[Gerben42]

Denmark is hosting a large political conference on climate change. It is presented as ground-breaking, very important, global and our last hope. As a realist, I don't buy any of this. Sad as it is, the conference will only allow politicians to show how much they want to reduce CO2 output without actually having to achieve anything.

The truth is, the first world doesn't want to be green. In addition, the new large economies in Asia also don't want to be green. If you ask a single person, they will say "sure, I want to save the environment" but it's so not going to happen. Because we will not want to change our habits, and any politician who will try forcing it upon us by radically changing the tax system will be voted off very quickly.

Another reason is that almost all rich countries are in the temperate zones and will not suffer much the coming 50 years, even if temperatures continue to rise. We will not connect to resource wars (yes, there will be ugly wars) in the tropics. The past has shown that some famous person getting a baby is more interesting news than thousands of deaths in some poor country.

I want to apologize for the future horror we are going to cause the third world, fearing that it will be much worse than what we have done in the past 400 years. I fear that although I'm working for a company that tries to supply the world with safe, carbon-free energy, I am still part of the system that is going to cause much suffering in the future.

If you are reading this, you are certainly part of the lucky minority who will have a good life until the very end. I hope you support minimizing human impact on the climate, yet have an open mind on the methods. We can no longer afford cherry-picking as done by so-called environmentalist organizations like Greenpeace, who are in favour of electric cars (good), yet reject for example nuclear power, which would be needed to not having to get the extra electricity for the cars from... right, coal plants (bad). They are against cutting down the rainforest (good), but support energy production by biomass, thus requiring more space and leading to hunger in poorer countries (bad).

We need to massively invest in all technologies that will reduce our impact on the climate and on the world, not just those that are supported by the so-called "green" movement.

Please support the end of cherry-picking for a better world. Thanks.

[Aberlour10]

Result of this conference? Most probably an agreement = "deception package"
Why? The rich western countries would have to pay enormous amounts to the others as a equal. They dont want to do it and will not do it. To belive US Congress will appropriate X billions for this aim is like to belive Santa Claus exists.

Robert

[PassedOut]

Gerben42, on Dec 7 2009, 12:52 PM, said:

We need to massively invest in all technologies that will reduce our impact on the climate and on the world, not just those that are supported by the so-called "green" movement.

Absolutely right.

In my opinion, people deadset against nuclear power (nice folks as they are) completely miss the big picture. Yes, there are serious problems with nuclear waste and those problems must be addressed. But those problems are nits compared to the problems we are now kicking down the road to future generations.

To all the folks waiting for fusion to save the day, forget about it for now. When and if it becomes feasible we can phase out some of the other power sources.

[Al_U_Card]

Lip service being what it is, the real problem is the expectation that has been created to "force" people to accept new taxes, privations and the like for the "good" of the planet.

Gag me with a spoon.

You can rest assured that they will hem and haw and come back with something that will cost what they feel they can get away with. Reuseable and renewable are good. Wind, water, solar and geothermal are all laudable and acceptable but they would have to take from the oil/gas/coal industries to be fair.....fat chance of that when you see where their contributions come from. That is change that they can count on. They provide the change and they can count on their reps making sure that that particular relationship is maintained. Nothing else is likely without a mainstream uprising and based on current trends, that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

[gwnn]

Disregarding the huge costs it would imply, would a plan to massively increase our dependence
on nuclear power viable in the long term? I heard somewhere that if the world doubled its nuclear power production, sources would become depleted in less than 100 years. Is that true?

[hrothgar]

PassedOut, on Dec 7 2009, 09:26 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Dec 7 2009, 12:52 PM, said:

We need to massively invest in all technologies that will reduce our impact on the climate and on the world, not just those that are supported by the so-called "green" movement.

Absolutely right.

In my opinion, people deadset against nuclear power (nice folks as they are) completely miss the big picture. Yes, there are serious problems with nuclear waste and those problems must be addressed. But those problems are nits compared to the problems we are now kicking down the road to future generations.

To all the folks waiting for fusion to save the day, forget about it for now. When and if it becomes feasible we can phase out some of the other power sources.

I'm highly skeptical about nuclear power.

I'm not so much worried about safety (the Europeans have shown that its perfectly viable to run large numbers of nuke plants safely over large periods of time).

The waste is a problem, however, its not nearly as significant as we make it out to be.

From my perspective, the major problem is that nuclear isn't cost effective compared to modern solar and wind. Some of this is due to NIMBY type problems. However, even if you ignore these, it still doesn't seem to make sense to invest in nuke plants rather than insulation, wind farms, etc...

[y66]

I understand OP's cynicism. It seems like anything less is a bad joke. But I don't get why anyone thinks national governments, national politicians and corporations are going to solve this problem. IMO, if we solve this problem in time it will be because individual earthlings change their attitudes about consumption, for example, by living in ways in which it is not cool to be wasteful, and demand changes to local building standards, local urban development plans, local transportation options and local access to alternative energy sources, including nuclear.

I'm not looking for the guys in Copenhagen to solve anything. I think they have an important job to do in reinforcing attitudes. And I think they will do this.

[blackshoe]

I've been out of the field for too many years, but I can tell you that between 1965, when I graduated high school, and 1975, when I received my MS in Nuclear Engineering, the cost of building a nuclear power plant in the US more than doubled, and the amount of paperwork required to obtain an operating license in the US went from a single stack about man high to enough to fill a small room. Most of the increase was due to increased requirements for environmental impact statements.

I also have one sort of interesting anecdote: my stepmother, who was a nurse, was vehemently anti-nuclear throughout my college career. Nothing I could say would dissuade her. Then, sometime after I joined the Navy, she went to hear Edward Teller speak. He changed her mind. I wish I knew what he said. She couldn't tell me, all she could remember was that he was very articulate.

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on Dec 8 2009, 04:54 AM, said:

From my perspective, the major problem is that nuclear isn't cost effective compared to modern solar and wind. Some of this is due to NIMBY type problems. However, even if you ignore these, it still doesn't seem to make sense to invest in nuke plants rather than insulation, wind farms, etc...

I think that we need to move forward with all technologies that will reduce our impact on the climate without regard to political correctness. Insulation, wind farms, and so on are important.

Insulation helps to reduce the consumption of power, as does more fuel-efficient transportation and manufacturing, but we'll always need plenty of power too. Not every place is suitable for setting up wind farms, solar power collectors, and hydro plants, and all technologies have downsides. NIMBY issues are not limited to nuclear plants.

Nuclear plants can produce large amounts of power reliably without contaminating the air, and the footprint is small compared with wind farms. Where clean power can be generated more cost effectively than nuclear, of course that should be done. I just don't think that will always be practical, so I don't like to see nuclear power excluded from the mix merely for political correctness.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on Dec 8 2009, 10:34 AM, said:

I've been out of the field for too many years, but I can tell you that between 1965, when I graduated high school, and 1975, when I received my MS in Nuclear Engineering, the cost of building a nuclear power plant in the US more than doubled, and the amount of paperwork required to obtain an operating license in the US went from a single stack about man high to enough to fill a small room. Most of the increase was due to increased requirements for environmental impact statements.

I also have one sort of interesting anecdote: my stepmother, who was a nurse, was vehemently anti-nuclear throughout my college career. Nothing I could say would dissuade her. Then, sometime after I joined the Navy, she went to hear Edward Teller speak. He changed her mind. I wish I knew what he said. She couldn't tell me, all she could remember was that he was very articulate.

Almost twenty years ago I managed a project to bring two nuclear power plants back into compliance with NRC requirements. I'll skip the long anecdotes about that experience and the people I worked with on both sides. But I did draw two conclusions that I suspect still hold true:

1. The plants do need strict monitoring.
2. It could be done much more efficiently and at much less cost.

[Wackojack]

Don't suppose this cuts much "ice" with the propogandists who are saying that the world is now cooling. Has the graph been "massaged" for the sake of appearance? Looks to me like the world is still warming after all.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...r20091208b.html

[gwnn]

misread

[PassedOut]

Wackojack, on Dec 8 2009, 11:58 AM, said:

Don't suppose this cuts much "ice" with the propogandists who are saying that the world is now cooling. Has the graph been "massaged" for the sake of appearance? Looks to me like the world is still warming after all.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...r20091208b.html

No, it just shows an even more widespread the plot by scientists to convince folks that heat-trapping gasses actually trap heat.

[Al_U_Card]

Wackojack, on Dec 8 2009, 11:58 AM, said:

Don't suppose this cuts much "ice" with the propogandists who are saying that the world is now cooling. Has the graph been "massaged" for the sake of appearance? Looks to me like the world is still warming after all.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...r20091208b.html

Check out this site for all sides of the situation.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on Dec 8 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

Wackojack, on Dec 8 2009, 11:58 AM, said:

Don't suppose this cuts much "ice" with the propogandists who are saying that the world is now cooling. Has the graph been "massaged" for the sake of appearance?  Looks to me like the world is still warming after all.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...r20091208b.html

No, it just shows an even more widespread the plot by scientists to convince folks that heat-trapping gasses actually trap heat.

More of the same.....everywhere you look...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-...ero/#more-13818

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Dec 8 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Dec 8 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

Wackojack, on Dec 8 2009, 11:58 AM, said:

Don't suppose this cuts much "ice" with the propogandists who are saying that the world is now cooling. Has the graph been "massaged" for the sake of appearance?  Looks to me like the world is still warming after all.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...r20091208b.html

No, it just shows an even more widespread the plot by scientists to convince folks that heat-trapping gasses actually trap heat.

More of the same.....everywhere you look...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-...ero/#more-13818

well that settles it - we're doomed... did you notice how the u.s. epa director is laying the groundwork for massive taxes?

[blackshoe]

Yes, I saw that.

[Al_U_Card]

At least some of the attendees are willing to spill the beans. From the Guardian report as shown on WUWT


The agreement, leaked to the paper, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol’s principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act.

The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as “a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks”, the paper reports.

[luke warm]

blackshoe, on Dec 8 2009, 08:19 PM, said:

Yes, I saw that.

does this mean that we can sue employers and businesses for endangering our lives (depraved indifference)?

[Aberlour10]

Reading the news from Copenhagen till now..no signs for solutions, not even a small one.