What do you think of global warming?

[Lady's Human]

On the global warming media frenzy:

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

No, not all scientists are convinved that global warming is a problem, or that it's even happening.

[Pembroke_Corgi]

On the global warming media frenzy:

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

No, not all scientists are convinved that global warming is a problem, or that it's even happening.

Well, even if global warming is a "hoax," do we really want to take the risk of it being real??? The principal behind the idea of global warming is real- more carbon= more heat is trapped in the atmosphere from the sun= higher temperatures. By reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere we are doing no harm- so why does it matter if global warming is real or not? Planting more trees, and reducing emissions is good for everyone regardless.

Even a small increase in global temperature can wipe out biodiversity- a study found even increasing the temperature by 5*F can greatly reduce the amount of plant life! Maybe that columnist at the Denver Post is right, but frankly the piece sounds just as sensationalized as the global warming hype he's trying to dismiss.

[Lady's Human]

Wouldn't it be better to gather the data carefully, research slowly, making sure your results are real and THEN go to the press rather than raise the alarm and then shift your arguments to fit the results as your data produces different results?


(They were using the same data set in the mid '70s to sound the alarm about the coming ice age)

[shihtzulover850]

yeah I agree. Either way we are destroying our planet. Whether global warming is real or not pretty soon we will face consequences for being ignorant. That is just how it is. and unfortunately too many people who have the power to turn things around just choose not to help.

[Lady's Human]

Some countries are doing more than others, which is why Kyoto was such a bust. The signatory countries have all but admitted that there is no way they can meet the protocol.The biggest reasons Kyoto was a failure out of the starting block is that they set limits to low for any country to reasonably reach, there was no enforcement mechanism, and the countries that are the biggest polluters (China and India) were not required to abide by the restrictions whether they were signatories on the treaty or not.

Yes, the US uses more energy per capita than most other countries, but we also produce energy in cleaner ways than most countries, the sole exception being the old (not all, just the truly ancient) coal fired plants that were grandfathered under the clean air act. The US doesn't send brown clouds across the ocean to other countries (China and India both do), it's damned near illegal to burn lignite in the US (China's main source of coal is lignite) and chemical dumping is completely illegal in the US. Most of the current chemical pollution in the US is due to accidental spills or residue from chemical spills and dumping in earlier times when the results were not known and not monitored.

[shihtzulover850]

they think they have found a way to make coal cleaner. coal has become something much easier to use beause the us has such an abundance of it. it is dirty but it lessens the dependence on foreign oil.

[shihtzulover850]

Yes, the US uses more energy per capita than most other countries, but we also produce energy in cleaner ways than most countries, the sole exception being the old (not all, just the truly ancient) coal fired plants that were grandfathered under the clean air act. The US doesn't send brown clouds across the ocean to other countries (China and India both do), it's near illegal to burn lignite in the US (China's main source of coal is lignite) and chemical dumping is completely illegal in the US. Most of the current chemical pollution in the US is due to accidental spills or residue from chemical spills and dumping in earlier times when the results were not known and not monitored.

yes I agree

[Pembroke_Corgi]

they think they have found a way to make coal cleaner. coal has become something much easier to use beause the us has such an abundance of it. it is dirty but it lessens the dependence on foreign oil.

The problem is not the actual burning of coal- yes, it is cleaner, but the excavation is the real problem. When coal is mined, a gas is released into streams and rivers that kills plant and wildlife. Until they can solve that problem, coal will still be a major polluter. Not to mention, coal is still a fossil fuel, that is it non renewable unlike sun or wind energy.

Some countries are doing more than others, which is why Kyoto was such a bust. The signatory countries have all but admitted that there is no way they can meet the protocol.The biggest reasons Kyoto was a failure out of the starting block is that they set limits to low for any country to reasonably reach, there was no enforcement mechanism, and the countries that are the biggest polluters (China and India) were not required to abide by the restrictions whether they were signatories on the treaty or not.

The Kyoto agreement was a good idea- but I believe the US never even signed it? I think the UN should have more control over areas like this, and make countries culpable for pollution. Industry is obviously important in the global economy, but how long can those industries reasonably last since we do have a finite amount of resources available?

[Lady's Human]

The excavation on coal produces two byproducts. The first is mine tailings, scrap rock from the areas around coal seams which is discarded. If these tailings are improperly handled, they can affect the area around the tailing piles, but laws are in place now that require the tailings to be taken care of in an environmentally friendly manner. If it's a strip mine, the law requires that the mine be returned to the state it was in before mining began, and they usually use the tailings to restore the area to pre-mining state.

The second byproduct is the gas PC referred to. Methane has no immediate harmful effect on the areas around the mine, but is a greenhouse gas. The answer to this is to capture the methane and use it to as fuel (natural gas) or use it to produce methanol. This is currently being done in newer coal mines. Why waste a resource by letting it slip into the atmosphere?

Yes, coal is a fossil fuel, and non-renewable, but until alternatives to fossil fuels are researched and turned into commercially viable sources (in the case of wind and solar power) or allowed to be used (in the case of wind and nuclear power) we have to use something to produce energy.

One large problem with one alternative source of energy that has suddenly become the "in" alternative fuel (hydrogen) is that it takes electricity to produce. Where will that electricity come from? Another problem with it is that combustion of hydrogen yields water vapor, which is itself a powerful greenhouse gas.

[shihtzulover850]

The problem is not the actual burning of coal- yes, it is cleaner, but the excavation is the real problem. When coal is mined, a gas is released into streams and rivers that kills plant and wildlife. Until they can solve that problem, coal will still be a major polluter. Not to mention, coal is still a fossil fuel, that is it non renewable unlike sun or wind energy.

Yeah that is true too! unfortunately there isn't enough backing by people.

[dab_20]

I didn't vote because I really haven't learned much about it.