EasternOrthodox
Practical solutions for Climate Change
Posted on: 12/12/2011 20:29
I am starting another thread, with a title that makes it clear what the topic is. I do not believe there is a simple solution to this.
Here is an example of the sort problem we are up against:
http://www.rferl.org/content/alternative_energy_fuels_central_asia/24413...
'Alternative' Energy Fuels Central Asia
December 06, 2011
Soaring fuel prices; electricity rationing; early snow -- it's enough to send people scurrying for alternative ways to heat their homes and cook their meals.
In some parts of Central Asia, however, "alternative" doesn't necessarily mean clean burning or eco-friendly. In Uzbekistan, cheap is the operative word, and that means things can get downright, well, earthy.
"Coal is fuel for rich people only," says Eshmurod-Aka, a resident of Uzbekistan's Qashqadaryo province. "Animal manure is the only fuel we use now."
Sadirokhun Sophiyev, a resident of the eastern Uzbek city of Andijon, explains that "these hardships have prompted us to find rather unorthodox, alternative ways" to keep the heat going and the stove cooking.
The burning of animal dung for fuel is an age-old practice that had largely faded away. But in the current environment households with livestock once again find themselves slapping manure on barn walls, part of a drying process that will result in dried cakes that can be used for heating.
Sophiyev boasts that he has even found a way to get rid of one of the main detractors of burning dung for fuel -- its smell.
"I make a mixture of sheep manure and coal powder," he says. "Coal powder is very cheap. I put a few kilos of coal powder on the floor of my sheep barn. Their waste eventually gets mixed with the powder and eventually it makes a perfect fuel that burns well and has no smell at all."
This winter is already shaping up to be a long one. The first snowfall came earlier than usual in many parts of Central Asia, in early November, just days after scheduled electricity rationing begun in many provinces across Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
Creative Solutions
"It's like a whole package of problems that winter brings to us," says Ahmad Ibrohimov, a resident of the southern Tajik town of Kulob.
"The situation is much more difficult this year," he says. "Three pieces of firewood, which is barely enough to boil a kettle, costs 2.3 somonis ($1.57). Diesel costs 7.5 somonis ($1.6) per liter. It's too expensive to use as fuel for home heating and cooking. For this reason, we can no longer use cooking stoves powered by diesel."
In Uzbekistan, a state-sponsored program offered households an affordable price of 71,000 soms ($40) for a ton of coal, enough to get a family of five through the winter. But supplies have run out, and prices have gone up to $300 per ton in some provinces -- roughly equal to the monthly per capita income.
Sophiyev, whose home region, the Ferghana Valley straddles the borders of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan, says the conditions "lead to creativity."
"Even housewives have become like experienced electricians now," Sophiyev explains. "They attach a wire to power lines and connect it to their homes."
Another creation is a home-made siphoning device that increases the flow of natural gas piped into homes.
"It's a common practice because the gas pressure is very low, and people's households don't receive enough gas," a neighbor of Sophiyev's explains to RFE/RL's Uzbek Service on condition of anonymity.
In Tajikistan, prices for gasoline and diesel have gone up by some 50 percent since April, following Russia's decision to raise its tariffs on oil exported to the impoverished country.
Kerosene Lamps And Candles
The price means many villagers can no longer easily afford to operate diesel-powered electricity generators that became popular among Tajik households in recent years.
"The generator consumes two liters of fuel every evening to produce electricity, which is barely enough for a television set and lighting a few bulbs," claims Nazirjon Ruziboev, a resident of Ponghoz village in the northern Sughd Province.
"Now I use the power generator only when there is a football match on television," he says. "We get electricity from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. when there are not many good television programs. People mostly watch movies on DVDs during winter."
The shortage of affordable energy and fuel means a complete change of lifestyle for the Ruziboevs. Despite having a sizeable five-room home, the family of six spends the winter mostly in one room.
The room is equipped with a wood-burning stove, which they use both for cooking and heating.
"This is where we eat, watch television and sleep," Ruziboev says. "It's suffocating sometimes, especially when food is being cooked. But it would be too expensive to have more than one stove."
And if more light is needed after electricity is cut off in the evening? Locals again go back to tradition -- in the form of kerosene lamps and candles.
Search
Recently Active...
Comments
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 12/12/2011 20:46
Under the thread Global Defrost, I have already posted about electric cars. We can use this thread for talking about solutions, the other thread for discussing the problem itself...what say?
So I will repost:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/be001e9a-15c7-11e1-8db8-00144feabdc0.html...
Motor vehicles: Houston's commuters plug into electric cars
by Sheila McNulty
At a former Hummer dealership on the outskirts of Houston, NRG Energy, a power producer, has established the headquarters of its electric vehicle-charging network, the first first in the US to be privately funded.
....
NRG plans to spend $25 million over five years to link Texas' three key cities--Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth and Austin--with charging stations. The plan calls for 50 stations in Houston, 70 in Dallas, and stations along the highways to link those cities with Austin, which is separately building its own charging network.
....
Subscribers to the Houston network receive overnight chargers installed in their homes, which prove 70 miles of range with heat or air running and 100 miles with the windows down. The average commute in the US is 31 miles.
The home chargers, which cost $2,000, are paid off in monthly installments of $49. For $89 a month, users also can power up at the seven stations placed outside shopping centres and drug stores around town.
Two of the seven plug-in stations in Houston and one in Dallas have the latest, DC chargers, which provide 200 miles of range per hour of charge....chargers at other stations provide up to 24 miles of range for every our plugged in.
Arun Banskota, president of NRG EV services, will not divulge how sales are going in the year since eVgo was established, saying the company is not looking for a profit as it builds the infrastructure. Its focus is on growing public awareness, with 60 public events between July 4 and Thanksgiving. "When people see electric vehicles, or drive them, they're sold," he says.
....
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 12/12/2011 20:48
I will also repost this on wind energy in Germany:
One of the big issues is what to do about it. We cannot just suddenly go back to being peasant-based societies the world over. However, realistic talk about what to do is often lacking, because it is so hard to come up with solutions.
Nuclear power was looking like it might take up some slack, but people are are getting skeptical of that post-Fukushima. In Germany, the population is particularly anti-nuclear and the govt has promised to phase out all nuclear power plants.
Here is an article about their work with wind power, all off-shore, in the North Sea:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,792918,00.html
From the article:
This is no longer some environmentalist's toy. These are industrial plants surrounded by open water. The 12 wind turbines are in fact 12 power plants, albeit very small ones, each with an output of five megawatts, which just happens to be the same as that of the first nuclear power plant in Obninsk, Russia, which opened in 1954.
The German government plans to install another 10,000 megawatts offshore by 2020, and 25,000 megawatts by 2030.
That would mean another 5,000 of these wind turbines, or 400 wind farms the size of Alpha Ventus. Large swaths of the German Bight would then resemble a pincushion from afar, turning the body of water into a sea of megawatts.
When that happens, dozens of vessels like the Wind Force I will be needed, as well as hundreds of divers and thousands of men like Ralf Klooster. Germany would then be a true republic of wind.
So they have 12 x 5 = 60 megawatts in this wind farm, with another 10,000 megawatts planned for 2020, up to 25,000 megawatts by 2030. Requirement: 25,000/5 = 5,000 turbines.
For some perspective, the Chernobyl reactors generated 4,000 Megawatts (there were 4 of them). So they are going to need a lot of turbines. They will also require new high-voltage transmission lines to transmit the energy to the inland parts of Germany.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 12/12/2011 20:50
And a follow-up article on delays they are experiencing in Germany:
Here is article about Germany's progress with trying to get a substantial portion of their energy from wind (I have linked to an article above about this). If anyone can do, it will be them. The population is very frightened of nuclear power and after Fukushima, Chancellor Merkel promised to phase it out. Also, the Germans are very good at engineering. And they have plenty of wind in the Baltic Sea.
There is not a simple project! They also have to build high-voltage transmission lines. We have those in BC, where we get most of our power from a huge dam in an isolated area in the far north. We have a very long swath across the province of the transmission lines.
But most of BC is quite empty compared to Germany and they are quite unattractive so it going to be difficult for them. Here it is (from Der Spiegel):
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,799918,00.html
11/25/2011 01:22 PM
Lagging Construction
Demand Pushes Power Grid to the Limit
The construction of new power lines in Germany, particularly crucial following Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to swiftly abandon much of the country's nuclear power, has fallen behind schedule. The government network agency warns that the grid is at the limit of its capacity.
Under German Chancellor Angela Merkel's energy revolution,four-fifths of all electricity in the country will be derived from renewable energies by 2050, up from around 18 percent today. That program, however, is premised on a massive upgrade of the electrical grid that has fallen well behind schedule.
Infrastructure projects needed to transport clean wind energy from the Baltic Sea to Germany's electricity grid are woefully bogged down, according to German financial daily Handelsblatt on Friday. Citing the contents of a yet unreleased report by the German Federal Network Agency, the paper reported that development of the country's new high-voltage smart grid, dubbed the "energy autobahn," has been particularly problematic.
Pointing to power lines ranked as a priority in 2009 when parliament passed the Energy Line Extension Act to thoroughly upgrade the grid, the report said that only 214 kilometers of a total 1,807 kilometers (1,122 miles) approved in the law have been completed so far. Of 24 projects considered particularly urgent, only 12 have been completed, with delays between one and four years anticipated for the others. The delays have become the "Achilles heel" of Germany's energy revolution,Handelsblatt wrote.
The Federal Network Agency says construction of the power lines is overdue. The report stated that the existing network "has been pushed to the limits of its capacity because of the numerous transport tasks it has had to fulfil in recent years and the changes in the electricity-generating structures."
The agency wrote that the closure of eight of Germany's 17 nuclear power plants following the nuclear disaster at Fukushima,along with the integration of a greater share of renewable energies, has created "special demands" for network operators, and the expansion of the grid is the "order of the day." The report urged that new possibilities approved for accelerating the construction of the grid be expedited. The provisions, passed as part of a new raft of energy laws in the summer by Merkel's government, allow for faster processing of permits to build needed power lines.
Opposition to what critics call the "monster masts," which can be as tall as 80 meters (260 feet), is considerable. A slew of not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) lawsuits planned against the construction of the energy autobahns has also led some grid operators to develop a new weapon against the resistance: better-looking power lines. It remains to be seen whether that can work.
------------------------
More info on this topic, added Dec 5, 2011 from the Financial Times (short excerpt only since I have to type them in by hand, FT gives me a warning if I cut and paste):
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f3536030-15c6-11e1-8db8-00144feabdc0.html...
Nuclear phase-out: Germany faces "Herculean" task with move to renewables
by Gerrit Wiesmann
This spring, as the German government was preparing its landmark decision to phase out nuclear power to 2022 and replace it with renewable energy, the head of the country's second-largest utility gave a speech in which he notes he knew of no industrialized country that was "even rudimentarily able to rely on renewable energy."
.....
Chancellor Angela Merkel in the summer sketched out how Germany would succeed. It could replace 20 GW in nuclear power by building at least 10 GW in wind and solar plants and least 10 GW in highly efficient modern gas-fired powe stations.
This, she argued, would increase the share of green energy in electricity generation from about 20% today to 35% by 2020...and pledged Germany would still meet its 2020 aim of reducing CO2 emission by 40% compared with 1990.
But what looked solid in blueprint appeared more rickety as experts started picking over it.
Power companies were already planning a new generation of offshore wind farms, but would they get them built in time? Would Germans allow pylons to be built in their back yards? And who would build new gas-fired plants?
....
Sven Utermohlen, head of climate and renewables for central Europr for RWE's rival Eon, this summer called Ms Merkel's goal for renewable energy capacity "a bit too ambitious."
....
It is the fossil fuel component of what the chancellor calls Germany's "energy switch" that has environmentalists worried. As numerous power company heads have pointed out, it is hard to replace low-emission nuclear power with fossil-fuel sources--even if only in the interim--and still expect CO2 emissions to continue to fall.....
Still, one has to start somewhere.
InannaWhimsey
Posted on: 12/12/2011 20:57
*chuckle* Helping by updating insulation for buildings
Testing of underwater kites underway.
And I'd say put some heat collectors at EVERY seat of government...that'd prolly save us all ;3
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 12/12/2011 22:07
Political hot air collectors? Long a topic of consideration.
Why don't you join us at the LAST POST THREAD, where you can post tasteless photos and videos, harass Graeme and others about everything under the sun and generally always be LAST!
I am going to look for a tasteless photo on the Cheezburger site right now...
sighsnootles
Posted on: 12/13/2011 07:53
geez, that kite one is COOL. i have never seen anything like that... science is just amazing.
here at my house, i make it my mission to make as small a carbon footprint as i can... every year it gets smaller and smaller, too.
right now, we are in the process of making our house as energy efficient as possible. we had an energy audit, and we are getting the worst offending windows replaced shortly. insulation is actually pretty good. our furnace and A/C is now energy star, and pretty much the best you can get.
i compost anything and everything i can. we recycle like crazy, and i have actually been known to grab garbage from my neighbours that has recycling in it and sort it for them. there isn't the facilities here to recycle plastic bags, but my relatives have them, so i store the ones i can't re-use (holes) and bring them with me whenever we go there for a visit.
i can go on... thats only a small part of what we do...
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 12/18/2011 15:39
Noise problems with wind turbines? (The Times, London)
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article8442...
Thousands at risk of turbine hum
Thousands of people living near wind turbines could find their lives blighted by the noise, researchers have warned.
Acoustic scientists estimate up to a fifth of Britain’s wind farms generate a low- frequency hum that can be audible for more than a mile.
With the government planning a huge expansion of wind turbines, some experts want the limits on wind turbine noise — 35 decibels during the day and 43 decibels at night, the equivalent of a buzzing fridge — to be lowered.
The impact of the pulsating sound, a phenomenon called “amplitude modulation” (AM) which is believed to be caused by the turbine blades striking patches of turbulent air, has already led to payouts from energy companies.
Earlier this year, Jane and Julian Davis took a wind farm operator to court, claiming that the noise from nearby turbines had forced them from their Lincolnshire home. They settled for an undisclosed sum.
John Huxtable, 64, has been unable to open the windows of his bungalow in Putford, north Devon, since a 360ft turbine 500 yards away was switched on this year. “The noise is absolutely horrendous. It’s worst in the evenings when everything else is quiet,” he said.
Rules governing the noise created by wind turbines are based on continuous background noise and do not take into account the bursts of loud noise also associated with AM.
Mike Stigwood, a noise consultant, estimates that 20% of wind farms suffer from AM, which, he believes, is caused by differences in wind speed and turbulence at the top and bottom of the blades as they spin. Walls and roofs tend to filter out higher-frequency sounds but allow deeper noises such as AM to penetrate.
Dr Lee Moroney, planning director at the Renewable Energy Foundation, a charity that has called for tougher regulations, said: “Noise of this kind disrupts sleep and so can have a devastating effect on people’s lives. The solution is greater separation distances between turbines and dwellings.”
RenewableUK, the industry body, said a review of AM was under way, adding: “We think that the regulations are robust enough . . . Once the research into AM is finished, we will look into ways we can minimise it.”
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 12/18/2011 15:54
Problems with turbines in high winds. Note: I am not disapproving of wind farms, I still think these things can be worked out.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article8396...
Storm shutdown is blow to future of wind turbines
Wind energy plans face a setback after it emerged that the power output from wind turbines plunged by more than half during last week’s storms
Jon Ungoed-Thomas and Jonathan Leake
Published: 11 December 2011
Britain’s plans for a huge expansion in wind energy face a setback after it emerged that the power output from wind turbines plunged by more than half during last week’s storms.
At the height of the bad weather, one turbine in Ardrossan, North Ayrshire, caught fire while others automatically shut down to prevent damage from high winds.
Data seen by The Sunday Times reveals the full extent of the failure of power generation from turbines as storms and winds of up to 165mph hit Scotland. At about 9am on Thursday, the wind turbines were generating more than 2,000 megawatts. This slumped as the strong winds blew across the country and the turbines shut down. By midday, output had fallen to 708 megawatts. The turbine operators had predicted they would be operating normally.
Further doubts about all forms of alternative energy — including wind turbines — will be highlighted tomorrow in a joint report from the Adam Smith Institute and the Scientific Alliance, which argues that the government’s focus on renewable energy sources is misguided.
The report, Renewable Energy: Vision or Mirage, says plans for renewables are unrealistic and the technologies cannot provide the secure energy supply the country needs.
If current policies are pursued then Britain faces an energy crisis by the middle of this decade, the authors warn.
“As renewable energy sources produce power intermittently, they cannot replace gas, coal and nuclear generation, even with further development,” the report says.
The storms have raised serious concerns among energy experts about the reliability and cost of wind turbines which will face another test this week as forecasters warn of more rough weather to come. The Met Office predicts severe gales early in the week, with gusts of up to 70mph.
During last week’s storms 105,000 homes in Scotland lost their electricity supply and 10,000 were still without power yesterday.
The Sunday Times revealed last week that Chris Huhne, the energy secretary, is planning to build up to 32,000 new turbines to help meet green targets. There are now almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines in the UK. The Scottish government aims to generate the equivalent of 100% of Scotland’s own electricity needs from renewable sources by 2020.
Sir Bernard Ingham, secretary of the pressure group Supporters of Nuclear Energy, led the charge against wind turbines this weekend. He said: “They are no good when the wind doesn’t blow and they are no good when the wind does blow. What on earth is the point of them? ”
Energy experts say the unreliability of wind turbines means extra expenditure is needed to ensure they are always backed up by other power sources. John Constable, director of policy and research for the Renewable Energy Foundation, said: “It is a very expensive way of generating power because this shows you need two systems running in parallel.”
A spokesman for the National Grid said more work was needed on accurately predicting the amount of power that would be generated by turbines.
Robert Norris, a spokesman for RenewableUK, the trade association for the wind industry, said wind turbines represented good value for money.
“Once they are constructed, your source of energy is free and they cut carbon emissions,” he said.
A wind turbine bursts into flames duing last week's storm (Stuart McMahon)
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 12/18/2011 16:13
I note this story only because we sometimes forget how dangerous it can be at times to get at old fashioned fossil fuels.
An oil drilling platform sank in stormy weather of Russia's east cost. 4 confirmed dead, 14 rescued, 49 missing. (The platform was being towed at the time).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020479110457710590352409583...
graeme
Posted on: 12/18/2011 20:25
The basic problem is fossil fuels - not just in using them, but in pumping them. Canada's pollution rating has jumped some 24% due to oilsands alone. That is why Harper ducked out of the Kyoto accord. The only way we could meet our goals was to shut down oilsands.
The reality is that any solution requires an enormous effort by governments - and a willingness ot our governments to stick it to the fossil fuels industries. I see no way that is going to happen.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 12/18/2011 21:47
The problem is that there is no substitute for fossil fuels at the moment. Ethanol distilled from corn is no bargain: it takes as much or more energy to distill as you get out of the ethanol itself. You only make a gain with sugar cane (it has a lot of sugar in it). That is good for Brazil, but not really for anyone else, given that it grows only in hot climates and requires a lot of land to grow it.
In the US, half the corn crop goes to ethanol. And they grow a lot of corn in the US.
Something new is required, but what? Even the Germans don't think electric cars are ready for rolling out en masse yet. You need charging stations all over the place (see the very first post on this thread).
A new Manhattan Project is required. But all the Western governments are broke and in debt. Even the Germans, the most fanatically green of all the Europeans, can come up with nothing better than wind farms, and they are currently behind schedule.
Realistic predictions suggest the Germans will end up burning more natural gas to replace the nuclear power plants they are closing. A new undersea pipeline from Russia just opened, direct from Russia to Germany.
LBmuskoka
Posted on: 12/19/2011 08:42
Well the Chinese - you know that country that Peter Kent said wasn't doing enough - is planning to increase its use of solar power ....
China unveils feed-in tariff for solar power
Beijing has made renewable energy a keystone of its energy policy and aims to raise solar power capacity tenfold in the next five years. The long-awaited feed-in tariff guarantees solar developers a payment of 1 yuan per kilowatt-hour that their projects feed into the grid, or 1.15 yuan per kh in some cases depending on the timing and location of the project.
And then there are people like the following who manage, with a little ingenuity, to kill two birds with one stone - provide cheap light and recycle....
Instead of looking for reasons why we *can't* do something how about looking for reason why we *have* to do something.
We've forgotten much. How to struggle, how to rise to dizzy heights and sink to unparalleled depths. We no longer aspire to anything. Even the finer shades of despair are lost to us. We've ceased to be runners. We plod from structure to conveyance to employment and back again. .
Richard Matheson, Collected Stories, Vol. 1
RevMatt
Posted on: 12/19/2011 08:49
We are not short on money, only determination and imagination. Saying "we are broke" is an excuse, and it is untrue. On the monetary front, it is well documented that the financial cost of inaction greatly exceeds the cost of action, but really, this is mostly just another example of short term thinking triumphing. If we cared, truly cared, we would be radically remaking our society.
momsfruitcake
Posted on: 12/19/2011 09:25
The problem is that there is no substitute for fossil fuels at the moment. Ethanol distilled from corn is no bargain: it takes as much or more energy to distill as you get out of the ethanol itself. You only make a gain with sugar cane (it has a lot of sugar in it). That is good for Brazil, but not really for anyone else, given that it grows only in hot climates and requires a lot of land to grow it.
In the US, half the corn crop goes to ethanol. And they grow a lot of corn in the US.
Something new is required, but what? Even the Germans don't think electric cars are ready for rolling out en masse yet. You need charging stations all over the place (see the very first post on this thread).
A new Manhattan Project is required. But all the Western governments are broke and in debt. Even the Germans, the most fanatically green of all the Europeans, can come up with nothing better than wind farms, and they are currently behind schedule.
Realistic predictions suggest the Germans will end up burning more natural gas to replace the nuclear power plants they are closing. A new undersea pipeline from Russia just opened, direct from Russia to Germany.
hemp?
LBmuskoka
Posted on: 12/19/2011 09:29
Amen Rev Matt
and here is someone who agrees ...
Our growing income inequality is a fact. So is the possibility that it could prove economically disastrous.
An April report from the International Monetary Fund found that growing income inequality has a negative effect on economic expansion. The report said that long periods of high growth, which were called “growth spells,” were “much more likely to end in countries with less equal income distributions. The effect is large.” It continued: “Inequality seemed to make a big difference almost no matter what other variables were in the model or exactly how we defined a ‘growth spell.’ ”
Our income inequality could jeopardize our recovery.
Inconvenient Income Inequality
And one more thought to consider....
Last year, Americans spent $450 billion on Christmas. Clean water for the whole world, including every poor person on the planet, would cost about $20 billion. Let’s just call that what it is: A material blasphemy of the Christmas season.
Sojourners
Just think, 4% of what Americans alone spent last year could provide clean water. Think what not having to deal with water borne disease could achieve - maybe a person who develops other clean resources. Imagine if other wealthy countries contributed 4% just from Christmas presents. The possibilities are endless, if we just start looking...
And for those, like me, who are broke and or lazy, here is a lesson in "how your broke ass can still give back"
momsfruitcake
Posted on: 12/19/2011 09:27
Hemp - Could Save America
The Weed That Can Change The World
From Varied Sources
2-25-4
http://www.thehia.org/hempfacts.htm
momsfruitcake
Posted on: 12/19/2011 09:42
this is one of my favourite shops for hemp. it shows how versatile. they have clothes, sundries and food. why don't more places like this exist. i wish it wasn't all the way on the other side of the country! although that hasn't stopped me from ordering. i just wish it was closer so my carbon footprint was smaller.
momsfruitcake
Posted on: 12/19/2011 09:43
oops, forgot the link:
http://www.rawganique.com/
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 12/19/2011 12:37
We are not short on money, only determination and imagination. Saying "we are broke" is an excuse, and it is untrue. On the monetary front, it is well documented that the financial cost of inaction greatly exceeds the cost of action, but really, this is mostly just another example of short term thinking triumphing. If we cared, truly cared, we would be radically remaking our society.
So tell me, or give me some links about what we can use as a substitute for oil in cars, trucks and ships. I have already discussed the first faltering steps for electric cars. I have discussed the limitations of ethanol.
I am not saying there will never be a substitute. Just that it is does not exist at present. And there is no particular idea on the horizon (except ethanol).
MikePaterson
Posted on: 12/19/2011 12:45
Practical solutions? At teh heart of the problem, EO, is our extreme sense of entitlement. Something to do that's effective? Get rid of half the light bulbs in your house, use public transport and walk more, take shorter showers, eat less meat… there's plenty you and I can do starting now. If you look at the full costs of car use (including servicing, depreciation, insurance, parking, etc) and the frequency and distances of trips, you'll possibly find there are cheaper, more energy-efficient alternatives.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 12/19/2011 13:31
What about trucks and ships delivering food and other necessities?
I live a modest life-style and do not have a sense of extreme entitlement. I have to drive to work owing to a medical condition, Irritable Bowel Syndrome. I was able to take public transport for many years when I was younger, but in the last few years the condition has gotten worse and I have had a couple of bad experiences on buses.
I drive only to work, and drive a small, fuel-efficient car. I take one vacation year, to visit my sister. I never fly, I never stay in hotels. I live in a small house, heated with an electric furnace (BC is on hydro power). My son and daughter-in-law and granddaughter share my small house with me.
My sister make most of my clothes. My furniture is decades old and suits me fine. My only luxury is books and various on-line subscriptions.
My daughter-in-law's job starts at 4:00 am, cleaning a restaurant in down-town Victoria. There are no buses at that time of day. She likes the hours because she does not have to pay day-care (she has it worked out with my son, so they work at different hours).
MikePaterson
Posted on: 12/19/2011 13:33
EO: great! So let's keep spreading that message: the core of the energy problem is consumption! Technology, no technology, no amount of it, can provide infinite amounts of anything — that's the big fallacy on which all of our economic theory and thinking is based.
LBmuskoka
Posted on: 12/20/2011 08:03
While I support the idea that the individual can do their share, the real change will only be created by governments and corporations - they are after all the biggest producers of environmental toxins.
Our government has spent billions - yes billions - on companies that produce toxins. From direct company bail outs to subsidies to government grants; billions of taxpayer dollars are spent in support of these technologies.
What if, tomorrow, the Canadian government gave all that support to "Green" technologies? Would that not create jobs in the industry. Would that not make the technology more affordable for the "broke asses" in this country like me. Would that not ensure a sustainable economy and freedom from the politics of oil that has led to high prices and war.
Our current elected officials have basically flipped the bird to environment. They have no desire what so ever of supporting green technologies and they believe that the Canadian people agree with them... after all they "have a mandate".
Instead of sitting in the dark, every Canadian who wants to breathe a little easier should be hounding their elected, from municipal to federal, officials to clean up their act.
The greenhouse effect must be considered as the world's greatest environmental concern.
Peter Kent, Jan 24 1984
We’re not setting a hard target on this date. If it takes somewhat longer, that would be fine.
Peter Kent, Dec 8 2011
graeme
Posted on: 12/20/2011 09:20
It doessn't matter whether we have a substitute. The reality is that we cannot continue to use fossil fuels without destroying the planet. Either we stop using them - or we cease to exist. To say we don't have a c hoice is to say t here's nothing to drink except arsenic.
The effort does have to be massive, and it has to be led by government. It probably includes for example, rebuilding our cities to make them far more compact, and with mass transportation which people MUST use. The present sprawl is dreadfully wastefu. It's not practical to expect people in the suburbs to wak to a distant mall for their shopping. It is practical to house them in high rises so that every street becomes a shopping mall.
But any such action requires us to put enormous pressure on our governments. At present, we don't. Harper recently was fighting limitations on the use of asbestos. He is doing all in his power to protect dirty oil, and to ignore its devasting effects. He boasts of scuttling the Kyoto accord. He represents fossil fule, not us.
The Canadian people need to wake up. The idea that we can do the cleanup if only we walk more is quite hopeless. No such mass movement of any import is going to happen.
The only mass movement that will be useful is one to get rid of all the politicians who have stodd in the way of change.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 12/20/2011 10:30
There is no country in the Western world doing anything like what Graeme is suggesting--and this is the scale that would be required to make a dent in the CO2 emissions.
graeme
Posted on: 12/20/2011 12:55
exactly
What people can do is to wake up and smell the coffee. we have to scare the hell out of our governments.
MikePaterson
Posted on: 12/20/2011 15:27
Well, we're now set for MINIMUM 2-degree rise: enough make some serious readjustment oblkigatory.
No-one is doing enough — thanks in part to our government's refusal to do anything that whiffs of working together or setting binding targets.
And, Graeme, I and convinced that it has to involve a reduction in consumer demand from the very start. It is crucial to making the statement that we want to planet to survive.
Pilgrims Progress
Posted on: 12/20/2011 17:18
Whilst I applaud the idealism shown here, the realist in me sees words and convictions that aren't, and will never be, enough.................
If the solution lies with our governments, why don't we vote in Green parties?
Are we right to say that the major parties get elected just because they're supported by big business and corporations who control the media?
Might there not be other factors at play?
Perhaps Joe Public is concerned that a Greens Party would divert finance from the military and defence of national borders - and we would be "over-run" by a foreign power?
Perhaps they would tighten up on welfare programmes at the expense of the middle-class (baby bonuses etc)?
Perhaps the cost of fuel will become so expensive that we'll be forced to move to the cities to avail ourselves of public transport?
These are the hard questions that we have to face if we wish to change public opinion.
I personally support the Greens Party now - where once I voted for the party that purported to support the underpriviledged.
But I don't kid myself that if they did manage to get elected I would not lose some of my present priviledges.
When you look at the bare bones of the issue it gets down to what are you willing to sacrifice for the common good?
Are you willing to give up your present lifestyle - or cling to it for as long as you can?
Sadly, the way I see it the world is already demonstrating the answer.
In Africa women are leaving their babies who die from malnutrition by the side of the road as they walk impossibly long distances to refugee camps.
Affluent democracies like Canada and Australia turn their heads - and only get interested in the huge discrepancies of wealth when their own, not poor, but middle-class, is affected...........
Perhaps it's like my niece said to me, "I agree with what you say - but nobody likes moving backwards"...........?
We are on the way of the dinosaur - the path to extinction, IMO.
MikePaterson
Posted on: 12/21/2011 01:22
It really comes down to the notion of what "backwards" really is, doesn't it? I would describe our middle class values as mostly vain, shallow, ignorant, stupidly unsustainable, cruel and very decidedly "backward …and, by the time you have read that, you have possibly thought of a hundred reasons to disagree with me. Forwards, to me is getting over middle class values — and it doesn't not mean doing without everything that science has brought us; it means discernment, it means ditching the wastesful, the frivolous, the misguided, the plain idiotic, and sharing the rest. It means entering INTO life, not running away from it into real or virtual gated communities.
Pilgrims Progress
Posted on: 12/21/2011 01:03
Mike,
I wouldn't disagree with you about middle-class values slip-sliding away.......
The rot set in when the working class aspired to be middle class, IMO.
It's been largely all downhill from then - but it a most luxurious vehicle...........
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 12/21/2011 01:43
It has been downhill since the Industrial Revolution started pouring carbon dioxide into the air. Long before there was a middle class and luxury. Some scientists think it really started to pick up after we in the West tackled air pollution--which was formerly blocking some sunlight. Ironic.
Many climate scientists feel there is no possibility of cutting CO2 sufficiently to avoid some warming. It is not just us. China is now a big contributor of CO2. They say--and who can blame them--you had your industrial revolution, now it's our turn. What are we to say to that? And to India and Brazil and others who want a better life?
LBmuskoka
Posted on: 12/21/2011 06:38
Last weekend the Washington Post ran this article:
Virginia residents oppose preparations for climate-related sea-level rise
The area has already experienced rising sea levels "Outside of greater New Orleans, Hampton Roads is at the biggest risk from sea-level rise of any area its size in the United States, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The water has risen so much that Naval Station Norfolk is replacing 14 piers at $60 million each to keep ship-repair facilities high and dry."
Yet the residents have put up fierce opposition to municipal planners attempts to reduce the impact in the future - to the extent some meetings have had to have police presence to protect them. Why because as one resident says “Environmentalists have always had an agenda to put nature above man,” said Donna Holt, leader of the Virginia Campaign for Liberty, a tea party affiliate with 7,000 members. “If they can find an end to their means, they don’t care how it happens. If they can do it under the guise of global warming and climate change, they will do it.”
The reality here is that Nature doesn't give a hoot about Man. At some point Ms. Holt and her 7,000 members are going to find themselves in deep water and then will be crying for help.
Even if those Virginians don't drown, the depletion of fossil fuels will create an economy that only the 1% will find any comfort. Without finding alternatives rising fuel costs will make everything from food to heat unobtainable for the majority and that includes the currently comfortable middle class.
This is the state of western civilization, so blind in their arrogance, indulgence and ignorance that they can not see the waves lapping at their door. No, they will hold out for that cataclysmic event where the suffering and costs will be tenfold.
I am not idealistic. I am practical and I am selfish. I fight for environmental protection because I want to live on a hospitable healthy planet and I want to do more than just survive, I want to be reasonably comfortable.
Nature is ruthless and will show no mercy even to those that fight for her protection. Humans need to start taking the steps to prevent or prepare for an inhospitable future or our species will go the way of the dinosaurs. Regardless of the fate of mankind, the planet will survive because it does not need humans. We, however, need clean water and air; without those we will suffer and die.
What's the use of a fine house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?
Henry David Thoreau (1817 –1862)
Pilgrims Progress
Posted on: 12/21/2011 16:49
The way I see it is we can work at two main levels to provide practical solutions for climate change......... (besides tinkering at the edges with switching off lights, etc)
We live in a democracy.
That means that, despite the fact that the corporations largely control the media and can attempt to influence us, we can still vote for the political party of our choice.
As climate change is the foremost issue addressing us - vote for the party that most supports this issue.
In Oz that's the Greens Party - and I presume you have a similar party in Canada?
My question from my last post, that I note went unanswered, is why aren't folks voting Green?
In a democracy the government isn't "them" it's "us". Why are we not availing ourselves collectively of our most powerful tool?
Our other practical solution for climate change lies in our work as individuals to convince those we come in contact with to make it their number one issue also.
How best to achieve this? How best to convince Joe Public?
I believe it's crucial we address this question.
Getting the information out there in the form of statistics won't do it alone. We humans often react at a deeper level when we are emotionally affected -and sadly, climate change is no exception.
Rather than berate our fellow citizens, we have to work at developing their compassion - because it is compassion that is lacking......
Most folks who were alive at the time will remember the photo of that little terrified girl running down that road - it's said that that photo helped bring about the end of the Vietnam war.......
But, that was then, colour t.v. was "new" ......
How best can we raise compassion now?
Because, it's not lack of intelligence or enough statistics that is the problem -but lack of compassion, IMO.
Perhaps one of the most effective things we can do as individuals is show compassion and understanding in our relationships with others - and hope that like ripples on a pond it will spread out............
RevMatt
Posted on: 12/22/2011 09:50
It has been downhill since the Industrial Revolution started pouring carbon dioxide into the air. Long before there was a middle class and luxury. Some scientists think it really started to pick up after we in the West tackled air pollution--which was formerly blocking some sunlight. Ironic.
Many climate scientists feel there is no possibility of cutting CO2 sufficiently to avoid some warming. It is not just us. China is now a big contributor of CO2. They say--and who can blame them--you had your industrial revolution, now it's our turn. What are we to say to that? And to India and Brazil and others who want a better life?
We can't say anything so long as we refuse to act. That is, in part, why Canada should be leading the way, not sitting on the sidelines. Or worse, actively obstructing as we do now.
No sane person thinks that warming can be avoided. There is some thinking that if we act quickly, we can keep it under 2 degrees, which is generally the level thought to trigger catastrophic change. The chances of that, however, seem to be essentially nil.
LBmuskoka
Posted on: 12/23/2011 07:50
Speaking of Brazil, Canada could learn a few lessons....
Brazil Can Take the Lead in Green Growth, says the World Bank
Brazil is an environmental superpower, home to the Amazon rainforest and its enormous biodiversity. It has made impressive progress in addressing many of its development issues, especially a dramatic reduction in deforestation, and in applying innovative solutions that reconcile growth and sustainability, experts say.
[...]
In the past two decades, the environmental debate has been increasingly mainstreamed in Brazilian government and society, and grew to be a consensus among policymakers.
A Review of Brazil’s Environmental Policies and Challenges Ahead
Stressing the need for concrete, tangible institutional policies, Izabella Teixeira, Brazil’s Minister of the Environment, discussed the challenges and goals of her ministry at the Wilson Center on October 20. Sustainable development, not just conservation, must be the focus, and that requires bringing lots of different players to the table, taking into account not only environmental but also social and economic agendas. To do this, she argued, one must take the rather ephemeral and hypothetical notions of environmental stewardship and put them into the realm of a practicable, institutionalized framework, built on a social pact that engages all sectors of society.
At least Brazil is making an effort, unlike their North American counterparts.
And Canada better get its act together soon or we will be feeling the impact of being an environmental pariah....
Kyoto withdrawal causes Quebec firm to lose client
Right now, America looks like a fatheaded, shortsighted, gas-guzzling arrogant blowhard to the rest of the world.
James Patterson, The Final Warning
InannaWhimsey
Posted on: 12/24/2011 18:58
Watch this Playbook for Humanity; marvel at how many Terawatts humanity uses vs. how much the sun gives vs. how much humanity etc generates :3
Saul Griffith: Climate Change Recalculated from The Long Now Foundation on FORA.tv
EDIT: this is my deal, perhaps what is also going to have to happen is that this drive to democracy is going to have to stop and states go to a system of governance that can keep certain 'religions' (like Marxists & eco-nihilists) in check whilst humanity creates the technologies etc etc to deal with the natural occurrence of Catastrophic Climate Change? Who knows :3
MikePaterson
Posted on: 12/25/2011 10:20
This too, Whimsey:
From issue 2844 of New Scientist magazine, page 24.
Spaceship Earth needs a pilot. It's time we stepped into the cockpit and took over the controls. That will be the theme of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June. Natural disasters, food and water shortages and biodiversity loss show that humanity is crossing planetary boundaries, making our world more dangerous. At Rio we will have to push for a global system of "environmental governance".
Earth has nine critical life-support systems vital to our survival. They have some resilience to human activity, but the bad news is that going beyond the safe boundaries is all too easy.
We have already bust three of those boundaries. We are eliminating species at 10 times the natural rate of extinction. We have turned up the planet's thermostat higher than it's been in a million years and probably unleashed unstoppable natural feedbacks that will worsen warming. Oh, and our use of fertiliser has pushed the natural nitrogen cycle into hyperdrive, poisoning ecosystems and the oceans.
With three "lives" gone, where else are we approaching Earth's limits? By mid-century we will probably be at or beyond boundaries on the safe extraction of fresh water and will be threatening the last great ecosystems through ploughing land for crops - with serious implications for world food supply. Likewise, the acidification of the oceans will be literally dissolving marine ecosystems.
For two of the three remaining life-support systems - chemical pollution and loading the atmosphere with smoke, dust and other particles - we have yet to figure out where the tipping point to disaster might lie. The last is our solitary success story: fixing the hole in the ozone layer.
Some will call for geoengineering to fix the planet. Whether you buy into that or not, the inescapable message is that we now dominate so many of the planet's life-support systems that simply backing off and reducing our footprint is no longer an option. The planet won't steer itself any more.
Jim Kenney
Posted on: 01/19/2012 19:25
Much interesting and worthwhile information. Thank you to everyone!\
The title was solutions to Global Warming: there are two sides to this. The first was addressed above-- reducing the production of green house gases by changing sources of energy and reducing the demand for energy. The other side is understanding the various effects of the warming that will happen, and developing strategies to deal with those effects, from helping relocate people on Islands disappearing into the ocean or protecting those islands to strategies for helping farmers cope with increasingly variable growing conditions and new pests as warming conditions expand the places they can survive.
Another dimension discussed above is working with both individual and collective initiatives.