Which Is More Eco-Friendly, Trains or Planes?

The answer may surprise you:

True or false: taking the commuter train across Boston results in lower greenhouse gas emissions than travelling the same distance in a jumbo jet. Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is false.

A new study compares the “full life-cycle” emissions generated by 11 different modes of transportation in the US. Unlike previous studies on transport emissions, Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath of the University of California, Berkeley, looked beyond what is emitted by different types of car, train, bus or plane while their engines are running and includes emissions from building and maintaining the vehicles and their infrastructure, as well as generating the fuel to run them. (Table 1 on page 3 has a complete list of components that were considered).

Transport studies expert Abigail Bristow of Loughborough University, UK, who was not involved in the study, says it is valuable because it attempts to compare transport on equal terms. To do this, Chester and Horvath calculated how many passengers each train, plane, bus or car would carry in its lifetime and how many kilometres it would cover. The pair took into account how much each infrastructure component – such as tracks, roads and airports – is used in its lifetime.

Including these additional sources of pollution more than doubles the greenhouse gas emissions of train travel. The emissions generated by car travel increase by nearly one third when manufacturing and infrastructure are taken into account. In comparison to cars on roads and trains on tracks, air travel requires little infrastructure. As a result, full life-cycle emissions are between 10 and 20 per cent higher than “tailpipe” emissions.

I must admit, I agree with Joe Biden on one thing… I prefer traveling by train to traveling by plane. I just find a train a good deal more comfortable.

However, if Mr. Biden wants to keep his oh-so-green credentials intact, it appears he’ll have to forgo Amtrak for JetBlue or another airline.

Category: Global Warming

Tag: environmentalism, greenhouse gas, planes, trains

http://climatesight.wordpress.com climatesight

Did they use electric, hybrid, or conventional trains in the calculations? I’d be interested to see how they match up.

I think you might be interested in my blog, which has to do exclusively with climate change. The purpose of my blog is:

1) to help the public realize their place in the climate change debate
2) to decide which sources to trust for scientific information
3) to decide what action to take against climate change, given the risks and uncertainties
4) to share sources and ideas that seem promising.

I’d love for you to check it out – you can probably get there by clicking on my username.

Keep up the good work.
- http://conservativewanderer.wordpress.com/ Conservative Wanderer
  
  Follow the first link (it’s on the words “The answer”), scroll down to the bottom of the New Scientist article, and there’s a link that will lead you to the full text of the study (it goes to the abstract first, but from there you can get the full text).
  
  Thanks for the invite to the blog, but after a quick scan, I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree.
http://conservativewanderer.wordpress.com/ PhyCon

I’ll be happy to check out your blog. I haven’t as yet, however, I suspect I’ll strongly disagree with your take on climate change. With the caveat that I have not seen your blog or your position I believe your use of the words “climate change” is instructive. I can already deduce you believe the planet is warming dangerously due to human causes…ergo, Anthropogenic Global Warming. I’ll withhold any debate until I’ve reviewed your site sufficiently.
- http://climatesight.wordpress.com climatesight
  
  Thanks for following up on my comment, and for being so polite about it.
  
  I strongly believe that the question “Are we warming the planet?” is irrelevant unless you’re actually a scientist who is actively seeking the answer. To everyone else in the general public, the question that matters is, “Is it a risk worth taking?” That is the central focus of my blog, and the question I am trying to spread around.
  
  I do not believe that AGW is definitely real. I accept that there is uncertainty around the theory. However, I believe that the risk is plausible enough and the stakes are high enough to warrant significant action. As a young person whose future may be threatened by climate change, I am not willing to take the risk.
  
  I really don’t care whether or not you believe climate change is real and/or anthropogenic. I just hope that you won’t stand in the way of preventative action, for the sake of the other six billion people on the planet.
http://conservativewanderer.wordpress.com/ PhyCon

Just dealing with your response above since I have yet to review your blog.

I am a very polite person unless the other(s) in the conversation refuse to be intellectually honest.

I’m also very glad you “accept that there is uncertainty around the theory.” My college training was in physics and mathematics and I am the son of a meteorologist. My biggest issue with “global warming”, “climate change”, and/or “AGW” is basically scientific. When one side of any scientific debate declares something along the lines of “the debate is over” my hackles rise. That is the beginning of an orthodoxy and is equivalent to the persecution of individuals such as Galileo by the power of that time – the Holy Roman Catholic Church. (Full disclosure, I’m Catholic )

You say “As a young person whose future may be threatened by climate change, I am not willing to take the risk.” Have you considered the converse of catastrophic warming? Have you considered the impact upon your future many in the pro-AGW camp wish to saddle the US economy with? Have you considered ‘developing countries’ such as China and India have no requirements/restrictions placed upon them by any treaty or ‘plan’ that has existed (Kyoto protocol) or will exist in the near future (next 10 years)?

You live, I presume, in the USA. This country has been responsible for the greatest increase in technology across the board than any other in our short 200+ years of existence on this Earth. If you wish to saddle the USA with the strict restrictions of “Cap and Trade” or “Emissions controls” you must also accept the fact the USA does not have enough “green” energy sources to pick up the slack that stopping the use of fossil fuels will require. The president can spout all the fabulous rhetoric he wants about investing in ‘green energy’ yet all forecasts I’ve seen put our ability to replace fossil fuel generated energy with ‘green energy’ is upwards of 100+ years. You are young but are you going to be able to live to see the USA become ‘green’? Your grandchildren might.

In the interim, Obama and other ‘green enthusiasts’ will cripple our economy which means your currently bright future is gone unless you end up very lucky.

I’ll stop this rant now since it could go on for another year or so, I think . I only ask you to think about the unintended consequences some of the ideas floating out there will enforce upon not only you but the rest of this great country before you decide to go hog-wild about supporting plan X or plan Y.

I will review your blog tonight if I have the time.
http://climatesight.wordpress.com climatesight

There are a lot of ways to deal with climate change. It does not necessarily have to include regulation – if clean energies are freely available, they would win out over fossil fuels. The economists of this world are smart enough to find a way to phase out carbon emissions without harming the economy.

I agree, if there are no alternatives available that are equal to or lesser than the price of fossil fuels, trying to restrict fossil fuels will bring harm to the economy.

I don’t mind how governments deal with climate change, as long as it works. I particularly like the idea of investing a lot in developing renewable technologies.

By the way, I’m actually Canadian.
http://conservativewanderer.wordpress.com/ PhyCon

Why don’t we lose the amorphous “climate change” meme? It makes you sound like Algore. State what you are concerned about – catastrophic warming of the planet is my presumption.

The reason I ask you state your concern is this: climates ALWAYS change. They are in constant flux. If you review the geologic record you will note many instances of global cooling and warming with almost ALL of those instances sans humans. Therefore, “climate change” is a moot point. We are, according to the geologic record, nearing the tail end of an interglacial period. That based upon interglacial periods (IGP) lasting approximately 10,000-20,000 years. That said, please note life forms tend to proliferate during an IGP and decrease during Glacial Periods (GP). Historical example: before the “Little Ice Age” circa 1100-1400 +/-, humans were growing grapes on the English Isles and expanding to a land known as “Greenland” and this period is known as the “Medieval Warm Period” (MWP) or “Medieval Climate Optimum” (MPO). Then the cooling trend (Little Ice Age) kicked in for approximately 300 years or so. I generally hate referencing Wikipedia with respect to anything associated with the topic of CC/GW/AGW but these two articles are factual enough and readily available: Little Ice Age Medieval Warm Period.

Now on to the meat of your above comment. “…if clean energies are freely available, they would win out over fossil fuels.” and “I agree, if there are no alternatives available that are equal to or lesser than the price of fossil fuels, trying to restrict fossil fuels will bring harm to the economy.” Those two statements are mutually exclusive (a nice way of saying ‘intellectually dishonest’)…TODAY…and probably for the next several decades at the very least. Unless, of course, you recognize nuclear (fission) power is an extremely ‘green’ energy compared to fossil fuels. That particular power source is readily available IF the environmentalist movements and “no more nuke” wackos would get out of the way. Take France for example – how much of their electrical power is generated by nuclear? How much for the US is nuclear versus various fossil. Look it up…you may be surprised by the answers.

“I don’t mind how governments deal with climate change, as long as it works.” – by definition, climates change. In my 2nd paragraph I gave you specific examples of ‘warm’ and ‘cold’ periods and also the general geologic historicals of life proliferation during IGPs and contraction during GPs. If your goal is to stop warming then your corollary goal is to induce cooling. Allowing governments to “deal with climate change” will get you exactly what? Bureaucracies that control how the citizens of their countries consume energy. Thinking worst case scenario that will include regulating every single aspect of your life – food, clothing, transportation, entertainment, etc – one will be allowed to consume. Are you really that willing to give your liberty to a government? Every bit of power you allow a government to have over you means the less liberty you have. Currently you can CHOOSE to be ‘green’ or not. What will you do when you are forced to be ‘green’?

Unintended consequences tend to crop up when individuals fail to think completely through ideas, policy, and actions…etc. What I am attempting to do with this comment and my previous one is to get you to think critically about cause/effect and/or action/consequence. The classic example is the mother asking the kid sarcastically “If all of your friends jump off of a bridge will you do it too?” My mother asked me that exact question once and my answer was, “Sure. If it’s the south bridge, the river is up, and it’s hot out.” Jumping off of the south bridge where I grew up is now illegal. Action/consequence indeed. Therefore, you SHOULD be extremely concerned with how “…governments deal with climate change.”…else you are a subject and not a citizen.

“I particularly like the idea of investing a lot in developing renewable technologies.” – Who is to do this investing? Private industry or government? I happen to agree with you on the need to invest, however, the investment needs to be done by the private sector and not government by and large.

“By the way, I’m actually Canadian.” – That then begs the question: why do you give a hoot about US policy? The US isn’t your country. You should be concerned about yours, not mine. Encourage your lawmakers to limit your freedoms and liberty all you want. Just leave me and mine alone. (Full disclosure – my maternal grandparents came from the Winnipeg area.)
http://climatesight.wordpress.com climatesight

It may not be my country, but it is my world.

What the US chooses to do (or not) about climate change will affect the rest of the world.

That is why I care.
- http://conservativewanderer.wordpress.com/ PhyCon
  
  Wonderfully succinct reply. Completely devoid of any substantive argument or rebuttal of any of the points I brought up for you to contemplate.
  
  Let’s see…I’ve tried to be nice and give you lots of food for thought. I’ve attempted to get you to think passed the fear of a “warmer” planet and possibly consider what it would mean to have a colder planet. I’ve labored to explain the economic hardships you will place on all of the developed world while giving carte blanche to ‘developing’ countries such as China and India. (You do realize China surpassed the US as the greatest emitter of ‘greenhouse gasses’ last year I hope.)
  
  You have a closed mind, young sir. You believe what you believe simply because it ‘feels right’ and/or the potential scares the hell out of you. There will come a time in the not so distant future where you will gain some perspective upon your current view of “climate change”. You will eventually realize that most of what you believe today has been hyped to the upper echelons of CRISIS and FEAR. You will understand, eventually, that your support for “drastic and dramatic action” as being the only way to stop the “crisis” was nothing more than a power-grab. And you will finally understand you have been duped into giving up your freedoms, your liberty, and your bright future to those who don’t give a damn about you OR THE WORLD.
  
  Enjoy your youthful delusions while they still make you ‘happy’. In the next decade or so you will find out just how incredibly gullible you were at this point in your life.
  
  I’ll end with one more potentially thought provoking inequality. Try to understand what it means:
  Science does not equal Feelings
  - ericgwilliams
    
    ok ok, some good stuff started here.
    
    so much to address, let’s just start with a few things.
    
    PhyCon – would you say that resources are a) finite or b) infinite?
    I suppose the answer to most currently consumed resources (oil, lumber, coal, etc.) is finite.
    
    would you say that industry a)produces pollution or b) creates a habitable environment?
    
    I would hope your answer is (a).
    
    Would you say that humans are largely dependent on the environment for their continued existence or that the environment is largely dependent on humans for existence? Further, do we depend on clean water, clean air and reliable crops (among others) for our livelihood? The point is…lets us not forget who is dependent on what on this planet.
    
    The conclusion I hope to be evoking is that resources are limited, pollution is prevalent and we are highly dependent on a healthy ecosystem for continued prosperity. Since our continued prosperity is dependent on a healthy environment, that should be factored into business decisions, after all, despite any individualistic ideals, the environment is fundamentally communal and shouldn’t be degraded at the expense of the larger populace. As such:
    The total cost of production should be factored in the business transactions of this country (we’ll get to other countries in a bit). If I supply artificially cheap energy (coal)at the expense of the workers health, polluted streams, polluted air and other “soft” factors, should I not be accountable to those costs as well?
    You then ask, “well, how do I measure this exploitative factor of industry.” Well that is where cap and trade, incentivizing conservation (instead of subsidizing pollution, i.e. gasoline) and carbon type taxes come in to play. Why would we target organizations profits when we could target their waste? Why not give them the incentive to clean it up themselves. After all, pollution is something that may be addressed and mitigated. Why should they not pay for pollution when it affects us all? If I produce 10 widgets, and the result is 1 ppm in particulate runoff and you produce 10 widgets and the result is 1000 ppm in particulate runoff, should you not be penalized for imposing your waste on the public?
    
    The idea of nukes, in a nutshell:
    The amount of nukes needed to power the expected rise in energy demand of the world over the next 50 years is about 13,000 (that is 13,000 gigawatt nukes to supply 130 terawatts of power). That is 260 a year for 50 years. How might you plan to accomplish that? NIMBY
    
    Right now France produces 70% of its energy from nukes. However, American only produces about 20%. The catch is that America still produces more nuclear electricity than France. Thus, in order to meet the CURRENT deficit we would have to build…a lot more. Bet on the aggregate demand rising. Nukes also take upwards of 10 years to build, no nuke has ever been completed on time, most finish more than 100% over budget and can only provide centralized energy. (notice how I haven’t…and wont…discuss the eco impact). All of this can be found in this testimony (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/romm_testimony.html)and this study (http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf).
    
    Considering other nations: China
    
    Interview with Pan Yue, deputy minister of China’s state Environmental protection agency, in march 2005 – Der Spiegel
    
    “Many factors are coming together here: Our raw materials are scarce, we don’t have enough land, and our population is constantly growing. Currently, there are 1.3 billion people living in China, that’s twice as many as 50 years ago. In 2020, there will be 1.5 billion people in China. Cities are growing but desert areas are expanding at the same time; habitable and usable land has been halved over the past 50 years…
    …the environment can no longer keep pace. Acid rain is falling on one third of the Chinese territory, half of the water in our seven largest rivers is completely useless, while one fourth of our citizens does not have access to clean drinking water. One third of the urban population is breathing polluted air, and less than 20 percent of the trash in cities is treated and processed in an environmentally sustainable manner. Finally, five of the ten most polluted cities worldwide are in China.
    …Of course I am pleased with the success of China’s economy. But at the same time I am worried. We are using too many raw materials to sustain this growth. To produce goods worth $10,000, for example, we need seven times more resources than Japan, nearly six times more than the United States and, perhaps most embarrassing, nearly three times more than India. Things can’t, nor should they be allowed to go on like that…
    …Because air and water are polluted, we are losing between 8 and 15 percent of our gross domestic product. And that doesn’t include the costs for health. Then there’s the human suffering: In Bejing alone, 70 to 80 percent of all deadly cancer cases are related to the environment. Lung cancer has emerged as the No. 1 cause of death.”
    
    If they don’t get it now, they soon will. As well, they will need technology and innovation to accomplish any semblance of conservation, environmental remediation and on-going sustainability. Where might they get this? Well, at its current rate, the U.S. could provide much of the needed technology that China will need in the next 5 to 40 years. You realize of course that could be a MAJOR economic boost for the U.S. and might even help pay off some of those T-bills. Or, we could drag our feet and let them innovate it…then sell it to us. Which would you prefer?
    
    You may cite that “this is merely conjecture, you can’t know that they won’t stop.” Well, they HAVE to at some point, at some point it will either be pay $XXX for imported materials or pay $XXX for green technology, the cost point will prevail surely as resources become more scarce and clean-tech R&D reduces cost and increases ROI. At their 10% per year GDP growth, this will happen soon.
    I could go on, but let’s stop here and limit the amount of information that must juggled back and forth. We didn’t even get in to terrorism/petro-dictatorship, bio-diversity or the next world super-power. Suffice to say, I thoroughly believe it is exceptionally foolish to ignore the host of issues surrounding the advancement of clean energy JUST because AGW cannot be empirically proven at the moment. Oh, and to support the statement of climatesite, American has everything to do with this. The world wants to be us and we still have a glimmer of power that can influence the world.
    
    Also, you cite his “fear” in his feeling and believing the way he does. I sense fear among each and every one that refuses to encourage progress and drags their heels. It always seems to be the fear that people will not be able to exploit the environment for profit as they have been able to in the past, forcing accountability for their actions or just a general resistance to change that is thoroughly depressing considering there is a vision of a better world out there…
    
    I await respectfully for your response.
ericgwilliams

note, added “0″ it should be 13 terawatts of power
ericgwilliams

arg, and delete the “and” after that link…wont work as it is
http://conservativewanderer.wordpress.com/ PhyCon

Welcome aboard, Mr. Williams.

Allow me to cut quite a bit of quibbling short. Please note the above item quoted in my 2nd response to climatesight:

I happen to agree with you on the need to invest, however, the investment needs to be done by the private sector and not government by and large.

Resources, by definition, are finite. Even solar radiation is finite, though I highly doubt either of us will care when Sol goes planetary nebula on us in circa 5 billion years.

Industry – Your choice is false. It is neither A or B as the correct answer is both A and B. Think air conditioning and heating. Industry is what has allowed humanity as a whole to expand to the 6+ billion population it has so far. Without industry (and energy usage) the ability to grow, transport, refrigerate, and store vast quantities of food much of that 6+ billion would not be. Not to mention all of the other things that make life fun like this computer I am using .

Environmental dependency – yes, humans are dependent upon the environment. Yet this is largely a non sequitur since humans have evolved to the point of being able to control our environments to a certain degree. In the future, that control will continue to increase as technology allows. This whole CC/GW/AGW debate acknowledges that basic fact. Those, like climatesight and yourself, who apparently support ‘drastic and immediate’ actions hang your hats on mankind’s ability to alter our environment (climate) for the better. And here’s a shock for you – I agree with that premise. I disagree with the approach – Machiavellian philosophy cuts both ways in this debate.

The amount of nukes needed to power the expected rise in energy demand of the world over the next 50 years is about 13,000 (that is 13,000 gigawatt nukes to supply 130 terawatts of power). That is 260 a year for 50 years. How might you plan to accomplish that? NIMBY

Channeling Ted Kennedy here? Remember he and others put the kibosh on a wind farm off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard. Energy demand, as you correctly state, is only going to grow. How do you propose to keep pace with that demand when you refuse to utilize currently available sources and rely on ‘future tech’? You delude yourself with good intentions. I am not advocating for fossil fuel and/or nuclear only. I advocate for using everything available NOW and investing – from the private sector – in that future tech.

As to the dissertation on power plants – you are mostly correct. It would take the USA at least 10 years to get a decent number of nuclear plants online and the costs associated are prohibitive. Yet the benefits significantly outweigh the costs both on sustainability and emissions fronts. So I don’t understand the pro-CC/GW/AGW crowd’s aversion to them. Fusion plants would be imminently preferable yet those are as of now still ‘future tech’. This is why I say use what is available now and develop the ‘green’ as time and tech allow.

For example, France with the rest of the EU (and a bit of US money) are working on putting together a fusion reactor (hydrogen is the most abundant resource in the universe). With France’s minimal track record discovering new technology in the last 100 years on display, why the heck didn’t the USA pilot this program? We are the ones who have discovered things in general ‘recently’. But I digress.

China – I remember acid rain in the USA, do you? What have you heard about it recently? Not a damn thing because we do not have that problem now. We produce the cleanest fossil fuel energy in the world – thanks, in large part unfortunately, to the Clean Air Act and government regulation. I say unfortunately because your widget example is prime. Those 10 widgets with the high ppm output are cheaper to produce than the 10 with the low ppm. Hence they cost less for the consumer to purchase. That is a perfect example of the difference between Chinese industry and USA industry. Our widgets are ‘cleaner’ than China’s because their economy is where ours was 60 years ago. (Aside: quite an accomplishment for the Chinese in fact to have progressed so far so fast.)

Chinese population – China has the same issue as the USA and much of the world that was directly involved in WWII. Our populations are aging. China’s two immediate post WWII generations will begin to die off very soon. I predict they will end up with negative population growth in about 20 years (or less if their environment lends death a hand).

The fact the Chinese minister ‘recognizes’ his country’s environmental problems is laudable for him but only him. The rest of the Chinese government and their industry could care less. I, as you do I think, hope they realize their folly soon.

I completely admit my fears. I fear any imposed rules/regulations such as cap and trade will negatively affect not only my standard of living but my nieces’, nephews’, their children, my fellow countrymen, and the rest of the world. I fear allowing the developing countries such as China carte blanche will end up putting the USA under their thumbs. I fear giving up my Liberty to government bureaucrats.

With respect to my opinion of climatesight’s motivation of fear in supporting immediate, drastic action on CC/GW/AGW I am basing that opinion from a scientific perspective. He has refused to critically examine the cause/effect relationships inherent in those policies. He even fails to consider the last 8 years trend in global temperatures and has, apparently, bought Algore’s thesis hook-line-and-sinker.

Regards
http://climatesight.wordpress.com climatesight

Believe me, I have heard all of your objections before.

I have also heard very satisfactory explanations for why each of those objections are irrelevant.

I read a LOT. I constantly question myself. Just because I don’t accept your analysis of the data doesn’t mean that I haven’t considered it. Just because our ideologies don’t match doesn’t mean that I am wrong. Just because many others in the world don’t fear regulation doesn’t mean that they are wrong.

We have a lot of regulation in Canada – for example, forestry. Our forest industry is robust. It is sustainable. It has the highest percentage of certification in the world. Regulation is not all bad. It’s actually designed to mitigate problems, not limit people’s freedoms.

Regarding why the recent “cooling” is not cooling at all, but a statistical misrepresentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M

Regarding the Medeival Warm Period: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU

Regarding how we can choose whether the possibility of climate change or the possibility of economic harm due to action is a greater risk, including the economic harm that could be caused by climate change: http://manpollo.org/education/videos/risk_management/risk_management.html

Please accept that you might be wrong, that the climatologists might actually know more than you, and that there might actually be more to the story than what Al Gore says. If you read my blog you would know that I certainly do not “worship” Al Gore. You would also know that I am not male.

I have backed away because I feel my time is better spent talking to people who have not yet made up their mind, and who are still open to new ideas – not those who are unwilling to admit that they might be wrong.
- wapiti307
  
  I would like to interject my thoughts on the whole climate change theorem if I may. To address the original topic on which is more eco-friendly, trains or planes? Read this article for the answer, which reflects my answer as well: Research: Airliners can be more eco-friendly than trains. In other words, people who are supposed to be smarter than us are engaging in hypothesizing about something that is of trivial concern. Who cares? I suppose the only ones who do care are extreme environmentalists. In the eyes of a hard-core environmentalist, both pollute; therefore, they must be completely eliminated. I would rather concentrate on the invention of products that everybody wants to use, eco-friendly or otherwise. However, once a government goes down the climate change road, the people whom they are supposed to serve are the ones who get the raw end of the deal. Anything can be done in the name of “saving the planet”.
  
  What it appears to me is that we are “beating a dead horse” as far as the global climate change debate is concerned. Both sides of the issue pretty much have their minds made up and though there have been fine arguments for or against climate change, the fact is there is not complete agreement in the scientific community on either side [Article - Global Climate Change Facts: The Truth, The Consensus, and the Skeptics].
  
  There are things we do agree on: We should research, develop and implement new technologies that lessen our dependence on petroleum. Notice I say lessen because we cannot completely rid ourselves of petroleum, as I believe you on the climate change side have already asserted. I have observed that both climatesight and ericgwilliams are are not completely irrational environmental extremists. They are just concerned about the future of their children, grandchildren and the planet. Irregardless of our ideological differences, we all care about that selfsame thing.
  
  The United States and Canada are both nations of people who still have the power of choice. We can choose what to eat, drive, buy, etc. We don’t need a group of government bureaucrats to make those decisions for us. That is why I believe as PhyCon does in that we need to leave it to private individuals and companies to continue to create more eco-friendly products. They and people like them in the past are the ones who have made the United States the country it is today. We can make sacrifices on the part of taking care of the planet, but not unconditionally. We need not do it at the total sacrifice of personal liberties and freedoms. That would be unreasonable.
  
  The problem with the government in the United States is that there are enough of those in powerful positions that believe climate change is human-caused, 100 percent. That is an erroneous belief. Due to their erroneous belief, they have allowed that belief to enact policies in the United States that are downright harmful, economically and socially. They are the ones who follow the environmental extremism crowd, the same crowd that are now complaining about wind turbines, hybrid vehicles and solar panels. Nothing anybody can do will ever make those people happy, but the politicians that subscribe to their points of view continue to try to make them happy. Never will that happen. Plus, those very politicians have more of an agenda than merely just climate change and “saving the planet”.
  
  As for me, the bottom line is that I feel we need to use every technology at our disposal. I agree that we must start using products that pollute less. We have wind power, we have solar power, we have natural gas, propane, hydrogen, nuclear power, and many other “clean” technologies. We can even refine the way petroleum-based products are manufactured. We already have environmentally-friendly regulations and procedures in place to the point of overkill. The United States is one of the leading countries in the world as far as developing environmentally-friendly technologies is concerned. Back to my point, why not use everything we have available right now? Gradually phase out the unsafe products and technologies. Replace them with what I have already mentioned.
  
  China, India, Russia and other countries that are quickly replacing the United States as chief polluters will soon (30 to 50 years) find out that they cannot continue the way they are going and expect to survive as a nation. They cannot continue to manufacture products in mass quantities if they keep on killing increasing numbers of their workforce faster than future workers are born, unless there is a sudden population explosion, which looks to be highly unlikely. Unless they wise up, the U.S. and other countries that already have “clean” technologies and have been using them for years, will again be at the head of the pack.
  
  That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.
ericgwilliams

PhyCon –

Your use of future tech confuses me just a bit. I assume you refer to some combination of solar, wind, hydrogen cell, hydro, wave, biomass and fusion nukes. The only “future techs” there (as in not developed to scale as of yet) are hydrogen cell (mostly rejected by the likes of Joseph Romm and others as “not soon enough”), biomass (the trade-off of course is deforestation to grow corn at only 1:1 energy output where sugar cane is 1:15 …however, insert your cap and trade argument here) and fusion nukes. Wind and solar are available currently, and making headway. Do not confuse their current load (combined 3% or so…?) with their potential in the 10 years needed to complete even ONE nuke to power ONE 100 mile by 100 mile square (or whatever their service capacity may be).
Fusion nukes will never occur in this country for a few reasons. First they are “experimental” in that, one has never been built here (or anywhere, despite whatever research is currently being conducted in the EU). As such, you incur many sunk cost type problems as you construct a massive plant that is unable to be prototyped. Also, your “decent number of nukes” (probably more than 100 to even dent the energy demands over the next 30 years) will cost about $8 billion x 100…or 800 billion dollars (+ inflation, delays etc.). Not to mention a 1000 years of man hours (10 years per nuke x 100 nukes). You might say “that will create jobs” however, we are forgetting that the last nuke that went online was a while ago. Therefore we have few in the workforce with the skills (and/or the small remaining population compared to what is needed are nearing retirement) to be nuclear operators and address the special needs of nuke operation. Solar, by contrast, need only be screwed on and wired in. More less-skilled workers can be found to work at a lower risk in greater abundance with less training needed. As well, engineers are in much greater supply than nuclear operators. Also, again, nukes are centralized. While I wholly agree that the private sector should take ownership of as much development as possible, what private organization(s) do you think would be likely to introduce the liability of a Nuke on the books? People are opting for solar every single day (albeit via subsidy…still, the cost of solar is driven down 50% every 18 months). Wind turbines are being put up every day. Nukes are fundamentally burdened by exceptional costs, shovel readiness, time to completion, portability and staffing issues. That is why many are against them (again, haven’t even touched on the disposal of fuel…).
We no longer produce “widgets” that’s the point…1000 ppm is the only option available for many consumer goods.
China is now the single largest emitter of CO2. They have a population of roughly 400 million that are expected move to suburban lifestyles and consume like American’s do. That is more than our current population. Whether or not we have acid rain or clean air is virtually irrelevant, especially since a portion of their dirt travels over to the west coast anyway, and screws with our air. The point is, that we have “kicked the habit,” so to speak, and China is the new junkie. If America was the only population on the planet, we wouldn’t have a problem. America, in very poetic big-brother fashion, has to console, direct and support the junkie so they don’t spiral out of control (check out an episode of intervention for a gristlier take on that). The point is that China and India are quickly adopting American type lifestyles and have 5x the population in doing so. The problem is, that if America, with the greatest potential and capacity for innovation, does not “invent the future” and sell it to countries rising into suburbia, not only will we miss out on a massive source of import income, but our natural resources will be exhausted, air water and etc. will be trashed and much of the money dedicated to such rise will be in the coffers of the Saudis. Tell me that you want this to happen. You can assert that the aging population in China will balance it out, but I find it silly to wait 50 years for single child policies to balance the population of ONE country. India, Brazil and Russia are not participating in such fashion.
Here is reality. The current mindset is green. This will not go away, Prius is the number one selling car, the Waxman-Markey bill has some teeth to it, documentaries/commercials are aired all the time that scare the crap out of people, we have a liberal president, technology is advancing and the mission is relatively clear: clean it up, reduce the pollution, save the environment, get off foreign oil etc. Here is the problem with “your camp” (not to excessively stereotype you): there is not any cohesive type “mission,” there is only disagreement and denial with the green mission. Mission/goal will win over no mission/goal every time. Status quo is weaker than determined change, all other things equal. However, this is good…seriously, no sarcasm. You and “your camp” have made it abundantly clear that this will not go forward easily. That is GOOD. People make mistakes, legislation must be scrutinized, plans must be nay-sayed. If everyone thought the same, we would move forward with blind zealotry and everything would be helter skelter. Honestly…you keep us honest. By dragging your heals, moaning about this and that, you strengthen the opposition because at every turn we are left rejustifying actions, double checking calculations and making sure that we are absolutely certain that the path we are headed is the place we want to go. The solar car got defeated for a reason…its crap! A plug-in is superior in many ways. Can you imagine if they were still trying to make that work?
We are attached at the waist with a rope. We are pulling you, not the other way around. As such, you dig in your heels, plead that we don’t have to go that way and on and on. But we’ll get there, we know where we’re going and it’s in great thanks to “your camp” looking over our shoulder and challenging our every move. It’s been made so difficult a journey, that a common citizen such as myself is now an avid reader of scientific journals, climate blogs and enviro-socio-political-economics books. In what world does that happen? As well, how strong is that for the camp to which I guess I am confining myself to? Seriously, no sarcasm, no pun, no nothing…simple and honest way of the world. I do not think we have an entirely dissimilar view of the problem and host of solutions, the plan to get there, of course, appears to be the point of contention. Once again, “your camp” has yet to formulate a plan to get us where “we need to go” (this destination is of course formulated by the climate change, peak oil and enviro degradation debates). The oft cited rebuttal of, “this is not a problem, therefore no change is necessary” is unlikely to satiate the “other camp.” I hate to beat a dead horse here, but we have decided where to go, the ONLY option is to help us figure out how to get there…or find a new place for us to go.
Oh, and I would have gotten to this sooner, but I thought it would email to me when you responded and did not…ill do a little better in the future.
Regards,
Eric
wapiti307

ericgwilliams:

I cannot speak for PhyCon, so I will speak for myself. Where in our comments is “our camp” wrong, especially when we can back up our claims with scientific data as much as “your camp” can back up your claims with scientific data? It seems to me that we can cite scientific data for and against global climate change ad infinitum. The debate goes on and on because there is no agreement among the scientific community. In my previous comment, I offered a link to an article with an objective viewpoint, which means the author of the article is neither for nor against global climate change. As far as future techs go, I believe the nuclear, hydrogen, natural gas, propane, solar and hybrid automotive technologies either have been or are already being used. Some “green” technologies get more press than others. Not to mention the opposition that even “green” technologies “your camp” approves of, are being attacked by environmental extremists. To conclude that “our camp” rejects all or most “green” technologies is akin to saying that “your camp” rejects all or most of free-market capitalism, the U.S. Constitution or religion. That would be engaging in intellectual dishonesty. In respects to not having a cohesive “mission”, both PhyCon and I have made it crystal clear what our “mission” is.
- ericgwilliams
  
  wapiti
  
  I have not debated climate change in any depth, only acknowledged that it is one of many factors that contribute to my stance on change in general. Please reread my offerings. I have purposefully yielded to economic, ecosystem and political topics (and largely refrained from climate science topics) since they are the most tangible and actionable items to discuss.
  
  I have never stated that “your camp” is wrong. In fact, I have not used the word “wrong” in either of my posts…please clarify what you mean. I believe, if you read it kindly, I have suggested we are working together by you keeping us honest.
  
  You offer one article…I skimmed it. It is pretty typical skeptic fare. Just like you might criticize that we have overestimated and exaggerated the findings, I can easily say that you do not give them enough weight. Suffice to say, it is a single article. I am not interested in debating the evidence. You have already stated your opinion that apparently “you are sticking to.” I would hope new evidence would logically sway you in whatever direction was most effectively and objectively presented.
  
  Saying that there is NO AGREEMENT is completely obtuse, clearly there is some agreement, hence the largely dichotomized debate.
  
  Please offer an article citing what “green” technologies are rejected by the green camps. If you cite corn ethanol and nukes, I have already mentioned their substantial shortcomings.
  
  Technology “being used” and technology that can offer a substantial contribution to the demand are completely different. Please read an article discussing the current load capacity of these technologies and the current and expected demands of the U.S. As well, these technologies should not be treated as silver bullets as efficiency trumps each every time.
  
  As such,
  
  hydrogen is future tech, it is not yet scalable.
  
  nukes are future tech in that fusion plants have never been built nor has a standard plant been erected in the U.S. in decades, making them future tech purely by shovel readiness and time to operability. Please reread my section on nukes to phycon.
  
  Wave energy is future tech, not ready to be implemented at scale.
  
  Geothermal is future tech, not ready to be implemented at scale.
  Thus, we have wind, solar, “clean” coal, oil and hydroelectric that are capable of offering substantial load and are currently ready to be implemented at scale.
  Some green tech gets more press than others…so what? Is that not some reflection of their progress and potential? Dying for more press on propane? – make a scientific breakthrough and then get the world to notice.
  
  I don’t recall saying your camp rejects all green tech. As I said, we have agreed on some of the methods, just not the means. As in, one might suggest that “the industry and market should take care of it, thus avoiding unnecessary government spending/intervention” while another might argue that “this will not happen quickly enough and a host of factors demands that we act as soon as possible by strategically incentivize through credits, tax and other means to encourage development.”
  
  Please state what your mission is in one sentence. Then send it to everyone who is of your camp and then see if they agree, I would be surprised if they did…their unanimous agreement would constitute a mission.
  
  “Our” mission is:
  
  Alleviate the pressures of global warming, petro-dictatorship, pollution, dependence on oil, terrorism, decline of bio-diversity, global energy poverty and depletion of natural resources through the immediate implementation of sustainable, clean energy and energy and resource efficiency.
  
  I find it comical that you operate under the delusion that we have a free market. Bush subsidized the hell out of gasoline, farmers produce corn below the cost of production, SUVs achieved reclassified by the auto lobby to avoid emissions law, the tax code is completely defunct, the president spends more on a night out with his wife than his annual salary and BOTH Obama and Bush (polar opposites…obviously) have gone on about this bailout business to prop up irresponsible/failing institutions like $800 billion dollars didn’t come from the taxpayers…the list goes on. what is free about that? Regulated capitalism at best.
  
  And, please read my words and refrain from assigning undue meaning, extremes, conclusions and emotional undertones. Specifically, your last statement of:
  
  “To conclude that “our camp” rejects all or most “green” technologies is akin to saying that “your camp” rejects all or most of free-market capitalism, the U.S. Constitution or religion. That would be engaging in intellectual dishonesty.”
  
  Not only operates on a false premise (that I have concluded you reject green tech) but it then draws a ridiculous analogy (that I have also already written on).
  
  Regards,
  
  Eric
http://conservativewanderer.wordpress.com/ Conservative Wanderer

Friendly reminder to all those participating in this debate.

The blog is set to automatically close comments on each post seven (7) days after it’s originally posted (WordPress calls it “published”), which in this thread’s case would be tomorrow. It is possible to override it (by changing the publishing date), however, to date I’ve seen nothing here that convinces me to do so.

Therefore, my advice to all participants would be to write your closing remarks ASAP.

Thanks to everyone for contributing to the debate, and please feel free to contribute to other discussions here.
wapiti307

ericgwilliams:

I will break my reply down into five parts.

Part 1:

“Here is the problem with “your camp” (not to excessively stereotype you): there is not any cohesive type “mission,” there is only disagreement and denial with the green mission. Mission/goal will win over no mission/goal every time. Status quo is weaker than determined change, all other things equal. However, this is good…seriously, no sarcasm. You and “your camp” have made it abundantly clear that this will not go forward easily. That is GOOD. People make mistakes, legislation must be scrutinized, plans must be nay-sayed. If everyone thought the same, we would move forward with blind zealotry and everything would be helter skelter. Honestly…you keep us honest. By dragging your heals, moaning about this and that, you strengthen the opposition because at every turn we are left rejustifying actions, double checking calculations and making sure that we are absolutely certain that the path we are headed is the place we want to go.”

So your comment, “…there is not any cohesive type ‘mission,’ there is only disagreement and denial with the green mission” means exactly what then? Denial means to refuse what is truth or reality. The reality of the situation is yes, there is global climate change that is occurring. Yes, we need to do something to alleviate the situation. The truth of the situation is that it is not completely a man-made condition. When you state that “our camp” is keeping “your camp” honest, what is implicated by that statement? What is the position taken by “your camp” about those in “our camp”? That we are correct in our thinking? If there is a disagreement between two people or groups of people, isn’t the premise of any disagreement based on one thinking the other is wrong in some shape or manner? Nobody disagrees on something that they think is right, do they?

“You offer one article…I skimmed it. It is pretty typical skeptic fare. Just like you might criticize that we have overestimated and exaggerated the findings, I can easily say that you do not give them enough weight. Suffice to say, it is a single article. I am not interested in debating the evidence. You have already stated your opinion that apparently ‘you are sticking to.’ I would hope new evidence would logically sway you in whatever direction was most effectively and objectively presented.

Saying that there is NO AGREEMENT is completely obtuse, clearly there is some agreement, hence the largely dichotomized debate.”

When you say you are not interested in debating the evidence, you obviously commented knowing you would receive a response countering the statements you made. Your comments have been challenged. You have counter-challenged. I would call that a debate over the information you provided and the evidence therein. The point that I was making in my previous post is that for every scientist that can in some way prove a case for global climate change, there is another one that can in some way prove a case against global climate change. Thus my saying that there is no agreement among the scientific community is a valid statement. In respects to the amount of content I place in my comments, if you want more links to articles that you will just skim over and dismiss as typical skeptic fare, but which may be of interest to other readers and visitors of A Conservative Wanderer, here you go:

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html
Satellite and Climate Model Evidence Against Substantial Manmade Climate Change (supercedes “Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found?”) – http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change – http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
Global Warming Computer Models Seriously Flawed, Studies Show – http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15727/Global_Warming_Computer_Models_Seriously_Flawed_Studies_Show.html
Global Warming Petition Project – http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Part 2:

“Please offer an article citing what “green” technologies are rejected by the green camps. If you cite corn ethanol and nukes, I have already mentioned their substantial shortcomings.”

So does that mean you can cite the claims you have made regarding hybrid and/or Prius sales, the “toothy” benefits outlined in the Waxman-Markey bill and reliable statistics on what the current American mindset is? As far as press coverage goes, I would like to see more coverage on the benefits of natural gas-powered or hydrogen-powered automobiles. I would like to see more coverage on the benefits of “clean” coal nuclear technology. Too many people see the word “coal” or “nuclear” and all they have been conditioned (by the press, among others) to see are smokestacks belching black smoke and the Chernobyl reactor. Also, I didn’t directly state, nor did I even imply that people in the “green” camp are rejecting “green” technologies. This is what I said: “Not to mention the opposition that even ‘green’ technologies ‘your camp’ approves of, are being attacked by environmental extremists.” I have provided the following links:

Tilting at Windmills – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041801188.html
ALTAMONT PASS – Lawsuit over county plan for windmills – Environmental group seeks analysis on impact to birds – http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/29/BAGPGFFTG21.DTL
Solar Power: Eco-Friendly or Environmental Blight? – http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1887120,00.html
Solar energy’s darker side stirs concern – http://conservativewanderer.wordpress.com/files/2009/06/20090113lat-darkersideofsolar.pdf

Part 3:

“Technology “being used” and technology that can offer a substantial contribution to the demand are completely different. Please read an article discussing the current load capacity of these technologies and the current and expected demands of the U.S. As well, these technologies should not be treated as silver bullets as efficiency trumps each every time.

As such,

hydrogen is future tech, it is not yet scalable.

nukes are future tech in that fusion plants have never been built nor has a standard plant been erected in the U.S. in decades, making them future tech purely by shovel readiness and time to operability. Please reread my section on nukes to phycon.

Wave energy is future tech, not ready to be implemented at scale.

Geothermal is future tech, not ready to be implemented at scale.
Thus, we have wind, solar, “clean” coal, oil and hydroelectric that are capable of offering substantial load and are currently ready to be implemented at scale.
Some green tech gets more press than others…so what? Is that not some reflection of their progress and potential? Dying for more press on propane? – make a scientific breakthrough and then get the world to notice.”

Hydrogen and geothermal technologies are not future techs, if they have been or are being used. So I would say both technologies are scalable. Future tech means exactly that, a technology that currently exists on paper, but has yet to be realized in a practical, working application. Natural gas technology is being used right now and natural gas automotive technology has already been implemented, although not in the scope that hybrid gasoline/electric automobiles have been. The United States has a gigantic supply of natural gas just waiting to be collected.

TURN YOUR VEHICLE INTO A HYDROGEN HYBRID TODAY! – http://www.greenfuturetechnology.com/
Fuel Cell Vehicles – http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fuelcell.shtml
Natural gas for transportation. – http://www.ngvc.org/
How Natural-gas Vehicles Work – http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/ngv.htm
Geothermal Education Office – United States – http://geothermal.marin.org/map/usa.html
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY ASSOCIATION – http://www.geo-energy.org/information/plants.asp
Obama seeks funding cuts for wave, tidal energy research – http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090531/sc_mcclatchy/3242509
“The Pollution Solution” – http://www.cleancoaltechnologiesinc.com/
U.S. nuclear power plants called safer than ever – http://www.energydigital.com/U-S–nuclear-power-plants-called-safer-than-ever_668.aspx
How To Build 6,000 Nuclear Plants by 2050 – http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3225build_6000_nukes.html

Part 4:

“Please state what your mission is in one sentence. Then send it to everyone who is of your camp and then see if they agree, I would be surprised if they did…their unanimous agreement would constitute a mission.”

I have already stated what our “mission” is in a previously-posted comment. However, if you want me to put it in one sentence, here you go:

“Our ‘green’ mission is to use every technology currently at our disposal as a means to lessen the United States’ use of and the dependency on petroleum products while at the same time researching, developing and implementing cleaner, “greener” technologies to replace, but not completely eliminate, the need for less clean and “green” technologies without burdening the American taxpayer with unreasonable economic hardship and without the unconditional sacrificing of our personal liberties and freedoms.”

I believe my fellow posters will agree unanimously with the “mission” I have laid out. I doubt there is 100 percent agreement (unanimity) with any mission statement among any circle or group of people. There is no unanimity among the scientific community on global climate change; therefore, if a there is a consortium of scientists who are pro-global climate change and they have outlined a mission statement of any kind, their statement only applies to those who agree with global climate change in the first place and would be an invalid statement in the eyes of the thousands of those in the scientific community who don’t subscribe to the global climate change theorem, as it is currently defined. Going back on a previous point, there is no agreement and no consensus on global climate change in the scientific community. You can’t have consensus without unanimity.

Part 5:

“I find it comical that you operate under the delusion that we have a free market. Bush subsidized the hell out of gasoline, farmers produce corn below the cost of production, SUVs achieved reclassified by the auto lobby to avoid emissions law, the tax code is completely defunct, the president spends more on a night out with his wife than his annual salary and BOTH Obama and Bush (polar opposites…obviously) have gone on about this bailout business to prop up irresponsible/failing institutions like $800 billion dollars didn’t come from the taxpayers…the list goes on. what is free about that? Regulated capitalism at best.”

The “mission” of free-market capitalism has not changed. The problem is with what you described as “Regulated capitalism”. I would even call it “over-regulated” capitalism. Who or what is the cause of the over-regulation? That’s right, government. The same government that is interfering with the “mission” of free-market capitalism is interfering with the “green mission”. I didn’t agree with how the last president and his administration interfered with private enterprise and I don’t agree with the current presidential administration, which is exercising even more power to interfere with the private business sector. The current government in power is doing its level best to subsidize and regulate “green” technologies. That is contrary to the mission of free-market capitalism. I agree with you 100 percent that fiscally irresponsible institutions and CEOs who have acted in a grossly unethical manner should be allowed to fail, go bankrupt, be absorbed by other companies, be punished to the fullest extent of the law, whatever it takes. Free-market capitalism without government interference is the best way to go as far as researching, developing and implementing “green” technologies. Government control is unacceptable.

In reference to my comments, I don’t feel they were extreme or overly-emotional by any means. Did I not respond with logic and clarity of thought and not with irrationalities? I don’t see a problem with my analogy, either. To reject something means to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use. How is that any different from “…only disagreement and denial with the green mission”? If you want an analogy that is more precise and less “obtuse” or “ridiculous”, I could use your very words and replace them with what I stated in my analogy. For example, “Here is the problem with “your camp” (not to excessively stereotype you): there is not any cohesive type “mission,” there is only disagreement and denial with the mission of Christianity.” Another example, “Here is the problem with “your camp” (not to excessively stereotype you): there is not any cohesive type “mission,” there is only disagreement and denial with the mission of the U.S. Constitution.” A final example, “Here is the problem with “your camp” (not to excessively stereotype you): there is not any cohesive type “mission,” there is only disagreement and denial with the mission of free-market capitalism.”

As it stands, I have repeated what our “mission” is in regards to global climate change; however, if that still isn’t sufficient enough, I don’t know how many more times I can restate it.
ericgwilliams

ok, ill get back to you. I see the obvious shortcominings of an online debate coming to fruition, but I will do my best to answer your questions/offer some rebuttal in the timely manner suggested. just give me a bit.
ericgwilliams

Looks like we are both getting at the “you said I said that you said” so in order to just simplify and try and put this one to bed, I’m just going to answer your remaining questions and refrain from overly redacting and rephrasing anything said. Since we are not face to face and this has occurred over a few days now…much of our clarifications have lost their meaning. In any event, here we go.
Part 1: Response
Would it be fair to say that your stance on the matter is cautious? As in, you agree that a) there are a host of problems effecting the U.S. b) some of these problems may be remedied through the implementation of clean energy infrastructure HOWEVER c) we can’t get ahead of ourselves, make mistakes we will regret, impose legislation we can’t easily redact, burden the tax payer and cripple the economy with unnecessary spending? In looking at your mission that appears to be roughly correct. As such, caution keeps the debate, proposed policy, proposed spending and other factors honest by voicing dissent to radical policies, increased taxes or other factors seen as overly burdensome or infringing on liberty. So, while I might assume you consider Al Gore some form of zealot, your dissent (and the dissent of others) keeps him from sweeping the public of its feet and into hysteria. If that is still unclear, I am not sure how to express it to greater satisfaction.
In general I refrain from actively debating climate science. As I am not a scientist, I simply read what is available, make my best approximation of the findings, seek counsel from perceived experts and use that as a foundation from which other decisions are made. I can only assume you have done the same thing. There IS an ultimate reality, in that X% is caused by factor X, Y% by factor Y and so on…we have evidence suggesting such proportions (in terms of anthro from a virtual 0% to extremes probably nearing 90%). However, it is likely we will never assign exact proportions and uncover such a reality, as our empirical methods, instruments, models and assumptions are not sophisticated enough to simply say, “oh, of course, volcanic activity accounts for X% of GW and human factors are Y%. That is why I try to focus on the economic, political and ecosystem factors. Because, I can say, with relative certainty that a power plant built in 198X costs this much and went this much over budget. I can also say that the Yangtze river is polluted to the point where it is unfit for human contact. Again, I hope that is clear. As such, I will read those articles regarding climate change and add them to my base of knowledge.
Part 2: Response
Part 2:
Correction, the Prius is not the #1 selling car. However, the top 5 selling cars (Toyota Camry Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla) are all small Japanese cars. Make of that what you will.
http://www.carbuyersnotebook.com/archives/2008/02/top_ten_best_selling_cars.htm
Here is what I can offer on the American mindset. These behaviors and outcomes relate to the alleviation of the problems (petro-dictators, fuel consumption, pollution etc) that we have discussed. Again, make of them what you will.
UPS uses natural gas
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/ups-cng-trucks.php
NY cabs are going hybrid
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aQGO8VgUVowA&refer=us
Perknick and Wilder (2007, Clean Tech Revolution, Harper Collins) discuss how the business environment is ripe today for clean tech on the heels of bio-tech and internet revolutions.
Post-New Orleans is going green
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/27/ap/national/main4755123.shtml
Rental Companies offer more fuel efficient cars
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/jun2008/bw20080624_604154.htm
IBM is helping to develop smarter buildings
http://www.citris-uc.org/events/strategy_and_solutions_intelligent_buildings
A Google search for “green blog” yields a billion hits
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=green+blog&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10&fp=JJ2lHziMUzc
A Google search for “green consulting” yields 32 million hits
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=green+consulting&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10&fp=JJ2lHziMUzc
A Google search for “green tips” yields 163 million hits
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=green+tips&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10&fp=JJ2lHziMUzc
“An Inconvenient Truth” grossed $49 million worldwide (5th of any documentary).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth
Wal-Mart is making aggressive plans to go green (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9815727/). I must add another note here. They employ 2.1 million people (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=WMT), have stores globally and 86% of American’s shop there at least once a year (http://saatchis.com/birthofblue/); that is reach that no other organization on the face of the planet can replicate. They also are supplying an ever increasing variety of organic items (Interview with Gary Hirshberg and Wal-Mart food supply directors in the film Food, Inc. 2009 – http://www.foodincmovie.com/)
Your articles:
Tilting at Windmills – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041801188.html
And
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/29/BAGPGFFTG21.DTL
Interesting articles, as you point out, environmental extremists and others are in fact rejecting some green technologies. Which begs the question…what technology harms no sacred cows?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1887120,00.html
Another interesting article, but without much traction. A few people “dislike” them and there is some uncertainty, but that is going to occur with any new large scale project. I am interested to see how it unfolds.
And I was unable to open the last link to the PDF. I found a similar article that calls for monitoring of the manufacturing of solar cells and disposal. I couldn’t agree more. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/the-dark-side-of-solar-panels.php

Part 3: Response
Your articles:
TURN YOUR VEHICLE INTO A HYDROGEN HYBRID TODAY! – http://www.greenfuturetechnology.com/
-DIY projects are not sufficient to be called scalable
Fuel Cell Vehicles – http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fuelcell.shtml
-Great, I hope to see it. It does not mention the infrastructure needed to supply the cars with hydrogen. The hydrogen fuel highway in CA is not likely to come to fruition until after hydrogen cars come to market. http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/update/cah2net2008reporttoleg.pdf
Geothermal Education Office – United States – http://geothermal.marin.org/map/usa.html and http://www.geo-energy.org/information/plants.asp
-Great, I also hope to see this. Would you happen to know if geothermal is centralized like nuclear? That is the impression that I get.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090531/sc_mcclatchy/3242509
-budget cuts would reinforce my position that they are unlikely to come to scale soon enough. I support the tech, but would encourage dedication either to increased funding or redirection to technologies closer to scale…hydrogen cars appear to be a great one since obviously solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal and others cannot address vehicle fueling without improvement to the grid and/or storage.
http://www.cleancoaltechnologiesinc.com/
-I am thoroughly intrigued by the proposition of clean coal. The reservation is, of course, how clean is it? Carbon sequestering is a partial address of the problem. In any event, if they can deliver a 90% reduction of emissions and particulates (as the site offers) that would be a superb technology to utilize in the mean time.
Nuclear power is safer than ever
http://www.energydigital.com/U-S–nuclear-power-plants-called-safer-than-ever_668.aspx
-I have no doubt that it is safe, could be made safe, will be learned from the past and on and on. My concern has always been cost. Where will you find a bank willing to sink upwards of $8B on a project that is unable to be prototyped? What organization will put that debt on the books? How will each of these parties overcome the simple reality presented in this report (http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf) that suggests plants finish consistently over budget, past time projects and amidst significant delays? I would be interested in reading a competitive analysis that suggests the opposite.
How To Build 6,000 Nuclear Plants by 2050 – http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3225build_6000_nukes.html
A very detailed and encouraging plan. It conquers most of the concerns and demonstrates some level of feasibility in time and at a scale that would be of great benefit to the goals we have determined. However, I have two objections. 1) he says we need “government vision now on behalf of the nation, and the world, as a whole, with an orientation to critical infrastructure, that recognizes the human and economic needs, that rely primarily on low-cost energy.” On your behalf, I would hope that this doesn’t mean significantly burdening the tax payers and or introducing significant legislation. I am ok with it, but thought you might be interested in that note. 2) There is no discussion about how much this would cost. Based on estimates for today’s “overnight costs” (the cost of erecting it without inflation, delay or otherwise, instantly) in 2007 dollars, these reports were generated (all contained within the study offered):
Escalated actual realized costs of last nuclear reactor started between 1976 and 1977: $7,697/kw
Keystone Center 2007 Study: $2,950/kw
Florida P&L October 2007 Docket – Case A 2007 $ $3,596 /KW
Florida P&L October 2007 Docket – Case C 2007 $ $4,540 /KW
That is an average of $4,695/kw. That means that in order to construct the “equivalent to about 5,100 1,000-megawatt-electric (MWe) plants” that this author cites, it would cost:
$4,695/kw X 1,000 kw to a mw X 1,000 mw to a plant x 5,100 plants. That equals $23T in 2007 dollars. This is before you factor in construction cost escalations and cost of capital used during construction. These costs increase the overnight dollars by 259%, thus we now have a cost of $59.59T in 2007 dollars. If the entire domestic energy industry is estimated at $1T, where and how can we accumulate this funding? The economic feasibility is the only contingency for me (and many others). The environmental impacts, the uranium mining, the waste storage…I can live with that. Show me how, and I will gladly acquiesce.
Part 4:
As it turns out, our missions are nearly identical save for 1) mans role on ghg and gw (a nearly moot point considering all of the other factors to works towards) and 2) governments role in the process. Clearly you favor hands off. I tend to think that if we are going to have government and taxation present anyway, we might as well harness that ability to shape markets and incentivize change towards something that has many important outcomes attached.
I apologize for introducing the semantics of unanimity and solidarity; that point yielded little depth of understanding for either of us.
Part 5: Response
Again, there is a current reality of regulation. I see no reason why that shouldn’t be exercised to the benefit of this progress. Mind you, that sounds very “benevolent dictator” of me, but this isn’t abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty or the other host of factors that we squabble about in our partisan fashions incessantly, this is a movement that has the power to elevate the U.S. into leadership of the next world economic revolution.
You demonstrated in fair fashion that your statement analogy is not ridiculous.
Well, thanks for keeping me honest. I learned a lot, got a good portion of different perspective and have a great many sources to consider as this issue moves forward. Take care, best regards, Eric
ericgwilliams

comment no show?
wapiti307

Unavoidably detained. Will reply in time.

ericgwilliams:

Thank you for your response. I do work full-time and overtime, so the demands on my time and my Internet access time vary from day to day.

I am not a climatologist and yes, I have read articles, thesis papers, studies and so forth from scientists on both sides of the issue. I assume they are authorities on the matter and are not just writing what they do just to receive adulation, selfish gratification or gain some measure of respect among their peers. I suppose I could provide more links and cite more information on the flawed mathematics involved in the statistical data that the global climate change theorem relies on, but that would be an exercise in futility. I know your position on the subject and you know mine.

As I have mentioned, a few people in positions of power in the United States believe in 100 percent man-made global warming, one of them being the country’s Vice President. I have yet to see any statistical data that assigns an exact percentage value on how much man contributes to global climate change. However, since the United States government has designated carbon dioxide as a pollutant and a greenhouse gas (among other emissions) and subject to government regulation, I imagine that the percentage would be fairly high, since there are over six billion people in the world who exhale carbon dioxide on a regular basis.

As far as what the rest of the world does or doesn’t do, I could care less. If a country isn’t successful or if it is not as prosperous as the United States is, the blame rests on that country’s leadership. I care about the country I live in. So in respects to global climate change and “cap and trade”, to be fair, I hope our extremely smart government regulators take into account that the United States is the leader in researching, developing and implementing “clean” or “green” technologies. I hope they also take into account that the United States is not the leading polluter of the planet. I expect our political officials who are responsible for regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to then pro-rate our emissions in order to reflect the amount of industrial or man-made GHG the United States actually emits and the population of human and animal (“organic”) GHG emitters living in the country, so that we in the United States are not paying for the greenhouse gas emissions of China, Russia, India and other nations. Looking at “cap and trade”, I don’t see the benefits of legislation like Waxman-Markey, other than it will benefit politicians and others who stand to make money off of the deal (hello Al Gore). The fact that government would be controlling the process is even more distressing. They have been enacting insane environmental policies and regulations that have brought about more hardship on businesses and more of a burden on the American taxpayer. So their answer is piling on more insane environmental policies and regulations—brilliant plan, especially in the midst of economic turmoil. You don’t increase government spending in a recession. Neither do you raise taxes. All that does is raise the cost of goods and services and lowers production. Reduce government spending, government budget cuts and tax cuts lower the cost of goods and services, increases production and boosts the economy. This would make “green” products more affordable to manufacture and construct. It would also make them more affordable to purchase.

The issue on hydrogen and geothermal was not how prevalent the technology is or whether there is enough infrastructure to support the technology or not. The issue was whether or not each can be considered a “future tech”. I have stated my case that they are not “future techs”. Natural gas automotive technology is something to definitely be considered because many homes already have natural gas connections. The problem that natural gas automotive technology has is how the fuel would be dispensed in a safe, efficient manner. Nuclear power already exists and due to advances in nuclear technology, the amount of time it would take to build a reactor has been reduced, compared to the time it took to build a nuclear plant 30 years ago. “Clean” coal technology, along with carbon sequestering has a very promising future and the infrastructure for “clean” coal exists right now. Biofuels technology such as biodiesel is a “clean” technology that can be used right now. Corn-based ethanol failed miserably because they were using a food source to manufacture and refine their fuel, which brought about a corn shortage for nations that rely on the importation of corn and drove the price of corn way up. Brazil has been using sugar-based ethanol for years, but whether it can successfully be used in the United States on a wide scale remains to be seen. Again a food source is being used, so there would be an economic impact.

Referring to the references I use to support my statements, not all of them contain information I totally agree with. When an article speaks of complete government control of a country’s private business sector and/or its citizenry, excessive government regulation, a “one-world” government under the flag of the U.N., world opinion of the United States or covers a topic that goes against my principles, I completely reject that line of thinking or reasoning. I do not reject the whole article based on a couple of words or a sentence I don’t agree with. If the article consistently contains things I don’t agree with, I don’t use it as a reference, period.

In regards to everybody thinking “green”, that might be the case in other countries, but not in the United States:

Problems and Priorities – http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

What we’re really dealing with as far as the whole global climate change issue is concerned is called “ways and means”. There is no doubt that we need to implement and use all available technologies in a gradual, reasonable and cost-effective manner. At the same time, more environmentally-friendly technologies can be researched and developed. We can’t completely eliminate the need for petroleum products. We can reduce the need for petroleum to the point we don’t have to rely on it to fuel our vehicles and other equipment that needs some sort of fuel to operate. In so doing, we cut off funds going to people who and countries/governments that hate the United States and can’t wait to revel in the country’s demise. To blindly rush into using “green” technology and completely eliminate petroleum-based technology would be harmful and disastrous. Right now, we are experiencing exactly what trying to immediately change/eliminate something is doing in the United States with respects to our economy. We are also experiencing what government interference in private enterprise is doing. This does not help the “green” industry in the least.

Share this: