Colinsett

Thanks for the input.
Ericc’s posts may “contain material pertinent to the issue at hand”, but it certainly wasn’t obvious – I had to search previous postings from him – many wouldn’t.

I agree with you, we cannot tackle climate change in isolation. The answers to our problems are going to be found in how we adapt, how we mitigate against GHG emissions – these are the drivers. But, we clearly need political leaders with a vision (see my original post) and the answers must of necessity include debate of government policies, such as that (not clearly) raised by Ericc. Not entirely off topic.

We educated and industrialised nations in the West 150 yrs ago started to drive the AGW problem in a big way. How do we know this? Isotope analysis has proven CO2 from industrialised activity is the driving force behind the current climate change and 80% of CO2 hangs around in the troposphere for ~ 100 yrs. There is a lag effect between CO2 concentration and average global temperature.

It is the greedy and consumerism driven society that we are part of that has caused the problem. Today, most of the things we buy come from China – its “cheap” – we are driving China’s economic growth. Now the repressive policies of communism have been overturned (not necessarily a bad thing), China wants what we have – it’s difficult, but should we deny them the things that we want and expect? Should not we change our own behaviour and attitudes? Yes (this is where I suspect Ericc is coming from – but to target the baby bonus, skip a generation (or three) or encourage humans to stop breathing? While it might fix the problem of AGW – well, you get my point.

So; what about geothermal, solar-thermal, tidal, nuclear, et al?

As per previous post, I believe that thermal power is our best bet. With the exception of nuclear power it is the only one that can provide us a with base power load. Certainly, solar power and wind / tidal power can support the base power source and as time goes on and technology gives us better ability to store power, they may be able to provide base power loads - but not yet. Secondly, we need a power source that can be applied across the globe and is cost effective in all global economies. We must keep in mind that the problem we face is a global problem and although national considerations are important, we are for the fist time dealing with a 'global village issue'.

Finally, I hope this is not off thread but one aspect that we don't hear much about is the issue of transmitting power. We loose a lot of energy in this process and it must be considered, especially where some of these new power sources are optionally located some distance from the main grids.

As per previous post, I believe that thermal power is our best bet. With the exception of nuclear power it is the only one that can provide us a with base power load. Certainly, solar power and wind / tidal power can support the base power source and as time goes on and technology gives us better ability to store power, they may be able to provide base power loads - but not yet. Secondly, we need a power source that can be applied across the globe and is cost effective in all global economies. We must keep in mind that the problem we face is a global problem and although national considerations are important, we are for the fist time dealing with a 'global village issue'.

Finally, I hope this is not off thread but one aspect that we don't hear much about is the issue of transmitting power. We loose a lot of energy in this process and it must be considered, especially where some of these new power sources may be optimally located some distance from the main grids.

I agree, solarthermal & geothermal are probably the most desirable
sources of energy that are likely to be available.
I understand that the Liddel power station solarthermal system is
already producing steam and expects to start augmenting the steam
supply of the station quite soon.

Nuclear has possibilities, it is a proven system but has long install
times.
The solution for energy can only be for electricity generation by whatever system.
There are just too many problems of manufacturing and supply
for solar cells unless someone comes up with a significant breakthrough
in materials.
Forget about ethanol and similar fuels, they require too muh energy
input and anyway I would rather eat than drive.
Just today, someone was warning that our food prices will be adversly
affected not just by the drought but also by the US ethanol producers.

davsab thanks for your comments. Note: sarcastic and vitriolic are not the same. Sarcastic and flippant are closer.

The reason for my sarcasm was to make my point in a different way than I have in past postings, to see if a new way of making the point would attract any interest. As with previous postings it is not of much interest. Population stabilisation is too difficult a subject for most people.

Question: "Why are environmentalists brave enough to chain themselves to trees when bulldozers are bearing down on them, brave enough to stand in front of Japanese whaling harpoons to protect whales and brave enough to break into polluters factories to take photos and collect water samples, but afraid to admit publically that population stabilisation is important in solving environmental problems?"

Thanks for your support Colin.

Ericc

Many people do not really understand what it means to be an environmentalist.

Everyone should be an environmentalist, all else follows.

Environmentalists can come from diametrically opposed backgrounds, see Arnold Swartzenegger and Al Gore – respectively actor turned Republican and Democrat turned actor – both very ardent environmentalists.

Your question on population stabilisation must then become one of “why isn’t everyone doing something about this very important issue?” You’ve answered – “population stabilisation is too difficult a subject for most people”. More, it is a very complex issue (health, education, culture, resources, etc).

The ‘developed’ world has caused a GW problem. The ‘developing’ world is supplying our wants while at the same time wanting for themselves what we have. This is not environmentally sustainable – we need 5 planet Earths to satisfy our current wants – we (humanity) must change our ways – the difficulties will be how.

It is projected that world population (now ~ 7 billion) will stabilise at about ~ 9 billion by 2050, but hey, pick any number – that is still too much for this planet to support by continuing the way we do things. We can’t nuke a couple of billion in China, wipe America off the map or pretend Africa doesn’t exist – we (humanity) have to change the ways we do things.

Ericc, things are happening (with or without our illustrious PM – it would be better if he came on board of course).

The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) is responsible for monitoring the implementation of Agenda 21; an international blueprint that outlines actions that ALL governments, international organisations, industries and communities can take to achieve sustainability. These actions recognise the impacts of human behaviours on the environment and on the sustainability of systems of production.

The objective of Agenda 21 is the alleviation of poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy worldwide while halting the deterioration of ecosystems which sustain life. This is and of itself dealing with population issues.

True environmentalists are not afraid to admit publicly that population stabilisation is important in solving environmental problems.

Cheers