steeler wrote: 
Yeah me too!  I'm thinking there is a lot of information out there - new and ongoing projects that seems really positive and well thought out.  Some European countries are experiencing great success with wind and solar energy.

 islander wrote: 
I'm guessing that the dense-pack population centers are a ton more efficient than our way of living too, energy-wise. Everybody off the farms and into the cities!

 Lazy8 wrote: 

Well, I short-handed it, for sure.

But, here's the thing: I don't disagree with you that we want something that works.  I mean, I doubt anyone disagrees with that.  And I also agree with you that we don't just accept any proposal or proposals just for the sake of doing something.    

I'm not sure what you meant back in your original post to which I responded when you said that what was being proposed was vastly expensive and intrusive.  What proposal is that?  Maybe I have not read enough (and I know I have not on this subject), but I thought we were at just the beginning of defining possible solutions.

 

 Lazy8 wrote: 
But let's define 'lots'.  On a per-capita basis Japan uses about half the electricity that we do. They use essentially the same amount of electricity that they used in 1940. And I don't think I'd call this:

The dark ages. They are just smart about energy usage. They have policies that reward smart use. When a new product is introduced, it has to be at least as efficient as the one it replaces (preferably more). Companies commit to annual REDUCTIONS in the amount of energy they use. They get credits and incentives for upgrading to more efficient gear (we are starting to do that here).

This stuff isn't that hard. When I have a few moments I'll post about some of the stuff we have done here. I run a facility that is now using a little more than a Megawatt of electricity. We are Scaling rapidly and connecting so that we will have 5MW available. But we have done things with the lighting, HVAC, Power distribution, and control systems to minimize our impact. On an apples to apples basis, we are 20-30% more efficient than the average data center, and 50%+ more efficient than data centers build 10 years ago. But we are no where close to the Japanese.  1940, think about that.

edit: couple more points,,,
Small scale solar can work on households because they are already grid connected. I personally know some one who just installed a rooftop system. His meter is consistently running backwards now (winter, Denver CO.). It's not cost effective, but it was barely subsidized. We currently subsidize oil, and have been for decades, maybe we shouldn't subsidize alternative either (I actually think we should - it's something we want to encourage), but we definitely shouldn't still be subsidizing big oil. Let's see the true cost for all sources.

It's not that I think there is *a* solution. But there are lots of things we can do to help with *the* solution. And Japan shows us that we can still live pretty well and use half of the electricity we do now. Imagine if we just cut back 1/3 or even 1/4. And we then added regional solar, tidal, wind, geothermal to the mix. We could reduce the number of new generation sources we need. We could not build another coal plant because we would have time to get reasonable nuclear online. We could build less nuclear.

 steeler wrote: 
First, I can't speak for anybody but myself, but this isn't an accurate representation of my concerns.

I want to make sure that when we attack a problem that we are actually doing more good than harm. Reducing carbon emissions isn't as easy as it looks. The problem has to be approached from first principles, not by grasping at the first straws we see.

Unless we want to go back to pre-industrial revolution ways of living we will use lots of energy. We aren't. So we need energy.

We fuel our modern age with fossil fuels because it works. We spend a certain amount of energy extracting it from the ground and get more (much, much more) back. This can be turned into an economic analysis, but let's leave it in terms of energy for now.

If you want a similar positive return on energy investment for other technologies you need to be very careful how you go about it. If you want to build windmills or solar panels to power our lives you have to look not just at the energy they make but the energy they cost. Building and erecting wind turbines takes energy—lots of it. If you put a windmill in the wrong spot (one where the wind isn't steady enough to reliably make power) you will never (in the useful life of the windmill) recover that energy. You will have gone backwards—burned more coal/petroleum than you could ever replace. The carbon footprint of that turbine is negative. It made things worse.

There are very few places that have positive energy ROI for wind power. They are being surveyed as fast as possible, but even the really good ones (like parts of North Dakota) start to look sketchy when you factor in the construction of power lines to distribute the energy harvested. Solar photovoltaic is even worse. At current efficiencies the only places that have a positive energy ROI are places that use very little and/or would take a ridiculous effort to connect to the grid.

For those of us capable of doing this math the constant demand to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy (ie solar and wind) is immensely frustrating. It's like trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that there really is no such thing as a 200 mpg carburetor. To a lot of folks telling them they can't have the energy equivalent of a free lunch means you are just a tool of the oil companies frustrating their obviously pure and holy mission to save the earth.

The easiest way to account for all this is with money. Greenies like to remind us that saving scarce resources will make economic sense; that if you save energy you'll save money. They don't like to look at the other side of that coin: that if you aren't saving money you probably aren't saving energy. That if solar panels have to be subsidized then they probably aren't really, on balance, helping. Good intentions will not fool the laws of nature and they won't fool an honest accountant either.

 islander wrote: 
I know just what you mean...I really had too bite my tongue on that one....

 Beaker wrote: 
OMFG.

I think my head just exploded from an ironic overload.

edit: I really want to say more, but I just don't know where to start....

 Zep wrote: 
Your correct, it isn't a Draft Agreement, just one of the many papers circulating & prepared before the Conference began by various diverse interest groups..  There are probably hundreds of different papers on all of the aspects of the problems & on the solutions.  None of them are the Offical UN or Copenhagen Summit papers.

Looks like the announcement by some Media of Disaray on the First Few Days is a way to try and invalidate the whole Conference Process.  Its the "No Hope, Nothing Here to See" scenerio that some groups are espousing.

I'd rather remember this quote by Al Gore

"The road to the signing of an agreement in Copenhagen will not be easy, but the world has traveled this path before. More than twenty years ago the US signed the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer, and strengthened it to the point where we banned most of the major pollutants that created the hole in the ozone over Antarctica. And we did it with bipartisan support: President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill joined hands to lead the way.

We can do it again and solve the climate crisis, protecting our planet for future generations."

 Beaker wrote: 
The Beeb has it too.

The differences appear to be whether to extend or abandon Kyoto; to what level of carbon cuts should developed countries commit; and a target date. Kyoto offers technical and financial assistance to developing countries, which is understandably why they want to continue it. The new text probably doesn't provide that; I can't tell just yet.

Edit - I'm not sure it really is a draft agreement; Yvo de Boer seems to be saying it was not, but that it was some sort of background sent out ahead of the meeting. Still, it doesn't look good if you're a delegate and on the second day, this thing appears.

 edieraye wrote:  

I'll expect a full report on your, er, choices.    

 edieraye wrote: 
That would work quite well if every one on the planet shared the same sense of morality regarding what is the "right" thing to do as you do. 

Some times when one own' life is threatend by a problem, it serves as a greater motivator to make changes neccessary for survival, than having a fine tuned sense of morality.  But, you're correct that it would be great if everyone shared the view that being good stewards was the right thing to do.

I guess some groups, individuals, don't seem to mind "dirtying their own nest".  Clean or dirty is not a question or moral of right or wrong to them.  Nest destruction brings the issue more to the forfront

I find survival of humans and most of the animals & plants to be as good, or better, than using moral right as the reason for good environmental stewardship. (although that really would be wonderful if it was the basis).  Simply because the survival instinct is more immediate in getting a response (survival is the most basic human motivator) & if the science for the last 20 years is correct, we need a more immediate response.  Of course denial could be seen as one of the responses humans might have to a survival situation.  Fight, flight, freeze in place.

 steeler wrote: 

What?  You mean I'm not always perfectly clear and painstakingly precise?  I do have a response but am going to blow you off (no dirty snickers from the peanut gallery) for a hot date.  Look for a response in a couple of hours.  Or if things go well, tomorrow morning!

 edieraye wrote: 

I do not understand what you mean by that sentence. 

I do agree that issues should be framed as positively as possible.  

These are not issues of whether littering is wrong.  One of the issues being debated is whether human consumption (specifically, carbon emissions) are contributing significanlty to climate change.  So, I'm kind of at a loss as to how you would propose addressing that as simply a challenge to our stewardship of the earth.  To cut down on carbon emissions, for example, would entail more than just reinforcing to each individual that he or she must act in a way that better fosters a cleaner earth.    

As for life approaches: It is true that choosing to put out a particular fire first is not a pleasant choice, but it still is a choice. Could just let it burn and suffer the consequences — whatever they might be.  People do choose to do just that.  Is making the tougher, unpleasant choice a trap?  Sometimes, I do feel that way.  Other times, I see it as avoiding the trap.               

 steeler wrote: 
Oh see I hate living my life that way.  Of course, there are times I fall into that trap.  Reacting to whatever most urgently needs tending to.  But it isn't a good place to operate from.  I much prefer when I am making choices in my life.  I would argue that addressing the environment from the standpoint of best practices would garner more good will and better results than the band aid approach. My two cents.

Painted_Turtle wrote:
But is that the reason we need to act responsibly toward the environment?  Because there is a problem?  I disagree.  I think we ought to be responsible stewards because it is the right thing to do.
 
For example, let's say that I could litter with no repercussions.  I would not get caught, there would be no negative consequences to myself or to anyone else.  It would still be wrong.  I'd like to see the global discussion move away from problems and solutions.  If everyone listened to me, we would frame the discussion in terms of respect, responsibility, and doing what is right not because doing otherwise would have negative consequences but simply because it is the right thing to do.

 Beaker wrote: 

I'm the only one T.

 Coaxial wrote: 
Doubtful.

 Monkeysdad wrote: 
A couple of points. Per capita efficiency of an airliner doesn't mean anything about it's overall impact. It's the full system we have created and it's impact on the environment that we need to look at.

Quasi-substantiated? Science is never absolute. If it is, it is not science. A significant majority of legitimate peer reviewed science (the method we use to give merit to such things) says we are having an impact. It will always be open to challenge, but that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate point that we should operate from. We elect leaders w/ less than a 1% majority, and we rally behind them as a country (or at least we agree not to riot over the inauguration). We should be able to rally around a 75%+ majority of scientific opinion.

Knee-jerk?  Nothing of this scale will ever be knee-jerk. It may be wrong, but it's hardly knee-jerk. That is just a label you are applying because you disagree with it.

Legacy. I have no children. But I do care what this place will look like in 100+ years. Even if the majority opinion is wrong on the cause, don't you think it's wise to address the problem? Or should we just wait and hope that some one will start to proclaim another ice age to worry about?  I'd be happy if we could just stop peeing upstream on the river.

 Beaker wrote: 

If it doesn't will you STFU?