GW/AGW/CC.....What Are We Doing......

[noggin]

Maybe this is not the big issue that I think it is, but, what is the point of all the hoo-hah (for want of a more suitable word)? What is going to happen if we don't change our ways? Are we all going to die horrible deaths by frying (global warming) or starvation (crop failure) or suffocation (air pollution) or drowning (rising sea levels)? Will we literally be powerless, with no electricity or gas and all the attendant catastrophic consequences of that?

The thing is that there is so much talk of carbon-this and carbon-that and melting ice caps and so on and so forth that I wonder if it has all become a self-feeding frenzy and that the point of it all, the purpose and aim of it all, has been lost and that instead of tackling the problem (whatever it may be) head-on, all that is being done is a bit of tinkering.

Take wind farms, for instance. They will never be able to produce a worthwhile amount of power, unless the country is covered with them and that would be an environmental disaster in itself.

Electric cars. Do they not use electricity instead of petrol or diesel? How is the electricity produced? Does it's production not involve the use of fossil fuels?

What is the purpose of it all? I feel that a great big HALT is required, to enable the powers-that-be to calmly and rationally ask themselves exactly what it is that they are trying to achieve and how they can best achieve it. If it is a cleaner, greener, more sustainable life on Earth, then stop piddling around paying lip service with silly initiatives like "carbon credits" and actually DO SOMETHING. Nuclear?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

The sustainability of our resources is definitely imo a bigger and more real issue that will face us quicker than any alleged armeggeddon climate changes that extremist AGW proponents predict (and which are tenuous to say the least). However the type of headless chicken approach to all this that you describe is hardly the way forward I would agree.

Nuclear power is certainly a more efficient energy source than wind farms etc. The principle of harnessing the power of nature is a good one, but in practice it meets too many problems like you describe and would be costly.

Yup tinkering with this and that would sum it up currently

[Methuselah]

Maybe this is not the big issue that I think it is, but, what is the point of all the hoo-hah (for want of a more suitable word)? What is going to happen if we don't change our ways? Are we all going to die horrible deaths by frying (global warming) or starvation (crop failure) or suffocation (air pollution) or drowning (rising sea levels)? Will we literally be powerless, with no electricity or gas and all the attendant catastrophic consequences of that?

I agree. And, as yet another 'Armageddon' falls by the wayside, an even more cynical Joe Public will result?

The thing is that there is so much talk of carbon-this and carbon-that and melting ice caps and so on and so forth that I wonder if it has all become a self-feeding frenzy and that the point of it all, the purpose and aim of it all, has been lost and that instead of tackling the problem (whatever it may be) head-on, all that is being done is a bit of tinkering.

True. IMO sustainability should be the overall aim.

Take wind farms, for instance. They will never be able to produce a worthwhile amount of power, unless the country is covered with them and that would be an environmental disaster in itself.

But, arguably, as a part of an integrated approach to renewables, one day, they MAY BE all that we are left with?

Electric cars. Do they not use electricity instead of petrol or diesel? How is the electricity produced? Does it's production not involve the use of fossil fuels?[

Good point. But isn't ONE source easier to control than 26 million individual sources?

What is the purpose of it all? I feel that a great big HALT is required, to enable the powers-that-be to calmly and rationally ask themselves exactly what it is that they are trying to achieve and how they can best achieve it. If it is a cleaner, greener, more sustainable life on Earth, then stop piddling around paying lip service with silly initiatives like "carbon credits" and actually DO SOMETHING. Nuclear?

I agree with using nuclear fission as a stop-gap. It may even give us enough time in which to harness fusion?

The sustainability of our resources is definitely imo a bigger and more real issue that will face us quicker than any alleged armeggeddon climate changes that extremist AGW proponents predict (and which are tenuous to say the least). However the type of headless chicken approach to all this that you describe is hardly the way forward I would agree.

Nuclear power is certainly a more efficient energy source than wind farms etc. The principle of harnessing the power of nature is a good one, but in practice it meets too many problems like you describe and would be costly.

Yup tinkering with this and that would sum it up currently

I agree. See my reply to noggin.

[Gray-Wolf]

In answer to your Q. Noggin, making things worse!

We had outstripped the IPCC projection for CO2 output within 2 years of the report being published.

We've flown many people many thousands of miles to sit in plush surroundings and debate what we should be doing.

We've promised to help developing nations clean up their energy production (like we've promised to help Africa over the years).

In short we are doing no more than confounding any impact our activities have on the planet by continuing to impact our planet in our thirst for resources.

I have spent 30 years mulling over our fate and have come to the conclusion (my own personal conclusion) that until the developed world is unmistakably impacted by a climate change event large enough to threaten it's continuance (in the way we are accustomed) then we will talk,obfuscate and dilly dally.

Even when (IMHO) we are faced with the unmistakable demise of the Arctic sea ice (in the proportions/volumes that were once taken as the 'norm') we still scratch around to find a way of questioning our own eyes/data so we can fillibuster some more.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

In answer to your Q. Noggin, making things worse!

We had outstripped the IPCC projection for CO2 output within 2 years of the report being published.

We've flown many people many thousands of miles to sit in plush surroundings and debate what we should be doing.

We've promised to help developing nations clean up their energy production (like we've promised to help Africa over the years).

In short we are doing no more than confounding any impact our activities have on the planet by continuing to impact our planet in our thirst for resources.

I have spent 30 years mulling over our fate and have come to the conclusion (my own personal conclusion) that until the developed world is unmistakably impacted by a climate change event large enough to threaten it's continuance (in the way we are accustomed) then we will talk,obfuscate and dilly dally.

Even when (IMHO) we are faced with the unmistakable demise of the Arctic sea ice (in the proportions/volumes that were once taken as the 'norm') we still scratch around to find a way of questioning our own eyes/data so we can fillibuster some more.

Nope

We will run out of resources without proper organisation and attention to matters long before your climate armeggeddon gets beyond a Hollywood disaster movie.

But sustainability is real issue that should be dealt with. I am all behind it. As Pete sort of alludes to, we should tackle a few valuable and most prioritised resources and make the best with those rather than a scattergun and half baked approach to everything under the sun.

[Gray-Wolf]

Nope

We will run out of resources without proper organisation and attention to matters long before your climate Armageddon gets beyond a Hollywood disaster movie.

In (my) reality NSSC we are close to the point that you will need to concede that we are beyond the remit of 'natural' (within the context of the past 10,000yrs of climate oscillations as we haul our butt's out of the last glaciation).

It amuses me that so many folk (in the developed world) are aware of the Mayan long count calendar and I'll predict that long before the 21st Dec 2012 we'll be regailed with scare stories about the (then) climate situation and the generally accepted interpretation of the end of this 'age'.

I'm a little more concerned about the number of christian fundalentalists who see 'Armegedon' fast approaching and feel it prudent to sit back and let 'god' have his day (our conections with the Witness creed make me aware that it's not just about those who get fast tracked to heaven but those left behind to populate post Armegedon Earth ).

[Methuselah]

If we achieve sustainability (in the way I see it) we will, of necessity, achieve carbon-neutrality as a by-product??

How much CO₂ will be produced by the very process of electrifying a railway line, for example? Add to that the amount produced by the continued use of diesel in the interim, and we have even more of the stuff than we would've had otherwise!

No, I agree with NSSC and Jethro. The demonization of CO₂ is creating a bandwaggon for 'I want to look Green' politicians to exploit. IMO, CO₂ is not THE problem. But, it certainly helps divert our attention away from addressing unsustainability...Which, arguably, is!

[Gray-Wolf]

CO2 was the starter motor. The engine is now running.

[Methuselah]

This sort technology could be part of a solution?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8165928.stm

[noggin]

No, I agree with NSSC and Jethro.

Pete......you're doing it again!

(With apologies to Jethro for nicking her line!)

[Methuselah]

Pete......you're doing it again!

(With apologies to Jethro for nicking her line!)

I was unwell on Saturday.

[Gray-Wolf]

It's energy Pete, we're stuck with what we have because it's some folk's 'business'.