I got a lot of answers to my questions about global warming last night while watching TV. There was a show discussing the issue on the History Channel. It was not sensationalist; there was no suggestion that we were in for a world of hurt until around the end of the century. But there was an explanation of what happened in the past millenniums when there was an increase in greenhouse gases and global average temperatures increased over 15F. In at least 2 cases there was mass extinction. The same was true when greenhouse gases decreased abnormally, except that it led to ice ages, including one where the entire globe was encased in ice. In all cases so far, the changes in carbon dioxide or methane concentrations in the atmosphere were natural. Cold spells are typically due to a change in the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit around the sun. When the orbit is elliptical, ice ages are more apt to occur. We are in an elliptical period right now, but global temperatures are rising. The most reasonable explanation is that greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide, are increasing at a high rate. How do scientists know the concentration of carbon dioxide over the millenniums? They collect ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica and determine the carbon dioxide concentrations in the ice strata. Maybe we really do need to make an effort to control greenhouse gases.
Oh, yeah. The hook to cars is that we need to drive smaller vehicles more efficiently and find alternate forms of energy for the cars, like electric motors. There is a pilot coal burning plant in Illinois that exhausts it's vapors underground. Maybe that concept will supply clean energy from a traditional source of electricity.
Agree; personal initiatives are important. Our house was built in 1979 with 2x4 walls, cedar siding and an ineffciient gas furnace.
We took up Al Gore's challenge of reducing our CO2 emissions by at least 10% over the 1990 levels.
Starting in 2004 when we returned from an overseas assignment, we did the following:
1. Fully insulated the basement with 6" of fibreglass.
2. Installed a high efficiency (98%) condensing gas furnace.
3. Installed new efficient water heater
4. Installed additional insulation in attic, improved weatherstripping
5. Changed 36 light bulbs with fluorescent ones; Xmas lights with LEDs
6. Traded 2 8cyl cars for 2 4cyl cars.
7. Bought battery operated lawnmower and compost clippings
8. Changed appliances with new Energy Star efficent ones.
The overall result was a 45% decrease in greenhouse gasses and an actual 42% reduction in energy (BTUs)used. Heating, for instance went from 252 million to 145 million BTUs (1450 therms); Electric power consumption from 9700 down to 7000 kilowatt hours. When we had Chevy Chase Christmas Vacation style lights in the 90s our electric bill showed 13,000 kilowatt hours!!
All these changes were cost-effective and the longest had a payback of just over 5 years.
A year back,I was temporarily living up north, During Earth Day 2007, I learned from some Canadian government representatives that it is more carbon-efficient to turn off a car's motor if it idles for longer than ten seconds. That's right: ten seconds. That also means that you save gas, i.e., money.
Since becoming aware of this, I time the traffic lights near to where I live. I have found it very easy to simply turn off the engine while waiting at a light that has a two-to-three minute cycle.
Back then, I picked up a brochure explaining this. Just yesterday, I looked for the brochure on the internet. It is no longer there, but the information contained within it is on the following web page:
http://oee...fm?attr=24
The Canadian Office of Energy Efficiency has however said that they will send copies of the brochure and also a transparent sticker for the windshield.
Some of you who use your cars more than I do might find this to be worthy of a conscientious effort. Since this is right off of the webs-site of a government that at least sometimes takes environmental protection more seriously than ours does, the eternal nay-sayers might think twice before trying to bark up this tree.
I might take exception with the 10 SECONDS of idling,especially in cold weather, but idling does waste a lot of gas an pollutes the air, besides not being good for your car. Some months back we had an extensive post on this. The concluision was that too much idling was bad, but starting and stopping your car at every traffic light could cause trafic problems by those with finicky cars and slow responses.
It is ironic that Canada, a country with a small population, immense oil reserves, 600 years of coal, some of the richest uranium reserves and major gas deposits worries about fuel consumption and has gas guzzler taxes. Norway, another resource-rich country is equally committed to green house gas reduction.
Well, of course ten seconds does not apply to starting one's car at -20 °C....that's why block heaters are there. Those details are also on the link that I quoted. The brochure does not recommend stopping at "every" {quote ! :-) } stop light...it only addresses idling in general. I'm the nut that stops at traffic lights whose patterns I already know... ;-)
The oil reserves question is not unambiguous. I lived in Edmonton, Alberta, whose ecology is bearing the brunt of the tar sands development. The majority of the Canadian oil that is still underground is in the form of tar sands, and virtually all of the tar sands are in Alberta. I understand that (a) it takes one barrel of oil in energy to produce two barrels of oil from tar sand and (b) the only reason that the Canadian per capita carbon emissions are greater than those of the US is because of - oil production from tar sands. The previous Albertan governments furthermore gave Exxon et al. very favourable conditions to access the natural resources that they needed to process the oil sands. Of course a Canadian -which I am not- could explain this in much more vivid detail than I could.
However I did note that recent opinion poles "up there" gave the ordinary citizenry much more credit for understanding the connection between their activities on global warming. Much more credit than their Bush-esque Prime Minister deserved. For example, you might recall the global conference from last year on targeting emission levels, and the attitude taken by Cheney, Inc. The only other country supporting the US position was Canada. Then, the Alvarez organisation pulled together a petition to TELL the P. M. to support binding emission levels. I don't recall the exact numbers, but the petition pulled in roughly four times as many co-signees as intended. The P. M. consequently withdrew his support for the US position. You might recall that the US was then forced to accept a compromise, and no longer block the proceedings.
Good post! Energy and politics are always hard to separate. I believe, like you, that Canadians are more environmentally aware of what goes on in the world, and will support strong government action, when it comes, to cut energy consumption. I think they are also aware that reaching the low level of France, for instance, would be impossible since they live in a big, cold country that is a major mineral and energy producer for export.
Agree, idling your car is mostly a matter of common sense. I often see 300 HP SUVs pull up to the local recycling depot and the owner leaves the machine running while he/she sorts out the cans, bottle, newspares, etc.
I missed the show but have heard people talking about it. Driving smaller, more efficient vehicles is definitely what we need to do. The ultimate goal eventually being to total replace all vehicles on the road w/ hybrids, or fuel efficient ones.
We can get a head start by keeping our tires properly inflated and the cars properly tuned. The best way to conserve 10% to 20% of the gasoline and diesel fuel used is to slow down. If everyone drove the speed limit we could do just that. I know it's unpopular, but it is the quickest way to conserve energy and reduce CO2 generation. I go the speed limit for other reasons, but these are additional reasons to keep it up.
Hi...I'm the guy who started the post in the first place (the one who lived in Edmonton, Alberta). I inquired with the Canadian Gov't office who produced the brochures (they also have transparent window decals):
Personal Vehicles Initiative/Programme des véhicules personnels
Transportation Energy Use Division/Division de l'utilisation de l'energie reliee au transport
Office of Energy Efficiency - Natural Resources Canada
Office de l'efficacité énergétique - Ressources Naturelles Canada 580 Booth Street, Ottawa, ON, K1A OE4
http://idling.gc.ca http://marcheauralenti.gc.ca
The people with whom a corresponded have agreed to send me a few hundred brocheres and also fifty of the window decals. I told them that if it were possible for me to distribute them in a meaningful way, that I would come back for more.
Although not my original intention, it would be possible to distribute them to those who are interested... I can be contacted at fentonh [at] gmail.com or via my website http://www.freewebs.com/fentonh (send me a stamp or two for the postage).
There is a not-so-subtle irony that the Canadian government must step in to compensate for an unwillingness on the part of the US government to do anything but talk about a meaningful level of CO2 reduction.
I'm a college student, and I just took a Geology class last term that discussed global warming and the Earth's cycles. We (humans) have been specks on this planet for only 10,000 years or so compared to the 4.6 billion years the Earth has existed. We are nothing but microbes on the back of a whale; inconsequential. Just as has always happened in the past, when the Earth gets tired of us she'll shake us off her back. The most likely result of global warming, according to historical evidence, is the start of a new ice age. The Earth will always heal itself through its cycles. That's how it works. The worst damage we could do is causing the next ice age a little sooner than would be normal. That won't hurt the Earth; it will just make our lives on it miserable. We like to think we're sooo important, but, in reality, we are nothing to this Earth or this Universe. Just specks.
"The most likely result of global warming, according to historical evidence, is the start of a new ice age."
Not directly, though an ice age would ensue at some later date. The first thing would be unknown changes in climate. Then would come flooding of anything under 100-feet above sea level. As mankind dies off due to the climate changes, natural cycles will be able to take over. Eventually the Earth will cool an go into an ice age in its own good time. Geologically, that might be a short time, but it will seem like an eternity for us, especially the ones who live through the mess.
The most likely result of global warming, according to historical evidence, is the start of a new ice age.
You took ONE Geology class while my daughter is finishing up her BS in Chemical Engineering at MIT. According to the historical evidence she's been studying as a Job with 3 WORLD RENOWNED Scientists they completely disagree with you. There is very solid evidence that Humans have a LOT to do with Global Warming. You can trace it right to the start of the industrial revolution. There have been fluctuations on CO2 levels throughout the worlds history...but there is a significant increase since we started polluting our air. The increase is far greater then any other point in time.
Hitler's propaganda minister, Goebbels, said that a lie repeated often and
loudly enough will be taken as truth. Some people believe, therefore, that
anything said loudly and often is a baldfaced malicious lie. The recent athletic
steroid scandals tend to reinforce that idea. However, rejecting any idea out of
hand is just as bad as accepting an idea without double checking.
Also, some environmentalists denigrate their credibility by padding their
arguments with junk science. Just yesterday, on my local public access cable
channel, a woman was saying that polar ocean water absorption of sunlight has
increased with the reduced polar icecap. That is not true because beyond seventy
two degrees latitude, the sun never gets high enough for its rays to penetrate
the surface of standing water. Sunlight always reflects from water beyond
seventy two degrees latitude.
The important thing is in that according to theory, global warming COULD happen
and COULD result in catastrophe, so, we must do all we can to prevent disaster.
The proportion of human activity to all sources of CO2 may be very small, but we
must avoid being the proverbial "straw that breaks the camel's back."
To our credit, we humans, unlike animals, respond to crises with innovation
rather than self-induced suffering.
OK, thanks. I agree that we should start planning soon to avoid difficulties as the decades roll on. Decades? Yes, I believe that we have a lot of time, but it is not unlimited.
Answering this thread here, not just this posting. No one seems to notice that major reductions "just in case" are not hypothetically or maybe going to induce a world-wide depression. It will absolutely induce a world-wide depression. Just in case, doncha' know?
The comment about polar ocean water light absorption may have had to do with the fact that ice reflects sunlight. The more open ocean without ice, the warmer the ocean becomes which in turn melts more ice.
Humans have lived through at least one ice age, but we have created new poisonous molecules that the earth has never seen before. The poisons are everywhere including marine life and the earth that we farm. So our ability to survive major climate changes will be compromised by these poisons we have introduced into the biosphere. We can argue about how much humans have contributed to global warming until all the glaciers are gone, but we will still have to deal with issues like water and global poisoning.
"OK, thanks. I agree that we should start planning soon to avoid difficulties as the decades roll on. Decades? Yes, I believe that we have a lot of time, but it is not unlimited."
I'm a firm believer in "tipping points" and don't think that the decades or slow trend towards climate change is a healthy one. We have never passed this way before under these circumstances as a species and would be fool hearty to minimize the urgency.
"we should start planning soon to avoid difficulties as the decades roll on. Decades? Yes, I believe that we have a lot of time, but it is not unlimited."
I'm sorry but that statement is incorrect.
I just saw a talk by Lester R. Brown of the Earth Policy Institute. His organization provides data and illustrates trends on global warming and its consequences for (human) civilization. If interested, then the link is: http://www.earth-policy.org
You don't have decades. The basic message that his work has shown -and this is backed up by many other researchers is: the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 80% must occur within the next TEN years NOT twenty years.
And for anyone in the peanut gallery who might squeak "just theory" or "environmentalist liberals". here is the link to the Chemical Society of Washington (part of the American Chemical Society) who hosted the talk. They give a brief background on his credentials towards the end of that second page: http://mem.../meet.html
04/22/2008 12:01:33 PM
