Comments BrianS has made

  • It might be useful in finding solutions if people lowered their 100% certainty level that one technology won't work or another technology will. As for me, I'm desperate. That means try everything. I have no idea if CCS will work, but even if it adds 60% to the cost of coal power, that could be a politically feasible number. More important, Dave's math is unclear - read page 22 of the link he gives (and it's not to a Nature article). The 10% figure is for all CO2 emissions, not 10% of global coal emissions. CCS is for coal, so this is an apples and oranges comparison. And the infrastructure involved, anyway, is injection infrastructure, not all oil infrastructure. The scale of the challenge is much less than suggested. Two other points: F James Handley quotes a study about pulverized coal plants, but the real option for CCS is with IGCC coal plants. And finally, with friends like Bob Armstrong and the Breakthrough Institute, new technological approaches to climate change have no need for enemies.On Is "we're going to burn the coal anyway" an argument for carbon sequestration? posted 2 weeks ago 40 Responses
  • Here's some data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt You can find lots more at the root URL. Have fun.On "Global cooling" scam debunked yet again posted 1 month ago 17 Responses
  • I've argued a long time for a "Greening the Chamber" movement that would use green business involvement in the Chamber to change its neandertal policies. The other option is for responsible businesses to quit the Chamber. The problem is that these two options are mostly contradictory. Either good businesses should stay in and fight the good fight within the Chamber with no more than a few high-profile resignations, or they should all get out. I tend to think that the former is a more realistic option.On Corporations call off the old green battle, but Chamber of Commerce soldiers on [UPDATED] posted 2 months, 1 week ago 4 Responses

  • Very interesting - it sounds like it's better than carbon neutral - it is carbon negative until soil carbon reaches saturation levels. Is that right?  The only other realistic examples of carbon negative processes that I know of are some experimental ideas for cement making, and biomass power coupled with carbon sequestration.  (There are some open-air carbon capture ideas that seem like pipe dreams to me.)

    It would be interesting to hear more about the drawbacks.  I was a little unclear  on that after reading the text, but it sounds like it may be expensive.

    On Biochar as the new black gold posted 3 months, 2 weeks ago 7 Responses

  • Thanks for the link, but it's not directly on point, I think.  The press release never defines "efficiency" but I'm guessing it refers to economic efficiency - what's the least amount of money needed to get enough land to supply an adequate diet.  It's still not a comparison of gas emissions.  CLWeber's last post above does do a comparison of beef to poultry, and it's not good (yes, some factors are left out, but there's a huge gap to overcome).  I'd guess poultry is probably three times worse for gas emissions than eating vegetarian.

    On Debunking the meat/climate change myth posted 3 months, 2 weeks ago 92 Responses

  • "Studies at Cornell"


    If you have a citation (or better yet, links) please let us know.  CLWeber below has provided a number of cites suggesting otherwise.

    On Debunking the meat/climate change myth posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 92 Responses

  • CL - thanks for the links.  The FAO one is online, I haven't checked the others yet:

     

    http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

     

    Unfortunately, it doesn't answer the question of comparing emissions from a similar amount of calories from grass-fed cattle and a reasonably low-carbon vegetarian alternative to see which is better.  However, Table 3.7 and text on p. 97 implies there's little difference in methane emissions between pastured and mixed-industrial-raised cattle (two-thirds of cattle are mixed raised, two thirds of methane emissions come from them).

     

    Page 120 has some interesting mitigation info, and says that adding grain might help reduce emissions from cattle on a high cellulose diet.

    On Debunking the meat/climate change myth posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 92 Responses

  • While I appreciate Coleman's argument about CO2 for the relatively rare case of exclusively grass-fed beef, he hasn't settled the issue of methane.  In that case, he asks several open-ended questions about potential ways that might reduce cattle methane, and then says " The fact is clear.  It is not the livestock; it is the way they are raised."

    No, it's not clear at all, especially since noone can reasonably claim to eliminate cattle methane emissions.  My understanding is that it's not even clear whether grain fed cattle produce more or less methane, and that it might be the latter.

    Here's the real question for enviros:  would switching consumption from best case grass-raised cattle to best case vegetarian food have the overall effect of reducing GHG emissions?  I think the switch would increase CO2 emissions while eliminating methane.  The net effect on balance isn't clear to me at all.

    On Debunking the meat/climate change myth posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 92 Responses

  • Inhofe's belief has its limits

    Inhofe apparently isn't confident enough in denying global warming that he'll bet me over it, even when the bet winnings go to charity.  I contacted his office in August, and never heard back.  More info here:

    http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2006/08/dear-senator-...On Like peanut butter and chocolate posted 3 years, 2 months ago 12 Responses