Comments on: Global Warming: A Sputnik Moment?

By: RoHS Weee And China RoHS. | 7Wins.eu

RoHS Weee And China RoHS. | 7Wins.eu — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:20:03 +0000

[...] l, nofollow”>
eonEcon Foundation » RoHS: Restriction of Hazardous Substances DirectiveOpen Source » Blog Archive » Global Warming: A Sputnik Mo [...]

By: babu

babu — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 04:26:35 +0000

“Growth and CO2 reduction are antithetical.”

Thank you veracitatus. Our planet cannot support our western standard of living. There is no way around it.

By: veracitatus

veracitatus — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 03:55:11 +0000

Growth and CO2 reduction are antithetical. The belief that you can have a growth-oriented economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is nonsense.

A growth economy depends on increasing consumption of energy. Period. You can’t do more physical work with less energy expenditure. And here is the kicker. The alternative energy technologies do not have the ability to provide the kind of energy needed to sustain the economy, let alone allow for growth.

I don’t like to be one to rain on parades, but all this upbeat talk about sputnik moments is bunk. For example, gassification of coal, mentioned in the show, is a pathetic net energy source. When the governor called for conservation he was on target, but then going on to suggest that biofuels or coal gassification is going to provide anywhere near the level of net energy production as we get from oil is just plain bad information. He claimed we could “just pump the carbon dioxide into the earth.” Pure techno-hubris. (Then, of course, the truth behind his pushing coal came to the surface – his state, Montana, has lots of coal!)

I find it a serious problem that the people working on policy have no background in plain physics. Listeners should take a look at Energy Return of Energy Investment (ERoEI) on Wikipedia. Open your minds and learn some inconvenient truths.

What a world.

By: fractured.earth / “This is Open Source…”

fractured.earth / “This is Open Source…” — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 13:24:48 +0000

[...] ke to jump-start a Manhattan Project or Sputnik rocket for global warming? Hear about that here. An [...]

By: mdhatter

mdhatter — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 12:32:53 +0000

“What will it take to jump-start a Manhattan Project or Sputnik rocket for global warming?”

Well, the MP was to stop the germans and japanese, and apollo was to show up the russians,

If “the terrorists” could start driving hybrids, or the Taliban could go solar, then and only then would we have to escalate.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 10:38:36 +0000

One more influential person has taken on global climate change as a real issue – Sir David Attenborough. For the whole of his career he has not spoken out about global warming or the human contribution to it. Until recently that is. He wrote an incredibly compelling article in the Independent last week, and unfortunately I can not find a link to the entire text of the article. but here is a piece of it: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article570935.ece

I have been living in the UK for a few months now and it is amazing how often you hear talk about global warming and climate change in the media. It’s everywhere. If only American media would pick it up as well…

By: joel

joel — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 07:25:59 +0000

Goodness! All those words up there and all are nonsense since none have taken into consideration that when all people have the same standard of living, the standard of living will necessarily come down to the lowest common denominator. Those who once had better than that will not tolerate such a change. All those words are nonsense since none take into consideration that nothing can survive indefinitely while constantly growing and the more rapid the growth, and even worse, the more increasing the rapidity of growth, the sooner the extinction. This is true regardless how much conservation or preservation is practiced or how much the standard of living is reduced. The higher the standards, the less the population MUST be if the depletion of resources is to be kept constant, ie. not increased. The more increasing the depletion, the faster must be the population reduction if the time of survival is not to be shortened, ie. the time of extinction is not to be sooner. If, as unlikely as it is, all required resources can be managed to be sustainable, it will impose a use rate or recycle rate which will in turn impose a size of the population for any particular standard of living. The size of the population is now far larger than can be tolerated for the present use or recycle rate. A population of less than one tenth the present size might necessarily be much more appropriate.

Have a nice time, people.

Cheers.

By: rob hart

rob hart — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 02:49:22 +0000

Lets save the coal for a future ice age when we may need it to heat the climate back up. Not my idea, I think its from Arthur C. Clarke. Anyway, coal is too dirty, and costs too much to clean up, according to “The Weather Makers”. The author should know, apparently Australia produces more CO/2 per capita then we do since they depend on coal for most of their energy.

By: rob hart

rob hart — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 02:45:03 +0000

Here’s a response to the competition for conservation idea by the governor. How about comparing monthly home energy bills? example: a photovoltaic, solar hot water, and passive solar home energy bill might not exist except an iou from the energy producing company.

By: msestak

msestak — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 02:40:20 +0000

So ignoring scientists got us into the problem, surely ignoring scientists will get us out of the problem. Let the market find a solution, let politicians develop new policies to solve the problem. I think not. Why not a sputnik moment where we emphasize funding for both doing science and teaching science, especially science related to conservation. There is the same consensus of scientists that say global climate change is real and of human origin, that says conservation is the best, quickest solution. That is the real challenge.