21–27 of 27 posts
I'm a bit surprised at the negative tone of the articles. Yes, it's unproven that this will work as a fix for global warming. But what better way to find out than by running a large experiment? (This isn't just some crackpot theory, real scientists have looked into it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_fertilization ) I've noticed two divergent environmental movements lately. The "do nothing" crowd that doesn't like…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. The "do nothing" crowd IMHO makes things worse "Nuclear is bad", "Wind will kill the birds", "Hydro is evil", etc, etc, guess what, countries will use coal then. There's also the "not economically viable" crowd, that rejects anything if it "costs" more than oil (usually under fallacious arguments and/or ignoring some oil costs and/or inflating alternative energy costs. Every activity causes an impact. Deal with…
I was with you until the "cost more than oil" line. My reasoning on that is the third world is going to need large amounts of energy to boost themselves to everyone else's standard of living. Like India and China, they are going to use the same, proven sources we did unless the alternatives are cheaper to implement and just as reliable. It isn't a do nothing attitude, its a realistic assessment based on human behavio…
Your reasoning is right, I don't think alternatives will pick up in developing countries first (unless it's something really groundbreaking that's being overlooked, or something specific)
The problem I see with some opinions is the attitude of "oil is best" without considering specifics. For example, wind power may be more expensive, but there may be a case that for powering something in the middle of China it may be cheaper, since oil has to be transported there.
Also, electric cars, "oh they are useless since our power plants are coal/gas based". Yes, but tomorrow they may be powered by something else.
I'm a bit surprised at the negative tone of the articles. Yes, it's unproven that this will work as a fix for global warming. But what better way to find out than by running a large experiment? (This isn't just some crackpot theory, real scientists have looked into it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_fertilization ) I've noticed two divergent environmental movements lately. The "do nothing" crowd that doesn't like…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was with you until the "cost more than oil" line. My reasoning on that is the third world is going to need large amounts of energy to boost themselves to everyone else's standard of living. Like India and China, they are going to use the same, proven sources we did unless the alternatives are cheaper to implement and just as reliable. It isn't a do nothing attitude, its a realistic assessment based on human behavio…
Three Gorges dam? Your reasoning is right, I don't think alternatives will pick up in developing countries first (unless it's something really groundbreaking that's being overlooked, or something specific) The problem I see with some opinions is the attitude of "oil is best" without considering specifics. For example, wind power may be more expensive, but there may be a case that for powering something in the middle…
Their might be local bests for non-oil, just like there are in the US, but overall oil gives a well-understood, cheap playbook.
Electric cars are more problematic because they are more costly than gas vehicles (I still don't get this, but lookup new car prices). Limited range and utility are other problems.
I am very hopeful. It looks like railroads in the US are going to move to natural gas (I submitted the article a couple of days ago) which will cut down the emissions. I would imagine when the quickly rechargeable battery shows up , its all going to change.
I'm a bit surprised at the negative tone of the articles. Yes, it's unproven that this will work as a fix for global warming. But what better way to find out than by running a large experiment? (This isn't just some crackpot theory, real scientists have looked into it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_fertilization ) I've noticed two divergent environmental movements lately. The "do nothing" crowd that doesn't like…
It is a lie that any serious environmentalist is against wind energy because of bird mortality.
It doesn't take much looking to prove that they aren't in fact that. But few people look, and so it's a great cover for both NIMBYs and entrenched interests.
Algal blooms != algal growth. Algal growth is healthy for the ocean, marine life and the oxygen breathing carbon based life forms inhabiting the land masses of the planet.
Algal blooms on the other hand, have none of those characteristics, can lead to anoxia in the area of the bloom, which kills marine life and results in the algae decomposing back into CO2.
"History is full of examples of ecological manipulations that backfired." You mean like extracting billions of barrels of oil a day and burning them? We're already manipulating the environment. This is what I wish we were discussing in the global warming debate in the U.S. - not whether global warming was happening, but conservation versus mitigation/adaptation.
You mean like extracting billions of barrels of oil a day and burning them? We're already manipulating the environment.
-- This is so Ironic. The manipulation here is the Carbond credit system. That is why this guy is pouring crap in the Ocean. He is trying to score points on it. The carbon credit system is (therefore) the root cause/problem. So, I don't think you're argument is going per-se where you want it to go.