US favours bucks over the environment?

Remove all ads!

I disagree with you about the Kyoto protocol being a joke. There is an arguement from a Danish scientist (whose name I forget) which is usually used by the majority of "anti Kyoto" people, saying that, for the money enforcing Kyoto would cost, a great deal more good could be done. This is true, I imagine many hundreds of thousands of people could get clean water, vaccinations etc.

However, implicit in agreeing to Kyoto is the fact that it is only the first step. 5% is, indeed, a drop in the ocean - but it is getting the ball rolling. It will not be any easier to get that ball rolling in 50 years time (whatever the timescale may be) when the problem is much more pressing.

I agree totally with you that it is lunacy not to use renewable sources where one can; but given the potential disaster that could happen if something is not done now, I cannot agree that any international treaty to try to attempt to limit harmful emissions is a joke. There is a strong moral imperative to ensure that it is not a laughing matter...

 

This is primarily in response to ejsmith's post about the solar panels.

For starters, I believe what you are thinking of would be "microwave power" or some such. The solar panels will collect energy and then send it down to Earth in a radiation beam similar to what is currently used in microwave ovens.

This would be far more efficient than solar power for a few reasons. First, the panels would recieve far more direct sunlight than would be possible anywhere on earth, and second, the panels would be far larger than anything that could be constructed planet-side.

Unfortunately, that is a somewhat futile plan. I can think of no organization that has either the resources nor the desire to do that. Putting those panels into orbit would cost a fortune in both man hours and money. The rate of disaster is also too high. If the beam was somehow off, which wouldn't be all that likely if any piece of stellar dust hit it, it would raze a very large area of land. At this point in time, we simply cannot take the risk.

Maldir: Wind turbine is the cheapest, yes. However, it is infeasible in certain heavily populated or less windy areas. It also depends highly upon the weather proving favorable for the turbines. The output of the wind turbines is in no way sufficient to support all the people in the world, irregardless of how many you had. If you wanted to do that, we would have to cover a pretty sizable portion of the globe to enact that.

Hydroelectric power would be a viable alternative. However, environmentalists do not generally approve of this due to the fact that the dams will alter the landscape. However, the dams are cleaner than any other viable system we have, and they are also a more economical solution than either of the other two.

ejsmith, Remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island? I'd say we still have a few more advances to make in atomic technology before we even consider that one, whereas hydroelectric is available now.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200209\FOR20020906f.html

 

Ahh...the beauty of science An interesting link, although I'm not sure I'd wholly trust Lomberg anymore than the WWF 'scientists' who wrote the report being discussed. He was the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" that came out last year (?). The overall premise was okay (basically, pay close attention to what you read/hear, and don't buy all of the hype without question), but some of the arguments he used in taking apart certain theories were quite unfounded. There was a very good critique printed somewhere - the Economist I think. I'll see if I can dig it up anyone if is interested.

But, it all just goes to show you shouldn't 'accept' anything without thinking about it first. And if you don't know, you should learn about it before offering an opinion.