the planet will continue. In fact, I imagine that some future race of lizards (or aliens) running around exploring our areas and commenting on how a toilet seat is actually a necklace, and the toilet is where we sacrificed to the gods (and when I was in my teens, that is pretty much what I did, like others).
So, how can we solve it?
The 2'nd above requires that it be a percentage based on how much CO2 is from your area based on sat measurements ( and skip the garbage about population; that is about spreading responsibility; it will not happen). In addition, it has to be known that the base amount will grow. BUT, by allowing other nations to clean up their act, they can lower the amount that they pay.
This is probably the ONLY fix for all this. WHy? Because it prevents politicians from cheating. It keeps pols from claiming that another nation is emitting more, and they will. The reason is that this is measurable by sats, it can be easily seen by all.
In addition, it takes into account ALL EMISSIONS. Want to lower it, but can not cut back on CO2 right now? Plants trees. Route the CO2 from cement and power plants to algae and greenhouses.
Until a nation has the courage to do this, nothing will change. It is only when ALL NATIONS have to partake, will it change things.
Hmmm. You DO realize where nearly all of our current hydrogen comes from. Yes? From the oil companies stripping it from Natural Gas. Basically, all of your current hydrogen cars ARE oil powered.
That is probably the best response on all these posts. The simple fact is, with money behind H2, it COULD pull it off. I have often thought that oil companies will not go down easily.
I'll take those fuel cells and raise you by more than 10x the li-ion I will also note that those fuel cells who were developed in the 80's have gone nowhere. In addition, I am guessing that not too many will want molten coke in their crafts or car.
First, how quiet is it? Can you place it say 200' over an enemy and not have them hear or feel it? If so, then yes, that should be the big winner. But, I would bet that you will lose that.
Also, do you think that the hummingbird can use less fuel than this? Again I doubt it. Keep in mind that these is intended for a place like Afghanistan where it costs money to bring fuel. You hummingbird will suck the fuel out in one trip, what this would use in a year.
hydrogen Fuel cells will ALWAYS be expensive.
Far more problematic, production and transportation of hydrogen will remain highly inefficient compared to battery or far more likely ultra-caps. Oddly, I have seen the pro-h2 side claiming that it is more efficient to build fueling stations in which the hydrogen is generated from water vs. batteries. So, now, they want to transmit the power the same distance and then convert, store locally, fuel a car, store on the car, convert to electricity vs. storing on a battery. Keep in mind that each step has lose of efficiency, and batteries are more efficient than any of the steps just mentioned (and one step vs 4).
The only issue will be energy density of a battery/ultra cap. And that is increasing rapidly. Even now, the lithium air with 10x increase in energy density over lithium ion, will likely take out all hopes of the fuel cell being a commercial success.
In general, Fuel cells (and oil powered engines) are going to lose out to batteries. Battery (and ultracaps) tech is improving at a quick rate. HOWEVER, at this time, hydrogen fuel cells will win out if you disregard costs. I have little doubt that this craft will costs more to build than will either battery or engine based, but it does something that the other 2 do not do; The demands of the job.
Actually, the world get more than 80% of its power from fossil fuels. After all, power includes cars, tractors, trucks, rail, planes, etc.
HOWEVER, if you are talking ELECTRICITY in US, America gets under 70% from fossil fuel AND it is slowly dropping.
The carp about Air from the engineers remains the same. They are saying that the efficiency of using air power inefficient. They are dead on the money. WHY would you want to put a system in place that is inefficient? There is heavy infrastructure costs associated with this. In the end, the costs of air will be far too high for countries to put this forward. Instead, the price of electric cars will go down.
BTW, what nation has a 70% renewable matrix, enlightended, and is developed?
Berkeley Engineers Have Some Bad News About Air Cars
Your reading comprehension sux
Odd. I was thinking the same of you. But hey, so many ppl do not read the articles, or the posts, so I guess that the subject is not worth it either.