dobermanmacleod’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  A moritorium on coal is unfeasible: get realistic

  The world's emissions of the main planet-warming gas carbon dioxide will rise over 50 percent to more than 42 billion tonnes per year from 2005 to 2030 as China leads a rise in burning coal, the U.S. government forecast on Wednesday. China's coal demand will rise 3.2 percent annually from 2005 to 2030, the Energy Information Administration said in its International Energy Outlook 2008. --Reuters, 26 June 2008

  China has one of the largest coal reserves in the world, and coal accounts for 67% of its primary energy use, compared with 24% for the world average. China is currently bringing two additional coal-fired power plants to the electric power grid every week. In a hypothetical scenario in which carbon intensity keeps pace with a GDP growth rate of 7%, by 2030, China would be emitting as much as the world as a whole is today (8 GtC/year) --Ning Zeng et al., Science, 8 February 2008

  "Contrary to the conventional wisdom that China is outpacing the rest of the world in building coal plants, the International Energy Agency has projected that between 2011 and 2020 the OECD (most of Europe plus the  U.S.), with 150 million fewer people than China, will build 10 percent more coal capacity than China (184 GW for the OECD vs. 168 GW for China)." --"Schwarzenegger's folly," Gristmill, 16 Oct 2008

  Building new coal-power plants in Germany means the country will miss government targets to cut carbon-dioxide emissions, the environmental ministry said, countering earlier claims by Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel.   --Jeremy van Loon, Bloomberg, 17 October 2008

  "Chief engineer Aleksandr Marinich believes that coal could reduce Ukraine's energy dependence on neighbouring Russia. Ukraine, he reasons, does not have Russia's oil and gas wealth. But it does have coal. "Why," he asks rhetorically, "should I wait for Vladimir Putin to turn off his gas supply in the New Year? We have billions of tons of [coal] reserves. Our main aim is energy independence."" --"Dicing with danger in Ukraine mines," BBC, 23 Dec 08

  Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:

  "The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008

  But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon d ioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."

  There is a simple and cheap way to cool the Earth immediately: just add a little sun dimming aerosol to the upper atmosphere. "The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity..." -Lovelock, Aug08
  On Authors of economic collapse advise us to stick with coal posted 8 months, 1 week ago 25 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Flawed reasoning on geoengineering

  Frankly, I find the above article's reasoning to be flawed.  It is really a very straight forward "dilemma:" either use geoengineering or accept a natural cull of humans by the most painful way to die possible: starving to death (duh, which way should we go?).

  "Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07

  "The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008

  What is the short-term alternative to geoengineering, a carbon diet?  CO2 stays in the air hundreds of years, so even if we do start reducing our emissions (very unlikely in my opinion), we are stuck with global warming for generations.

  There is a cheap and simple way to immediately cool the Earth: just add a little sun dimming aerosol to the upper atmosphere.  That sun dimming aerosol doesn't have to be sulfur for goodness sakes.  In fact, according to the paper "The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering" an engineered aerosol would be much more efficient that the stuff volcanoes spew out anyway.

  Furthermore, there is a practical mechanical method of deacidifying the ocean and removing the excess CO2:

  "Researchers at Harvard University and Pennsylvania State University have invented a technology, inspired by nature, to reduce the accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human emissions.  By electrochemically removing hydrochloric acid from the ocean and then neutralizing the acid by reaction with silicate (volcanic) rocks, the researchers say they can accelerate natural chemical weathering, permanently transferring CO2 from the atmosphere to the ocean. Unlike other ocean sequestration processes, the new technology does not further acidify the ocean and may be beneficial to coral reefs. The innovative approach to tackling climate change is reported in the Nov. 7 issue of the journal Environmental Science and Technology..." --"Engineered weathering process could mitigate global warming," EurekAlert, 7 Nov '07

  It simply amazes me the misconceptions and flawed reasoning so-called experts are still clinging to.  What do you think people will do, just sit back and starve to death when record high temperatures start causing the routine failure of crops?  Have you ever seen a person starve to death? I would rather quickly burn to death or even die on a cross than slowly starve to death.

  The Greens' resistance to geo-engineering sits very uncomfortably with its message that the planet is screwed and we're all going to die. It suggests that Environmentalism has less to do with saving the planet than it does with reining in human aspirations. It suggests that they don't actually believe their own press releases, and that they know the situation is not as dire as they would like the rest of us to think it is. And that Environmentalists are cutting off their noses to spite their faces - "we'll save the planet our way or not at all." It suggests that Environmentalists regard science and engineering as the cause of problems, and not the solution. --Climate Resistance, Mar '08On Ocean dead zones to expand, 'remain for thousands of years' posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 14 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Avoid apocalypse how?

  "I no longer care much about the science of global warming. To me, the central question, and the one that few are willing to discuss in depth, is: Then what? Fossil fuels now provide about 85% of the world's total energy needs. Even more important is this corollary: Increasing energy consumption equals higher living standards. Always. Everywhere. Given that fact, how can we expect the people of the world -- all 6.6 billion of them -- to use less energy? The short answer: we can't. The developed countries of the world can talk forever about the virtues of solar panels and windmills, but what the energy-poor need most are common fuels like kerosene, propane, and gasoline" --Robert Bryce, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence

  By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction.  It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low - even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood. The only nations in the world today that emit at this low level are all poor developing nations, such as Belize, Mauritius, Jordan, Haiti and Somalia."  --"The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change," WSJ

  "Japan, like the European Union, hasn't let its failure so far to meet Kyoto emissions-reductions targets stop it from setting even more ambitious goals, like a 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. But how to do that? If getting within shouting distance of Kyoto's targets could cost Japan $500 billion, how much would it cost to cut emissions twelve-fold more?" --Keith Johnson, WSJ, 19 March 2008

  Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:

  "The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008

  But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon d ioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."

  "Expecting China and India to make massive emission cuts for little benefit puts the Copenhagen meeting on a sure path to being another lost opportunity." --Bjorn Lomborg, Taipei Times, 17 February 2009

  There is a cheap and simple method of immediately cooling the Earth: just add a little sun dimming aerosol to the upper atmosphere.

  "I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008On Climate change is here and now and getting personal posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The only true solution

  While I advocate the short term (cheap and simple) method of putting a small amount of sun dimming aerosol into the upper atmosphere to mitigate rapidly rising greenhouse gas levels in the air, virtually the only long term solution is to remove the excess CO2 from the air.

  It can be done either mechanically or biologically.  Currently, because it would be a gigantic logistical task in both energy and resources, mechanical sequestration (and storage) of the excess aerial CO2 is impractical.  Therefore, it must be done biologically.

  Currently, the life sciences is undergoing an explosion of knowledge which is called the "Genomic Revolution."  I explain it by saying mankind is "eating from the Tree of Life" (there were two trees in the Garden of Eden-the Tree of Knowledge (which Adam and Eve ate from) and the Tree of Life).  Our knowledge of the genes and how they work is expanding analogiously to the electronics revolution, and will probably eventually have more impact upon our lives than computers.

  In my opinion, we should find the best genetic template (in my opinion it is jellyfish) and modify it to remove the carbon from the air and put it into the geosphere long-term.  A GMO seeded into the ocean would multiply geometrically, so it is logistically feasible.  Such an organism couldn't evolve naturally (that would take too long to explain in this format), so mankind would have to create it.

  For those who would rather die than seed a GMO into the environment, I guarantee you that we will be routinely doing so to boost agricultural production in an attempt to avoid wide-spread famine.  For those who would rather die than seek a geoengineering solution-we are already using geoengineering to warm up the Earth (albet unintentionally).  For those how think it is beyond mankind's capability to create such an organism that I've briefly described, I suggest you rethink your limited understanding of the genomic revolution.

  I will make the following outrageous claim:  if the genomics revolution isn't used to aid the world of microorganisms to collapse human civilization, it will be used to remove the excess CO2 from the air.  Frankly, eating from the Tree of Life is much much more important that almost anyone realises currently.  It is the only true solution and it is the main threat to the true solution.On Geoengineering is risky but likely inevitable, so we better start thinking it through posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  'Geoengineering is inevitable'

  "I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008

  Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:

  "The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008

  But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon d ioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."

  There is a cheap and simple way to immediately cool down the Earth: just add a little sun dimming aerosol to the upper atmosphere.  By the way, rather than sulfate (like volcanos spew), an engineered sun dimming aerosol could be much more efficient (according to "The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering").

  Furthermore, there is a practical mechanical method of remove CO2 from the ocean (ocean acidification is another effect of elevated levels of CO2 in the air):

  "Researchers at Harvard University and Pennsylvania State University have invented a technology, inspired by nature, to reduce the accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human emissions.  By electrochemically removing hydrochloric acid from the ocean and then neutralizing the acid by reaction with silicate (volcanic) rocks, the researchers say they can accelerate natural chemical weathering, permanently transferring CO2 from the atmosphere to the ocean. Unlike other ocean sequestration processes, the new technology does not further acidify the ocean and may be beneficial to coral reefs. The innovative approach to tackling climate change is reported in the Nov. 7 issue of the journal Environmental Science and Technology..." --"Engineered weathering process could mitigate global warming," EurekAlert, 7 Nov '07

  The Greens' resistance to geo-engineering sits very uncomfortably with its message that the planet is screwed and we're all going to die. It suggests that Environmentalism has less to do with saving the planet than it does with reining in human aspirations. It suggests that they don't actually believe their own press releases, and that they know the situation is not as dire as they would like the rest of us to think it is. And that Environmentalists are cutting off their noses to spite their faces - "we'll save the planet our way or not at all." It suggests that Environmentalists regard science and engineering as the cause of problems, and not the solution. --Climate Resistance, Mar '08On Geoengineering is risky but likely inevitable, so we better start thinking it through posted 9 months ago 10 Responses