ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Here is an interesting 'unintended consequence' that might fit into the original (and recent) question about investment opportunities:
http://tinyurl.com/2c3ty5
That chart (directly from the IPCC site), indicates that a 'clean' power plant (one that captures CO2) uses about 25-30% *more* fuel than a standard power plant. So, the idea of sequestering CO2 is somewhat at odds with energy conservation. Could that make oil and coal *good* investments?
So, I think it is reasonable to really question if these efforts will help. There is a price to pay, not only in $$, but the environmental impact of obtaining the additional fossil fuel.
I don't think the IPCC claims are a slam-dunk on the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC#Contributors
So, a 90% confidence that more than half of the global warming is due to human actions.
And we can only mitigate the damage to a degree.
And, that mitigation comes at a price (some of it an environmental price).
To me, that means we should have a reasonable understanding of just how much 'good' a given solution can provide, versus the 'cost' of that solution. IOW, prioritize and evaluate the solutions. This is not something our politicians are good at. They like high profile, 'look, I'm doing something', sound-bite type solutions.
I am somewhat hopeful that the problems won't be quite as bad as we currently think, that technology will provide some solutions despite the political interventions, and that we will be able to adapt to the changes that do occur.
And where did Al Gore get that 20 foot rise in sea level he dramatizes in "Inconvenient Truth"? The largest number I see in the IPCC report is 35" (.9M) which was revised downward to a max of 23 inches in the 2004 report. Does exaggerating by a factor of ten still count as 'truth'? Or was 20 feet just a 'convenient' number to use? He seems to draw on the consensus of the experts when it fits his needs, and then choses to ignore the consensus when it does not make such a dramatic video. 20 feet is much more dramatic than 23 inches (max).
-ERD50
http://tinyurl.com/2c3ty5
That chart (directly from the IPCC site), indicates that a 'clean' power plant (one that captures CO2) uses about 25-30% *more* fuel than a standard power plant. So, the idea of sequestering CO2 is somewhat at odds with energy conservation. Could that make oil and coal *good* investments?
So, I think it is reasonable to really question if these efforts will help. There is a price to pay, not only in $$, but the environmental impact of obtaining the additional fossil fuel.
I don't think the IPCC claims are a slam-dunk on the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC#Contributors
# Warming of the climate system is unequivocal
# Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations
# Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.[9], although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18)[10]
* Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3]
So, a 90% confidence that more than half of the global warming is due to human actions.
And we can only mitigate the damage to a degree.
And, that mitigation comes at a price (some of it an environmental price).
To me, that means we should have a reasonable understanding of just how much 'good' a given solution can provide, versus the 'cost' of that solution. IOW, prioritize and evaluate the solutions. This is not something our politicians are good at. They like high profile, 'look, I'm doing something', sound-bite type solutions.
I am somewhat hopeful that the problems won't be quite as bad as we currently think, that technology will provide some solutions despite the political interventions, and that we will be able to adapt to the changes that do occur.
And where did Al Gore get that 20 foot rise in sea level he dramatizes in "Inconvenient Truth"? The largest number I see in the IPCC report is 35" (.9M) which was revised downward to a max of 23 inches in the 2004 report. Does exaggerating by a factor of ten still count as 'truth'? Or was 20 feet just a 'convenient' number to use? He seems to draw on the consensus of the experts when it fits his needs, and then choses to ignore the consensus when it does not make such a dramatic video. 20 feet is much more dramatic than 23 inches (max).
-ERD50