The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The real threat of global warming > Comments

The real threat of global warming : Comments

By Walter Starck, published 27/8/2007

A global warming catastrophe will become a self-fulfilling prophesy if it leads us to do nothing to prepare for coming fuel shortages.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
NASA scientist James Hansen has said that we don't need to worry too much about CO2 from declining petroleum reserves so long as all coal burning is converted to emissions capture. Others point out that 'clean coal' is not yet viable and yet others say even coal will run out a lot earlier than we think. Coal-to-liquids has 2.3 times the well-to-wheel emissions of petrol and uses large amounts of land and water. It is more efficient to charge battery cars on electricity made from coal, particularly if the plants use combined cycle gasification or supercritical steam even without the bogus CO2 capture technology.

I believe the correct approach is to stringently cap coal use while at the same time encouraging the switch to gas and electricity in transport (via batteries, rail) as well as clean ways of generating that electricity. That way we can confront both warming and oil depletion though it won't be easy.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 27 August 2007 9:18:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I get a bit grumpy about how environmentalists like to pretend there are no economic impacts to their prognostications, while at the same time, economists seem to think that "the market" exists as something untouched by the economy. Both are wrong.

Global warming or climate change, as the author says, is still debatable, though we are certainly seeing more challenging weather events in recent years. But I contend that "climate change" or "global warming" is really only a symptom of the rise of the hydrocarbon driven population explosion that began in earnest with the start of the industrial revolution. (See David Strahan: The Last Oil Shock.)

In the manner in which we are expending the now rapidly depleting stocks of petroleum products, we are facing a known problem of trying to maintain a world population and a world economy which is based the widespread availability of cheap oil. Some dreamers talk about "steady-state economics", but I cannot see us willingly giving up our lifestyles to share with other nations. While it may be possible to plan a soft-landing for the world economy, the basic evolutionary drive of people to ensure the continuance of their DNA makes conflict seem inevitable.

You can bet that secret plans at places like the Pentagon have added population-driven doomsday scenarios into their strategic planning.
Posted by jimoctec, Monday, 27 August 2007 11:03:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a breath of fresh air Walter Stark is...unpolluted by fear of thinking outside of the Henny Penny 'sky is falling' mentality that is pervading the 'Global Warming' debate at present.

Taswegian, you've left out the real environmental winners in the bio-fuel options available...ethanol and bio-diesel. Renewable and environmentally beneficial as well as more practical than electricity. Seriously, how many kms. do you travel each day? This is a BIG country, with a rural and regional population that often travel many 100s of kms per day to perform such mundane tasks as taking children to schools and driving to shops and basic services. It is simply not practical to suggest that those outside of the city precincts could utilise electric vehicles...let alone have the time to sit around waiting for a re-charge along the way to town, if the facilities existed anyway.

A brief look at Brazil's recent environmental history, pre-and-post-ethanol shows the enormous environmental benefits achieved in that country through the use of mandatory ethanol blends in their fuel. (Presently over 20%) Larger Brazilian cities were in danger of having to be re-located or a solution found to the serious pollution problems existing just decades ago...the solution? Ethanol blends which cleaned up the fuel emissions at just 10% ethanol blends. A bonus was the enormous economic windfall that the country has experienced by not being so dependent on fossil fuels and supplying their own renewable fuels (and now exporting Ethanol, further improving their balance of payments figures).

Brazil has been an undisputed environmental success story and flex-fuel vehicles now allow ethanol blends up to 100% at the flick of a switch...Holden Australia manufactures flex-fuel cars for export to Brazil, yet BIG OIL and self-interested parties ensure that political donations keep the Australian public from benefiting from this environmental and economic success on our own shores.

White Board aside, previous ALP Minister, Roz Kelly supported a biofuels 'rally' of sorts which pitted various biofuel vehicles against one another, ethanol-based biofuels won EVERY catagory hands down.

(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 27 August 2007 11:11:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont...)

When developing and developed countries around the world have successfully adopted or are adopting ethanol blends, including Sweden, USA, India, Japan, China, Germany, Brazil and numerous others, the question is how long will political donations to all the major parties, from self-interest groups, prevent governments and oppositions in Australia from recognising and adopting the obvious and practical alternatives to fossil fuels?

As a renewable fuel, ethanol is carbon neutral, i.e., burning ethanol produces equivalent CO2 as is absorbed in the crops it is produced from. Additionally, by replacing fossil fuels with biofuels and using renewable fuels at all stages of ethanol or biofuel production, CO2 emissions can be reduced by a factor of 5.

Immunologist, Dr Ray Kearney has documented frightening medical results from what he calls the 'new asbestos' (fossil fuel motor vehicle emissions)...a 10% ethanol blend can reduce dangerous tailpipe emissions like carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, toluene, benzene, etc. by around 50%.

We are in danger of repeating another Y2K fiasco and instead of wasting $3 Trillion, a massive $42 Trillion has already been committed to more Global Warming theorising...will it achieve anything? Or will it merely be wasted on endless conferences and employ otherwise superficial academics or self-appointed 'experts' who swan around looking for the next easy taxpayer buck to jump on the bandwagon to acquire?

Walter Stark, like Ray Kearney, on the other hand...seems to devote endless hours and research on a voluntary basis, to ensure the general public has facts rather than only the dramatised theory and propaganda promoted by the media and others looking to fabricate a sensation.
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 27 August 2007 11:13:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Congratulations on an excellent article. Being the skeptic that I am, I am also skeptical whether we will need fuel-from-coal technology for some time to come, but there is certainly no harm in having it to hand.

In any case, the forecasts concerning global warming are just that - forecasts. Further they are forecasts made from what amounts to only fragmentary knowledge - at best - of how climate works. Yet, a number of eminent scientists are claiming that there is a degree of certainty attached to the forecasts!

Time for more scepticism.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 27 August 2007 11:23:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have been very encouraged by this article, and especially from posts such as the one from jirnotec.

The key to the whole problem is population. That of the first world has stabilised, but that of the third world is set to double in the next 25 years.

Any action to deal with the end of cheap oil and possible global warming that does not include action to limit the third world population increase is simply urinating into the breeze.

Unfortunately, the only issue on which both the Vatican and the muslim world agree is that no action must be taken to restrict population growth. For some reason, while all and sundry are beating their breasts about our guilt, population is never mentioned. This is why I consider it to be just a media beat-up.

It is also obvious that countries like China have only made progress because they took action on population.

The thing for the first world to do is to tell the third world that unless they take action, all aid will be cut off.

The simplest action, with which the first world can assist, is to educate young third world women, as the number of children they bear is inversely proportional to their education.

The alternative is for the population problem to be addressed by the four horsemen of the apocalypse - war, famine, pestilence and death.

Unfortunately, most third world countries equate population control with genocide.
Posted by plerdsus, Monday, 27 August 2007 12:58:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy