Artful Dodger: We shouldn't pick on Mom like this. She's had a tough life. Earth is basically just a rock with stuff growing on it, but don't tell Ma earth that.. she's kinda gettin up there in years, and don't always know whats a going on.

Artful Dodger: Anytime I think ol' ma earth is actually speaking to me, I know it's probably time to up the dosage.. (I post, therefore I am on lyme)

Blimey.... people that think our Planet can't be upset by our existence. Maybe they should remember Castle Bravo and the Bikini islands.

Oh.. The islands have been deemed uninhabitable due to radiation poisoning. Maybe the radiation dosage was a little high.

I mean... a few extra billion tons of CO2 or other chemicals (agent Orange for one) have no effect on us at all...... N' if you believe that then you might as well believe in the Easter Bunny.

After we fix the CO2 crises, then we can take on the other gases. Water vapor alone accounts for about 95% of all (that's right, all) designated gasses attributed to causing the greenhouse effect (hence the name "greenhouse"), but I think maybe we should leave that one alone. However, it shouldn't take long to reduce the remaining trace gasses that have been giving so many ppl here the vapors.. pun intended.

Iamon lyme: Are you sure.... I understand that water vapour (actual percentage between 36% and 85%) lasts just for a few days, while CO2 can go for centuries.

Maybe people need to check more the validity of those they read saying nay to our impact on this world. So many big businesses are just interested in the next few years of profit and not the long term effect on our planet and our descendants.

Oh well. money is more important than the planet, it's just one planet in billions.

Yes we laugh at such paranoia.

Of course, those who do not believe that CO2 is bad could explain to people whether smog in cities is bad or not. After all, all that smog is coming from motor vehicles, factory exhausts, HVAC systems, etc. I wonder if those who think that global warming is a joke would agree that living in polluted cities is good. Well, it is easier to say that global warming is a hoax than to accept that reducing energy consumption and waste is necessary. I wonder if those who are trying to debunk global warming ever got money from oil companies.

"One of the biggest opponents of action on global warming has been the fossil fuels energy industry, and particularly the oil industry, such as ExxonMobil, which regularly publishes papers minimizing the threat of global warming. In 1998, the company started providing financial support to organizations and individuals who disagreed with the scientific consensus that human activities were contributing to climate change. One of the groups that received funds from the company was the Competitive Enterprise Institute. ExxonMobil also helped create the "Global Climate Science Team" whose members were active climate contrarians. According to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil dispersed roughly $16 million to organizations that were challenging the scientific consensus view. After heavy criticism from the press and environmental groups in late 2006 and early 2007, ExxonMobil began distancing itself from these organizations.
In 2005, the oil giant opposed a shareholders' resolution to explain the science behind its denial of global warming."

What a coincidence what Exxon (the biggest cotributor to the Bush election campaigns, and biggest profiteer in Iraq) wqould fork out money to oppose global warming.

Artful Dodger:

> It's not worth ruining our economy over something that isn't necessary.

Is it your economy or Exxon's economy? Who benefits from oil consumption and who makes the profit?

hahahaha...

http://www.graveyardofthegods.net/articles/cantprovenegative.html

People don't get the problem with global warming. It is not floods, or tornadoes, or temperture extremes, or melting of ice caps, or sea levels. All of that is important, but not the key. The real problem is one of the vapor pressure of water. Near room temperature (25 degrees celcius) an increase of 1 degree leads to an increase of 5 to 8% in the vapor pressure of water. That means that water evaporates at a rate 5 to 8% higher just by increasing the temperature 1 degree Celcius. If the entire atmosphere of the planet increases in temperature by 1 degree Celcius, then evaporation of water from the top soil will increase by 5 to 8%. That means that the soil will become drier than it already is. That spells a catasprophe in agricultural terms because some of the most fertile areas of the Earth (the Prairies) will yield a lot less grain if soil humidity decreases. This will lead to a terrible shortage of grain worldwide. As it is, grain prices are already at an all time high. A furthe increase will leave hundreds of million of people hungry. We will see famine on a scale that has not been seen since the 19th century. That is the real problem with global warming, the spectre of famine. Sea levels and ice caps are nice to worry about, but nobody seems to worry much about the poor of the world who will go hungry if something is not done. The problem is that those who speak of global warming do it from their own comfortable middle calss stance, and those oil, gas and coal companies that oppose global warming do it thinking only of their profit without caring about the fate of the poor. Nobody wants to talk about this because in our capitalist world thinking of the poor goes against individualistic, selfish profits for individuals.

Artful Dodger:

> you are so naive. Who do you think is driving the green energy? Non profits?

Let me see ... Who should profit from my hard-earned money? A company that pollutes more or one that pollutes less? I guess giving my money to oil companies that pollute more is OK. At least that is what right-wingers seem to think. If a solar-power company makes a profit it must be really bad compared to how many billions fossil fuel companies make.

Yes, i am naive for thinking that if the world is capitalist, those companies that want to clean it up should make a profit in preference to those that want to pollute it more. But then, Exxon never gave money to your anti-climate change experts.

Artful Dodger:

> Conservatives give of their own money.

Is that so? When Ronald Regan caused the largest percent increase in the deficit and the national debt, was he giving away "conservative money" or "liberal money"? What about Bush? When he bankrupted the American economy, did he give away "conservative money"? Get real, for all their talk, right wingers have caused the largest increases in the deficit and the national debt. Their "tax breaks" did not save the economy, they just sank it into a deeper hole.

> Liberals want to take money from others and distribute it. That is what most liberals mean by heart.

Yes, it is terrible to tax the rich and give to the poor. I mean, it is horrible to help poor people. We should just let them all starve to death. Then when they are poor and desperate we can have a revolution and let the communists take over. For all of their talk, right-wingers are incapable of admitting that without social programs that "redistribute wealth" we would have massive social unrest. If anything, all those social programs arose in order to stop communism from continuing to expand and gain support among the poor.

> Look at the Geek. He's so happy to vilify the big oil companies. Are those of you on the left so foolish to really believe that there isn't billions to be made on green energy as well? Even while the promises of going green are bigger than the reality, those in the green business are just as bad, if not worse, than those in the big oil companies. Only a completely gullible person would think a green CEO isn't in it for the money.

Like I said, who deserves my hard-earned cash, a polluter or a cleaner. You tell me. Do you truly believe that a company that encourages pollution (like Exxon has done by giving money to anti-climate change "experts") deserves your hard-earned dollars?

Yes, "Green CEOs" are in it for the money. This is supposed to be capitalism, or should the state openly work for the benefit of oil companies like the Bush admnistration did? Oh, just to remind myself, what does Arbusto Energy mean, who worked for Haliburton, who worked for Chevron? Should the state favor companies that pollute more or companies that pollute less?

Artful Dodger:

> green energy can't produce anything without some sort of pollution for one.

Every industrial activity pollutes. The question is, what pollutes more or less? Green energy also generates pollution and waste. But does it produce more than fossil fuels? What is more desirable more or less pollution?

> And for two, there isn't ANY efficient green energy that can supply energy needs to huge populations. Period.

Can green energy outdo fossil fuels? It depends on environmental factors. In cold, long, dark winters it can't. In sunny, warm and temperate climates solar energy is viable. In other places wind turbines might be more appropriate, as could harnessing energy from tides, volcanoes, crops that produce ethanol or methanol.

The problem we face is that the fossil fuel industry wants no competition. They want to retain their energy monopoly. People who promote green energy are not blind or dumb. The objective is not to destroy the oil industry. The objective is to reduce the amount of fossil fuel consumed to a sustainable level, rather than continue to increase the atmospheric concentration of pollutants. The public perception has shifted. People now want to see changes in the way we generate energy. "Drill, drill, drill" might have found resonance several years ago. Now people wonder "Drill and pollute what?"

In the future all this pollution will cause problems of agricultural production and human health. Trying to save plant and animal species is important. However, the real problem is going to be drier top soil, drought, desert expansion, and reduced grain production. That is the human impact of global warming. Like I said, 1 degree Celcius means 5 to 8% increase in the rate of water evaporation from the soil. The middle class will simply pay more for food. The poor will starve because they won't be able to afford it. We are not the ones who will pay the price. It is young people 50 years from now who will suffer and have to deal with the mess we leave behind. I certainly don't want my grandchildren to live in a wolrd like that.

Artful Dodger:

> The reason is sounds like a hoax is because it is a hoax.

OK, let's say that global warming is a hoax. Does that mean that it is ok to continue to release carbon dioxide and other pollutants in the way we are doing now? Is it OK to continue to increase gas emissions from fossil fuels? It is a hoax, does that mean it is OK to continue polluting?

Artful Dodger:

> I know that there are BILLIONS of dollars just waiting for green energy producers. They are no different than other so-called greedy fossil fuel energy companies. And in spite of what the Geek claims, the question isn't between an energy source that produces LESS pollution, it's about one energy source that works, and another that is yet to prove it can meet demand (it can't - and you'll be dead before it can).

Are green energy producers greedy? Sure they are. It is greed that drives capitalism.

The question is, can green energy meet the demand?

In the UK 7% of electricity consumes is produced from renewable sources. In the USA electricity generation from renewable sources has now reached 10%. Japan also produces 10% of its electricity from renewable sources. Germany produces 18% of its electricity from renewable sources. France produces 14%.

In Denmark 29% of the energy is produced from wind power and renewable energy sources. The Danish transition occurred in the last 15 years or so, and "Green" energy generation is increasing at a rate of about 1% per year. It might seem like slow progress, but then their reliance on fossil fuels decreases every day.

In Canada 64.5% of the electricity consumed is produced from renewable energy sources. Considering Canada's long, dark winters, it is a good record. However, the public perception among Canadians is that the government is not doing enough.

Then, we look at Iceland where 100% of its electricity generation is from renewable resources with geothermal energy being the dominant form of green energy. Iceland can do this on account of high volcanic activity, high incidence of geisers and other surface geothermal vents, and a low population. Hower, it shows that where there is a will there is a way.

The myth that renewable (i.e. green) sources cannot meet the demand is probbly more true in motor vehicles. It is in this big sector that fossil fuels still dominate. However, if more electricity is generated from renewable sources, then consumers will slowly switch to electrical vehicles for daily transport while slowly phasing out gasoline-powered vehicles.

We should also note that the USA consumes a lot more electricity per person than many other countries. Renewable sources do have a difficult time meeting the high demand in the USA. Renewable energy will become the dominant form of energy production as oil becomes more expensive and North Americans begin to rethink their energy consumption habits.

China is another country that has a hard time adopting renewable energy. The fast rate of economic expansion has meant that demand for electricity is far in excess of the supply. To meet that demand China uses their main natural resource, coal, and imports vast quantities of oil from neighboring Kazakhstan and Russia.

What we can learn from this is that the situation is complex. The viability of green energy sources is affected by population distribution, weather patterns, geological patterns, geography, water availability, economic growth, etc. Under some circumstances green energy has worked very well. In other cases fossil fuels can meet the demand.

I suppose it is a matter of willingness to change and willingness to invest. One thing is certain. Whether global warming is true factor or not, we should make every effort to reduce pollution.

A SOUTH Tyneside scientist has helped proved the region once basked like the Bahamas.

Professor Paul Younger, from Hebburn, is part of a team which has spent the past four months looking for a geothermal energy source.

And yesterday researchers struck hot water.

Their discovery aptly came on one of the hottest days of the year so far, with temperatures on South Tyneside soaring – although the heavens opened later in the afternoon. During the early hours, the giant drill hit a hot-water source 2,000m below the earth’s surface at the Science City site.

The £900,000 project, which began four months ago, marks the first deep excavation in the UK since the 1980s and the scientists now plan to pump the water back up to the surface so that it can heat local buildings.

Prof Younger, from Newcastle University, said: “This hot water could be available 24/7 because it doesn’t depend on the weather. It is as cheap and as low-carbon as it comes.”

The drill also went through a coal seam at a depth of 660m that nobody knew existed and uncovered fossils thousands of years old. Newcastle University geology student Laura Armstrong has been examining fossils that were discovered in a block of limestone more than 1,000m below the ground. “It is one of the most exciting things we’ve found,” she said. “These shells and corals suggest that Newcastle was once a tropical environment, like offshore Bahamas.”

The next step is for scientists to run tests on the sandstone, which acts as an insulator for the hot water.

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/scientists_happy_to_be_in_hot_water_1_3521295

They plan to drill another hole, the two would provide enough power for the Uni and 11,000 homes.

Green might not at current tech meet all our needs. But with more investment we get cheap renewable energy. Planning permission seems to be the problem... causing delays to which certain energy farms although approved are yet to be complete.


I must say in the USA.. wouldn't small towns in the sunnier regions prefer to be virtually self reliant, and perhaps even sell energy off to the grid??

Artful Dodger: you aren't very choosy when it comes to women are you hahahahaha

Artful Dodger: Why? They seem to be happy to tap into geothermal and use solar.

"The production and transportation of steel are both expensive and energy-intensive."

.... and how much is used in a refinery or coal burning plant... let's not forget the concrete!!

"Obviously these are ballpark figures"

ie.... made up figures??

Texas have done big look at geothermal.. Including reusing old oil and gas wells. Seeing as the State has already a great deal of info recorded on what is beneath them.....

It's looking good!!

Artful Dodger:

> Not at 100% levels. And it won't drive our cars. At the moment, you need both types of energy. And you can't stop producing oil when you don't have in place a replacement. It's that simple.

Not with the current technology. We still need oil for motor vehicles. There is no current technology that can replace the diesel engine in a tractor-trailer carrying tons of cargo. The day might come when we will. In the meantime we still need oil.

But electricity is something else. The problem is that people think in very selfish, nationalistic terms.

If Iceland can make 100% of its energy from geothermal sources, North America should aim at developing a similar source in places where it is viable. It would be impossible to do that in Saskatchewan or Florida, but it might be viable in volcanic regions. Electricity could be generated in Guatemala (a very volcanic country) and redistributed north through Mexico and the USA. It would help Guatemala and Mexico develop thier economy while the USA would get a respite from some of the oil dependence.

Unfortunately, everybody gets nationalistic. The USA has the capital to invest, but not the willingness to do so while oil remains cheap. Mexicans will want to make a big profit, as will Guatemalans. Guatemala completely lacks the infrastructure and the capital. All in all everybody will keep using oil until it becomes so expensive that building geothermal plants in Central America becomes cheaper.

Once energy is generated efficiently from a renewable source, it can be used to generate synthetic fuels. For example, electricity can be used to power a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst and make hydrocarbons from carbon dioxide and water. Methanol can be synthesized too and used in fuel cells to power motor vehicles.

The big challenge right now is the lack of infrastructure and capital. Many of the technologies are there, but their cost is too great when compared to oil extraction and refining. We could replace oil at this point, but the cost would be too great. Nobody wants to pay $2000 per month for an electricity bill.

Artful Dodger:

> How much steel and land do “environmentally friendly” energy technologies use? Is this “sustainable”?

Every industrial activity (even the "Green" industries) consume land, natural resources and energy. It is a given.

Wind turbines require steel, aluminium, lubricants, wiring, electronics, etc. Pollution is generated from the manufacture of wind turbines.

Solar panels are not much better. Refining silicon wafers is very energy intensive. There there is copper, plastics, metal, glass, etc.

If wind turbines use land, so do oil wells and drilling rigs. If wind turbines use steel, so do oil wells, drilling platforms, pump jacks, etc.

One must look at the sum total of energy spent during manufacture and energy generated during consumption. Oil wins at the moment because the amount of energy used during extraction, transportation and refining is relatively low compared to the amount extracted when oil products are burned. This is why oil is cheaper than wind turbines.

One must also look at the amount of pollution generated during manufacture, production, transporation, consumption, accidental spills, etc. Oil production can be very messy when spills occurr. Oil releases a lot of carbon dioxide when burned. There is also nitrogen oxides, ozone and other pollutants generated during combustion. Windmills and solar panels win on the pollution side because once they are manufactured and installed, they generate almost no pollution. That is what makes renewable energy sources attractive.

Then we have to remember that is most of the energy comes from renewable sources, then a more ecologically balanced manufacture or wind turbines and solar panels is possible. The raw materaials can come from recycled steel, aluminium, plastics, glass, etc. The energy comes from a renewable source, so less fossil fuels are used during manufacture.

Slowly, the renewable side can add up leading to a decrease of our dependance on oil. The problem is that people want a solution right now. People don't want to wait 30 years for renewable energy to become viable.

Artful Dodger:

> Hey, she's hot, hot, hot. ;)

The question is, when some hostile country develops a nuclear bomb, will her good looks save the world?

Artful Dodger: By your standards. Raygun did worse... by most standards, he is the worst..... ever.

Right now Republicans are forcing the Obama administration to cut spending and give tax breaks to the rich. Yet, why are the American economy and the deficit so bad? A new report estimates the cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to be at least 3.7 trillion dollars.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-cost-war-least-3-7-trillion-counting-110411362.html

Apparently, the interest alone for the deficit is 185 billion dollars.

Those Republicans that are pushing the Obama administration for spending cuts and tax breaks should at least have the decency to admit that it was their political party and the Bush administration that decided to plunge the United States into war. Now the same people that created the mess are forcing cuts and tax breaks. I wonder if those Republicans will cut their own salaries as a gesture of admission of the mess they created. Can the Obama administration be expected to succeed in anything considering the mess left behind by the Bush administration? The Republicans mortgaged away the future of the United States, and now that mortgage can't be paid.

It started before Bush with Raygun... The tax breaks he gave the rich the American economy has never benefited from and ham stringed the economy. The amount of money Raygun spent to make things look better, was more than any President ever. The rich get Richer and the average or poor Joe gets to foot the bill.

The Capitalist American Dream. Robin hood reversed!!

Übergeek 바둑이: Actually, Obama added more to the debt, in his first 19 months, than all presidents from Washington to Reagan, COMBINED.

So are you saying he and the Libs should be allowed to spend spend spend us into oblivion?

Seems regardless of whatever blame games everyone wants to play, FORCED cuts in spending are VITAL.