Contraversal!?!

[Tom]

I was trying to think, there are many very intelligent people on this forum (and me) and I was wondering what you people wouldn't know about but would create some great discussions.
Well apparently the US are acusing the Brits of exagerating global warming and this is something that links with motoring and will affect us all.

Your views please, be it on alternative fuels, hurricanes, anything.

[Spyker MF1]

I think they should stop chopping down the amazon and have the engines that are petrol and electric

[tomislavp4]

Well the US (and others) should stop making misles, big bombers and other kind of weapon and then acuse others Just think how much gases go out of the B2 for example

[bhall]

When thinking of the U.S. views on global warming, it's helpful if you separate our moron of a president from the rest of us. He's a corporate crony who thinks environmental protection is too expensive to be forced upon the business world.

Fortunately, 65% of Americans disagree, and W's time in office is finally winding down to his last two years. If all goes well with the Congressional election on Nov 7th, it's possible the rest of the world could see a fairly dramatic shift in U.S. policy on the environment, and elsewhere for that matter.

But it's obvious that global warming is a problem that will have to be dealt with. I think we're either right on the outer edge of the "point of no return," or that it's already too late and we're just going to have to figure out how to adapt to deal with it.

It's really quite sad.

[tomislavp4]

Our biggest mistake are the cars. We can drive electric vehicles but we don´t, why??? OK they are not as fast as the ones we now drive but after few years they will be equal.
Or if we want performance we can use hydrogen in internal combustion engines.
In my opinion H is the fuel of the future because it´s very easy to produce. You need just a water and electricity to make it.

[Jagboy]

In my opinion H is the fuel of the future because it´s very easy to produce. You need just a water and electricity to make it.

I totally agree, but where does that electricity come from? The difference it would make would be limited if the electricity was made by burning fossil fuels. In comes nuclear energy, but I have such limited knowledge of that technology that I won't discuss it.

Also, I think you should rephrase your question to ask what human's impact on global warming is. The world's climate goes through warm and cool cycles like an economy goes through booms and recessions. When the climate moves from a cool average to a warm average, the globe warms. Hence 'global warming.' This has taken place many times throughout the earth's history including parts of history before humans were around. Because of this the question changes from "is global warming happening" to "is this a normal warming cycle or are humans creating a dramatic climate shift."


JB

[zac510]

Tom, good of you to bring this up. It has been something that has been huge in the UK for the last week and a bit due to Energy Savings Week, but inparticular something that the UK is keen on anyway. Certainly a good thing and I wish Australia cared as much as the UK does.

Even if no advanced level action is being taken, by which I mean laws being passed, etc, the fact that it is in the public conscience and being discussed should put people in the right frame of mind. Whether we are to blame for warming or not we are incredibly wasteful and must change our ways to help the planet cope with 6 billion inhabitants.

Did you hear the news/radio report last night suggesting that to ignore global warming could cost billions and potentially be criminally neglient? If you think about it from an engineering perspective then it makes perfect sense. To increase the efficiency by whatever means will net gains in the long run. If only people could see that for themselves.

[Ted68]

I agree, W is a corporate stooge. But he's no idiot. He plays that up because he got in on the Bubba vote. And I think that history will prove this administration to be one of the most corrupt.


As for global warming due to green house gasses, remember that under Clinton we formed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Whereby American and Canadian companies relocated factories to Mexico and ship the goods back to market here. The jobs that went south are largely there because they would not pass environmental scrutiny here. It would be cheaper to move south and do things the dirty way and let the Mexican government tax them than to stay in America/Canada and bring things up to code. The products and pollution are made in Mexico, and the profits counted in America/Canada. So, technically the US has cleaned up greatly in the last ten years, but it's splitting hairs and is wrong.


Bhallg2k is right. America is tired of the BS that our politicians are giving us and there are changes looming. Our biggest problem is that once you strip the family values and tax rhetoric from them, Democrats and Republicans are the same. Greedy and self serving.

What we need is a soft revolution like we had in the sixties to effect some real change. The rift between Left and Right is so great that all issues are distorted. The only reason any issues are debated are to pull votes which os used to regain more political clout to win more elections to stay in power. The issues themselves don't matter. Abortion, Gay Marriage, Global Warming, Gun control are all hot button topics to keep the fringe elements in lock step with the party line to keep the party in power.

The fact that nothing ever gets accomplished despite which party is in power seems to go unnoticed as the blame game keeps everyone distracted long enough for the politicos to line their pockets. And it has been going on so long that Bush and Cheney's clan is comfortable doing it in public. And the Democrats are just as bad, they just use a different type of distraction. --- them both, we need something new.

So to answer your question Tom, you live in Scotland. They don't give a --- what you think anymore than they care what I think. All they are doing is pointing a finger away from them selves so that the mass of Americans will look elsewhere to blame the Global Warming on something other than themselves so that they can insulate themselves for five minutes from answering a question. Yep, that means if you didn't buy that BS excuse, he's got a million of 'em, take your pick...

[tomislavp4]

-I totally agree, but where does that electricity come from?

Why don´t have a solarcells on every roof?
Or those things that make electricity from the wind in your backyard?
I don´t think that this is normal warming cycle, it just feels unnatural. I don´t even know what to say...

[Saribro]

Why don´t have a solarcells on every roof?
Or those things that make electricity from the wind in your backyard?
I don´t think that this is normal warming cycle, it just feels unnatural. I don´t even know what to say...

Quite right. Predictions, and even a few trends, are going away from big production+distribution to much more localised, even personal production, complemented with more traditional distribution. Micro-plants (think wastebin-size) for central heating that use excess heat to generate electricity adds another cut to the need to transport your energy, and thus less loss from the transportation.
Solar cells are a good example, others are wells for rainwater for your toilets/washing machine/garden sprinklers/..., solar panels to heat swimmingpoolwater (essentially black cases with a glass plate and tubes of water + greenhouse-effect). Other things, such as double glasing and good insulation in your house can really cut down the need for energy (which would be used by airco/heating otherwise).
The downside to it all, of course, is that it's usually more expensive, so few people are willing to go with it. I'm not even touching on the common sense things such as not leaving the window open while the heating is on and stuff.

[DaveKillens]

The world environmental issue starts from the office of the president of the USA, Mr Bush. He is in total denial about the environment, his idea of conservation is selling mining rights in ecologically sensitive areas. In fact, he refuses to view a movie about global warming because it may cloud his mind.
There are many methods of obtaining low pollution renewable energy sources. Solar energy, wind power, hydro-electric, geothermal, to name a few. My pet project is fusion energy, being developed by the ITER project http://www.iter.org/.
But as long as the political will is weak, or even resists, change cannot come. it takes lots of time, money, and political commitment to make these technologies realistic alternatives. And the brutal fact is that the oil companies spend billions in Washington making sure politicians seek out only oil as the present alternative to power supply.

[G-Rock]

I think that "Global Warming" is flawed expression that can be debated and debated, some blame in on human activity, some blame it on sun flares etc. What we really should be concentrating on is "Global CO2 Emissions Balance" That's something quantifiable that cannot be disputed because we know how much oil, trees, garbage, natural gas (all of which were being stored underground) we are burning. What we don't know is how much CO2 is absorbed by trees, soil, oceans etc. Therefore we have to figure out a way to balance these emissions with what the planet can absorb and everything will fall into place. Leave the the global warming out of it, it just opens up an endless, unconstructive debate. Even if global warming is just a natural cycle, pumping billions of tonnes of excess C02 into the air should not be overlooked.

[zac510]

Well said G-Rock.
The Earth may be able to sustain 1, or 2 billion people but 5 and definitely 6 is far too many.
Unless we decrease the amount of emissions we each produce.

[flynfrog]

Before every one goes off on a alternative energy binge look at a few facts

Solar - takes more energy to make the cells than they will give out in there life time not to mention they are horibly bad to dispose of

hydrogen - not verry energy dense hard to store expensive to make (it takes water boat loads of electricty) so you are buring alot of coal also we are making it form methane right now dumping all of the other parts of methane into the atmosphere

electic cars- electricty has to come form some where not to metnion that lithum batteries are not very good to throw away.


Ive been building and racing solar ars for 5 years i can tell you there is no easy answer

IMO we can be alot more efficnt with our gasloine enegines look how much wasted heat comes off of one.

also bio disel is showing alot of promise where im at makes much more sense than corn ethanol.


Im not saying oil is a great solution but compared to the alternatives we have now its still not to bad

[manchild]

Main pollution and cause of many diseases = nuclear tests conducted from 1945 to present days. Just try adding radiation from at least all know nuclear explosion together and you'll see that pollution from cars is a joke compared to nukes.

For example, nuclear bombs thrown in Japan were tiny compared with amount of radiation from Chernobyl.

Chernobyl released 890 times as much caesium-137 as the Hiroshima bomb, released 87 times as much strontium-90 as the Hiroshima bomb and when the iodine-131 release is compared between the events (decay corrected to three days after the event) then Chernobyl released 25 times as much as the Hiroshima bomb. When the xenon-133 release is compared between the events (decay corrected to three days after the event) then Chernobyl released 31 times as much as the Hiroshima bomb.

Air traffic is something different. I remember reading one old analysis which said that one 747 pollutes as much as 1500 cars. Multiply flights per day with 1500 and compare that with number of cars in use AND, most important of all remember that airplanes don't have catalysts.

Sorry for the post with no particular order