Global Warming Skeptics Lose White House Support

[obeygiant]

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, seeking to blunt international criticism of the U.S. record on climate change, on Thursday urged 15 major nations to agree by the end of next year on a global emissions goal for reducing greenhouse gases.

Bush called for the first in a series of meetings to begin this fall, bringing together countries identified as major emitters of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. The list would include the United States, China, India and major European countries.

The president outlined his proposal in a speech ahead of next week's summit in Germany of leading industrialized nations, where global warming is to be a major topic and Bush will be on the spot.apnews (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070531/D8PFEFRG0.html)

Well whatayaknow.

[leekohler]

Whose piledriver penetrated his cement skull?

[zap2]

Whose piledriver penetrated his cement skull?

God's....he spoke to him from the heavens!!


And see my sig to see where that leads :)

[obeygiant]

Whose piledriver penetrated his cement skull?

LOL, thats awesome. :D

[leekohler]

LOL, thats awesome. :D

Hee-hee. I'm still at work and slaphappy. I get super witty when I'm in this state.

[Thomas Veil]

I don't believe it for a second. He didn't just get enlightenment. There's an ulterior motive behind this, even if it's just to quell international criticism.

He'll trot out some grand-sounding proposal which he'll later withdraw from on the basis of "It's not good for U.S. business."

[Ugg]

First off, his coalition includes China, and China, whether anyone likes it or not, is stuck with coal for its major energy source for the foreseeable future. China knows it needs to clean up its act, however the sheer massiveness of the Chinese economy and power grid, means nothing is going to happen soon.

Second, I betcha that bushco is getting a lot of pressure from US business. They realize that they're going to be left behind and locked out of the EU and Japanese market if they don't operate by the same standards as businesses in those countries. Besides, the environment is a growth industry, the US auto industry is definitely not.

[miloblithe]

I'll bet this proposal isn't impressive when the specifics are released. I predict one of three things: it's so demanding of other nations that no one else will sign on to it, it's watered down to the point of being meaningless, or it's somehow voluntary.

I'll only believe the Bush administration doesn't suck when I see some evidence to the contrary.

[kalisphoenix]

Damned ecofascists. How the hell are mosquitos supposed to take over the world now?

[SMM]

I can see some positives in this, but there is a long history, which forces one to remain skeptical about a significant proposal being brought forth.

Positive:

This is the first time the administration has conceded there is global warming, that is not part of a normal environmental cycle, and is directly influenced by the activities of man.

Negative:

My wife, and I, have worked on environmental issues for two decades. This administration has set all of the gains made back to that time. It is like starting over again. At times, it is enough to make you weep. But, there is no other choice than to pick it up and start again. Conceding there is a problem is the first step to solving it.

The Challenge:

Environment is going to be one of the top three agenda items for the next few elections. The neo-conservatives are unlikely to succeed on a 'fear' ticket again. They may try though. These people will gladly sacrifice the lives of the 'great unwashed populous' to promote their cause. Remember, Bush just granted himself dictatorial power, in a time of emergency, and made America a government controlled by the executive branch. The President would 'consult with Congress and the Supreme Court'. But, I stray.

It is imperative the environment gets a clear definition of the problems, what the root causes are, and a milestone chart of when corrective action will take place. The democrats have the numbers to pass this legislation. If the WH vetoes it, the House can then attempt to override. If republicans do not join the 2/3 majority, these are the targets in the next election.

[takao]

he is trying to take wind out of the european especially german sails for the oncoming G8 summit in germany where a decision on CO2 reducing has already been on the table of topics .. actually as the main topic

essentially he wants to avoid making agreements in this round and take the positive image with him that he did something when he actually delayed a decision until end of 2008
when of course presidental elections will be held in the US

it's actually headline news around here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,485398,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,485683,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,485992,00.html

edit:

...the President did not specify by how much he sought to reduce US or global greenhouse gas emissions. He stressed that each nation involved would establish its own midterm targets based on its energy mix and future energy needs.

every nation setting it's own goal ? ... riiight

[Abstract]

The best thing Bush can do for the environment is resign.

[Desertrat]

I've read where China is balking at the Kyoto accords. India's growth, plus China's, means that their combined CO2 output is already greater than ours; China, alone is second only to the U.S.

It's all well and good to talk about reductions, but if the reductions of Kyoto are adhered to, whence cometh the unemployment funding? There's no way we can go back to 1995 levels of CO2 emissions without severe downward impacts on employment.

Shoulda gone nuke decades ago, like many of the countries which support Kyoto...

One problem that's recently arisen is the reporting of a percentage increase in the temperatures on Mars that is the same as Earth's. That's from an increase in solar output, since there is a shortage of coal-fired power plants on Mars, not to mention SUVs. :D

'Rat

[zimv20]

AP (http://www.wkrn.com/nashville/news/ap-gore-calls-bush-greenhouse-summit-plan-smoke-and-mirrors/99030.htm)


Gore calls Bush greenhouse summit plan 'smoke and mirrors'

Former Vice President Al Gore on Friday called President Bush's proposal for a summit to look at ways to reduce greenhouse gases "smoke and mirrors."

At a signing for his new book "The Assault on Reason," Gore said it was a delay tactic for Bush to suggest that the U.S. and other nations meet to develop a long-term strategy for cutting greenhouse gases.

"Just yesterday the president offered a new approach that is purely and simply smoke and mirrors and has the transparent purpose of delaying the efforts that could start now," Gore said before the signing at a shopping mall in his hometown of Nashville.

"The other nations are ready to go ... the world is looking to the United States of America for the moral leadership we should be providing right now _ not at some point a decade from now," Gore said.

Bush wants the United States and other nations responsible for most of the world's emissions develop a long-term strategy for cutting the gases that trap heat on the Earth.

The president's proposal came just days before he attends a summit in Germany of leading industrialized nations. Global warming is a major topic on the agenda and Bush will be on the spot.

Gore called Bush's proposal "a schemeto just have more and more talk, and more and more research without recognizing that we have a planetary emergency right now."

(more)

[.Andy]

I've read where China is balking at the Kyoto accords. India's growth, plus China's, means that their combined CO2 output is already greater than ours; China, alone is second only to the U.S.
Combined they've also got ten times the population of the US. Per captia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita) we're (Australia and the US) pretty horrific in our CO2 output in comparison. However as more people come out of poverty things will likely change significantly.

[Desertrat]

If homo sap's CO2 output is a factor in climate change, Earth doesn't care if it's per country or per capita.

I really doubt the Great American Voter will happily drop back to parity with other countries, on a per-capita basis. Or Australia/New Zealand or Europe.

Interesting times...

'Rat

[.Andy]

I really doubt the Great American Voter will happily drop back to parity with other countries, on a per-capita basis. Or Australia/New Zealand or Europe.
I diagree. I think the majority of GAVs or Australia/New Zealand/European voters would be quite happy to drop back to parity with other countries in regards to CO2 output. However I doubt many would be happy to drop our standard of living to do so. This means alternate sources of energy away from coal and petroleum, which has massive support within the community, for a number of reasons many beyond global climate change.

[Desertrat]

"However I doubt many would be happy to drop our standard of living to do so."

Exactly. And a serious drop iin CO2 output is inexorably tied to a reduction in both travel, haulage and electricity generation--which means a decline in the physical standard of living. And that's why I made the comment about nukes. You still can't get folks to believe that "China Syndrome" was not a documentary.

'Rat

[hulugu]

"However I doubt many would be happy to drop our standard of living to do so."

Exactly. And a serious drop iin CO2 output is inexorably tied to a reduction in both travel, haulage and electricity generation--which means a decline in the physical standard of living. And that's why I made the comment about nukes. You still can't get folks to believe that "China Syndrome" was not a documentary.

'Rat

This assumes that we make absolutely no technological, social, or infrastructural changes, which is simply bogus. We make technological changes consistently over time.
It's been estimated that every American home replaced just one light bulb with an Energy Star approved compact fluorescent bulb (CFL), the United States would save enough energy to light more than 2.5 million homes for a year and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of nearly 800,000 cars. That's just by replacing one bulb, and I can count more than 20 in my home alone. This is a simple change in technology, would save a massive amount of energy, and does not require sitting in the dark at night.
Adding in efficiencies in any system is nearly always advantageous.

I keep repeating this and I plan to do so ad infinitum, there is no silver bullet to energy conservation, but rather a whole armory of policies, technologies, and actions that can result in a robust and even growing economy while producing less CO2. And, then we sell the cool technologies to China lowering our trade deficit with the country.

[Shadow]

The best thing Bush can do for the environment is resign.

All that hot hair coming from him is probably more damaging than global warming! :D

[takao]

reducing co2 emissions doesn't have to hinder the economy, after all somebody has to produce replacement technologies

in spain the push for wind energy has brought 20.000 jobs alone


and the "but china and india" argument was already old 5 years ago ;)
they are saying "aslong as the US and other industrial countries do nothing we won't either"

the EU already agreed on a 20% reduction and if they could a Russia, Japan and US on board too at the current G8 summit you can bet on it that china and india will follow suit soon

[Queso]

One problem that's recently arisen is the reporting of a percentage increase in the temperatures on Mars that is the same as Earth's. That's from an increase in solar output, since there is a shortage of coal-fired power plants on Mars, not to mention SUVs. :D
Considering Mars gets the full blast of the solar wind due to it not having a magnetic field, I would have thought the percentage increase there from increased solar activity should be massive compared to that on Earth, where the vast majority of the solar wind is deflected around the planet. Therefore if the increases are equivalent, there must be some other factors playing out down here to make up the shortfall.

Possibly that we are simultaneously destroying our carbon sinks whilst pumping ever more of the stuff into the atmosphere? If it looks like common sense, and smells like common sense, it ought to be clear what it is.

[.Andy]

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sGKvDNdJNA) still cracks me up.

[FFTT]

This is nothing more than a delay tactic by the Bush administration.

Any proposal he makes won't take affect until he's out of office.

Then if it all falls apart, they can blame the Democrats.

His keepers will never allow him to do anything that goes against the grain
of big business.

[Ugg]

reducing co2 emissions doesn't have to hinder the economy, after all somebody has to produce replacement technologies

in spain the push for wind energy has brought 20.000 jobs alone



Germany pretty much controls the wind energy market, Japan produces huge amount of solar panels. It has a lot to do with government policy.

Back in the olden days, it was thought that there was a fixed amount of wealth in the world and the only way to increase it was to steal from your neighbor. Hopefully by now we know better and have learned that new technology creates wealth, it doesn't deplete it.

Some people though are afraid of the unknwown and unwilling to give up their wasteful ways. Sure, new technology may cost more but if it saves money in the long run...

[Desertrat]

hulugu, I think most of us here agree with you about the accumulation of small improvements that add up to significant changes.

takao, the wind-energy development has been evolving for decades, and the increase in jobs is also evolutionary. But that holds true for many changes in industrial production. If laws are passed which affect energy use in some short period of time, finding 20,000 or even 100,000 jobs in building wind units doesn't offset the job loss of far more than a mere 100,000. Regardless, the "how to" of any effort to achieve the Kyoto goals will be interesting--and probably painful.

As far as "leadership" in the numbers for wind generation, folks better get head down and tail up. I've commented before about the over-500 new units in west Texas, built in these last two or three years. I just returned from a trip through New Mexico; I noted a large number off in the distance from one highway I travelled. They weren't there, last year.

I've commented before, also, that just in Texas it would take over 60,000 wind units to replace our coal-fired power plants. Folks better hope Dow Chemical can keep sucking magnesium from seawater, and the prices of aluminum and steel don't rise any higher. Or copper and nickel, for that matter. Also, watched cement prices, lately?

TANSTAAFL.

About these new light bulbs: Is it factual that if one is broken, there are strrict laws about the cleanup of mercury said to be inside them? I saw a news article about one lady who broke one in a bedroom, and the cleanup bill was some $2,000.

'Rat

[Roger1]

About these new light bulbs: Is it factual that if one is broken, there are strrict laws about the cleanup of mercury said to be inside them? I saw a news article about one lady who broke one in a bedroom, and the cleanup bill was some $2,000.

'Rat

'Rat,

I have read an article as within the last month where a lady broke one of those CFL bulbs. She called the local health department about it and they told her to seal off the room until a HAZMAT team could come out and clean it up. Like you said, it cost her around 2000 dollars to do so.

Now, that being said. The April/May edition of Mother Earth News says that CFL bulbs have only 4mg of mercury in them, compared to 500mg of mercury in the old mercury thermometers.

From energystar.gov factsheet on cleanup of cfl's

How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?
EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:
1. Open a window and leave the room (restrict access) for at least 15 minutes.
2. Remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner.
Wear disposable rubber gloves, if available (do not use your bare hands).
Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard.
Wipe the area clean with a damp paper towel or disposable wet wipe.
Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.
3. Place all cleanup materials in a plastic bag and seal it.
If your state permits you to put used or broken CFLs in the garbage, seal the
CFL in two plastic bags and put into the outside trash (if no other disposal or
recycling options are available).
Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.
4. The first time you vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the
vacuum bag once done cleaning the area (or empty and wipe the canister) and
put the bag and/or vacuum debris, as well as the cleaning materials, in two
sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal
disposal.

http://energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls

[solvs]

Thought this was interesting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070602/global-warming-states/

America's Top Greenhouse Gas Polluter: Texas

_Wyoming's coal-fired power plants produce more carbon dioxide in just eight hours than the power generators of more populous Vermont do in a year.

_Texas, the leader in emitting this greenhouse gas, cranks out more than the next two biggest producers combined, California and Pennsylvania, which together have twice Texas' population.

_In sparsely populated Alaska, the carbon dioxide produced per person by all the flying and driving is six times the per capita amount generated by travelers in New York state.

[Queso]

I can't believe it's Texans using all that electricity though. We already know California imports buckets (?) of the stuff.

[Desertrat]

If you break one of these bulbs and the "goop" falls into a carpet, and you can't vacuum, think $$$$. Four milligrams of dusty mercury stuff vs. a mercury thermometer's mettalic mercury? Apples and oranges for hazard. You won't breathe thermometer mercury. And mercury thermometers are becoming more of a collector's item than a common medicine-cabinet item.

Electric generation in Texas is mostly from coal. Per plant, we're cleaner than New York insofar as particulates emissions, if one cares about these numbers "games". All it means is that, overall, our plants are newer, with the later technology. As far as Alaska and cars, that's heavy snow country for much more of a year than "down south". Smart folks drive 4WD, which don't get the gas mileage of mall-crawlers.

California has pretty much legislated itself out of the energy production business, except for natural gas. And the supply of natural gas is finite; the US has a seven-year supply left in legally-drillable locations. Natgas prices are now up around $7, vice the old daze $2.

This article from the Guardian, http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0%2C%2C2093816%2C00.html , merely reinforces my views of governmental solutions and UN effectiveness. I wonder how much money Algore is making in these deals. :D

'Rat

[takao]

If you break one of these bulbs and the "goop" falls into a carpet, and you can't vacuum, think $$$$. Four milligrams of dusty mercury stuff vs. a mercury thermometer's mettalic mercury? Apples and oranges for hazard. You won't breathe thermometer mercury. And mercury thermometers are becoming more of a collector's item than a common medicine-cabinet item.

but if you have a carpet chances of it breaking are also smaller ;)

though you have to keep in mind: one of the main polluters of air with mercury is who ? _coal energy plants_ (coal is also finite and also connected to the oil price just like gas)
the mercury output needed because of old style energy bulbs is in fact bigger than if you use only energy saving light bulbs and break them after they have worn out ...
also there are light bulbs with exterior cylinde available so that if the inner bulb breaks nothing is flying around

in terms of emissions without a doubt the cleanest possible is still earth gas and coal is still the dirtiest for fossil fuels

that said 5-10 years from now LED bulbs will get affordable and fit for everyday use and those will replace the current bulbs quite fast and don't contain any mercury

also you have to factor in the savings one can have by buying such light bulbs which go straight into the consumer pockets ;)

[Desertrat]

Not just mercury, takao; radiation as well--a helluva lot more than is allowed from any nuke plant. Coal is nasty stuff. I live downwind, since 1993, from a Mexican coal-fired plant that has no scrubbers. Today, our normal 100-mile visibility is down to about a dozen miles. I'm about 300 miles, airline, from the plant.

The deal on broken bulbs is that the official health/safet-boffin line is that you don't vacuum, you call in specialists. Aside from labor, you gotta replace the carpet or have it professionally cleaned, etc., etc. Where, oh, where is the cost saving in all this Greenery?

Then the law requires that they be disposed of in the environmentally correct manner. Go ahead: Make me believe they won't wind up buried deep in a dumpster. Or tossed out along a roadway...

The bulb doesn't break on the carpet; it breaks on the headboard of the bed, or the bedside table, or the dresser or chest-of-drawers. Desk. Table. All of which commonly are on floors with rugs or carpets.

Oh, well. Algore sez they're neat, and Mall-Wart is pushing them bigtime. When folks like that say they're Good For Me, who am I to argue? I'll bet they're as wonderful as gasahol...

'Rat

[takao]

The deal on broken bulbs is that the official health/safet-boffin line is that you don't vacuum, you call in specialists. Aside from labor, you gotta replace the carpet or have it professionally cleaned, etc., etc. Where, oh, where is the cost saving in all this Greenery?

they use 1/5 of electricity (which one has to buy ;) ) of a normal light bulb
they last 5 to 15 times as long (which with an average of 3 hours per day can mean 18 years with some bulbs)

the overall cost saving potential over a life time of a 11watt bulb replacing a normal 60 watt bulb (with a price for electricity of 0.20 euro/ kW/h which is normal around here) is around 150€

unless you break them of course ;)
but they are less likely to break than the old ones .. of which i already had my fair share broken

[hulugu]

Not just mercury, takao; radiation as well--a helluva lot more than is allowed from any nuke plant. Coal is nasty stuff. I live downwind, since 1993, from a Mexican coal-fired plant that has no scrubbers. Today, our normal 100-mile visibility is down to about a dozen miles. I'm about 300 miles, airline, from the plant.

The deal on broken bulbs is that the official health/safet-boffin line is that you don't vacuum, you call in specialists. Aside from labor, you gotta replace the carpet or have it professionally cleaned, etc., etc. Where, oh, where is the cost saving in all this Greenery?

Then the law requires that they be disposed of in the environmentally correct manner. Go ahead: Make me believe they won't wind up buried deep in a dumpster. Or tossed out along a roadway...

The bulb doesn't break on the carpet; it breaks on the headboard of the bed, or the bedside table, or the dresser or chest-of-drawers. Desk. Table. All of which commonly are on floors with rugs or carpets.

Oh, well. Algore sez they're neat, and Mall-Wart is pushing them bigtime. When folks like that say they're Good For Me, who am I to argue? I'll bet they're as wonderful as gasahol...

'Rat

I guess it comes down to risk-assessment. If I expect mercury and radioactive emissions from my nearest coal plant, then wouldn't decreasing that plant's activity by as much as 80% be a positive action?
The amount of mercury in the bulbs is quite low and furthermore has anyone who has worried about mercury paid any attention to things like carpet off-gassing or the other hundreds of chemicals one is exposed to in daily life.

Obviously CFL bulbs aren't the be-all of energy efficiency, but it's a step away from Edison's bulb and, more importantly, towards getting people to start thinking about how their purchasing power can be used for good.

[Desertrat]

Personally, if I broke one of these bulbs, I'd just vacuum and go on about my business. I figure it's just the usual scare-folks stuff about hazards. I've probably breathed more than 4mg of some form of mercury in the last 24 years of living in an old mercury mining area. :) My only health problems come from too much heavy work beyond what my joints and ligaments could endure. Had fun, though.

I know of no reliable source, 24/7/365, that reduces pollutants to any notable degree beyond that of using nukes for baseload capacity. Solar during the day for peaking, sure. Wind, to the greatest extent feasible--but calm days DO HAPPEN--and reliability 24/7/365 means that wind units will never be sole suppliers.

'Rat

[hulugu]

Personally, if I broke one of these bulbs, I'd just vacuum and go on about my business. I figure it's just the usual scare-folks stuff about hazards. I've probably breathed more than 4mg of some form of mercury in the last 24 years of living in an old mercury mining area. :) My only health problems come from too much heavy work beyond what my joints and ligaments could endure. Had fun, though.

I know of no reliable source, 24/7/365, that reduces pollutants to any notable degree beyond that of using nukes for baseload capacity. Solar during the day for peaking, sure. Wind, to the greatest extent feasible--but calm days DO HAPPEN--and reliability 24/7/365 means that wind units will never be sole suppliers.

'Rat

I say build nukes, solar arrays, and wind/tidal turbines where appropriate. Solar arrays are nearing 40% efficiency and with the right economies of scale they'll become cheap.

Furthermore, one of the cool things about solar arrays is they can be added to individual homes, thereby lowering the electricity needed for a city. Industrial buildings, say your nearest urban mall which has a massive platform for arrays, and really any rooftop (parking garages) can be a site for solar arrays. Couple this with efficient building designs and all of the sudden your baseline load goes down.

No one energy source should be the sole supplier for the nation simply because we're a large and varied country so that building a $1 Billion nuclear power plant in the sun-stroke belt makes less sense than it does in New York.

[takao]

I know of no reliable source, 24/7/365, that reduces pollutants to any notable degree beyond that of using nukes for baseload capacity.

well there is one feasible way: the good old fashioned wheel in the river which has proven itself over centuries ;)

of course they have to be built in such a way not to influence the natural life of the river too much which of course reduces the possible locations
also you don't have to create such stuff like the chinese monster dam with all it's disadvantages

and while it fluctuates over the year, across a big country it doesn't fluctuate that much

[Desertrat]

"...the good old fashioned wheel in the river which has proven itself over centuries..."

Yup. First, find a river. :D

Get a map of the U.S. Look at the area in Texas and New Mexico, between the Pecos and Rio Grande rivers. That's about the size of Austria, if you put a north boundary somewhere around Albuquerque.

Not only do those rivers have little flow for mill wheels, the Rio Grande is often dry below El Paso. Gotta have flowing water for those mill wheels.

Same problem for the central valley of California, or the Great Plains country from the Texas Panhandle north to the Canadian border. And when you get down toward the coasts, the velocity of flow is not much more than molasses in January.

And w'eve done more dams for hydro-power than pleases the Sierra Club...

:), 'Rat

[KingYaba]

Thought this was interesting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070602/global-warming-states/


The mexican air is a lot filthier and is carried our way as well.

[hulugu]

"...the good old fashioned wheel in the river which has proven itself over centuries..."

Yup. First, find a river. :D

Get a map of the U.S. Look at the area in Texas and New Mexico, between the Pecos and Rio Grande rivers. That's about the size of Austria, if you put a north boundary somewhere around Albuquerque.

Not only do those rivers have little flow for mill wheels, the Rio Grande is often dry below El Paso. Gotta have flowing water for those mill wheels.

Same problem for the central valley of California, or the Great Plains country from the Texas Panhandle north to the Canadian border. And when you get down toward the coasts, the velocity of flow is not much more than molasses in January.

And w'eve done more dams for hydro-power than pleases the Sierra Club...

:), 'Rat

Texas could do well with wind-farms and solar arrays and off-shore tidal platforms off the coast of Galveston and Houston however. Toss in new nuclear plants near Houston and DFW and you've got an energy policy worth mentioning. Right now, Texas produces lots of greenhouse gases, mercury, particulates, and radioactive fallout in order to produce the energy it currently has. Texas needs, like the rest of the country, an attempt to formulate a real policy that takes into account future energy needs as well as a consideration that oil may have hit its peak and that global warming is a real and serious problem.
You can wave away every new environmental technology saying that it won't work in some particular regionality, but something will work somewhere. If we treated water the same way we treated energy no one would live in most of the southwestern US. There are always solutions to a given problem.

[solvs]

The mexican air is a lot filthier and is carried our way as well.

That was based on output, no air quality.

For the record though, to be fair, I think some places around here have that beat. Have you ever tried to breathe in L.A.? It ain't easy.

[mactastic]

Yeah, this will go about as far as the switchgrass proposal.

[Desertrat]

I didn't check the Huffington link, yet, but the Carbon II power plant (Near Piedras Negras.) that went on line in 1993 or thereabouts doesn't have scrubbers. It burns low-grade high-sulfur lignite. Summer air-mass movement carries the particulates as far northwest as the Grand Canyon. Winter air-mass movement carries them across the US Gulf coat area. "Northers" move the grunge down into the Monterrey area and the Gulf coast of Mexico.

In the FWIW department, the air of Los Angeles, CA, is a lot cleaner now than it was in 1967. Same for Houston. I remember a flight from SFO to Phoenix on a "severe clear" day, when you could see almost all of southern California except for the yellow-brown smogdome over the entire LA Basin. Houston used to have a maximum visibility of some five miles, back then. Now, you can see well across the area on a typical day.

Not saying we can't do better, but we've come one helluva long way...

'Rat

[beatzfreak]

How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?
EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:
1. Open a window and leave the room (restrict access) for at least 15 minutes.
2. Remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner.
Wear disposable rubber gloves, if available (do not use your bare hands).
Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard.
Wipe the area clean with a damp paper towel or disposable wet wipe.
Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.
3. Place all cleanup materials in a plastic bag and seal it.
If your state permits you to put used or broken CFLs in the garbage, seal the
CFL in two plastic bags and put into the outside trash (if no other disposal or
recycling options are available).
Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.
4. The first time you vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the
vacuum bag once done cleaning the area (or empty and wipe the canister) and
put the bag and/or vacuum debris, as well as the cleaning materials, in two
sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal
disposal.

http://energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls

HMMM.

My husband broke a CFL in the middle of the night and didn't clean it up as recommended above. In fact, he waited until morning.

That was about 6 months before he was diagnosed with mercury poisoning after experiencing symptoms for about 3 months.:eek:

[Desertrat]

"You can wave away every new environmental technology saying that it won't work in some particular regionality, but something will work somewhere."

I sure dunno who's waving. About all I've said that might seem negative is that not everything will always work all the time as some sort of "THE" solution, and that all these various technologies have certain limitation.

If we treated water the same way we treated energy no one would live in most of the southwestern US."

Duh. Sorry, there's plenty of water for drinking and home gardens. What is lacking is industrial and irrigation quantities. What we have is low population density. E.g., my home county is the size of Delaware. Our population is below 10,000.

"There are always solutions to a given problem."

True. The solutions can rarely be achieved as quickly as popular opinion would have it. The solutions are generally expensive. The solutions may well cause changes in life styles, which is anathema to the average Joe Sixpack. Or a Paris Hilton. :D

'Rat

[hulugu]

If we treated water the same way we treated energy no one would live in most of the southwestern US."

Duh. Sorry, there's plenty of water for drinking and home gardens. What is lacking is industrial and irrigation quantities. What we have is low population density. E.g., my home county is the size of Delaware. Our population is below 10,000.
'Rat

Duh? When did you suddenly become a tween from the valley? :D

My point is simply throughout the southwestern US we take great pains to move water from say the Colorado river to the middle of the Phoenix valley. We are essentially moving ice run-off from the Rockies out to wherever we need it, but energy is often treated as a local problem, especially when someone starts to talk about 'green' technologies. All of the sudden it has to rain in the middle of the desert.

It was my attempt at an analogy.

Furthermore, I know it's fun to talk about regionalities—I do it too—*but Texas isn't necessarily indicative of the rest of the country. Yes, your home county is an expanse of cows and buzzards. ;) But, more people live in cities than in the rural areas and the right solutions can make their energy expenditures more efficient.

Texas is in some ways a particularly tough state to use for this issue because it's so large, encompasses several different ecologies, and is largely empty. However, I think this also gives Texas a particular opportunity to lead the country in making green tech work, I just don't know when the voters will accept the right leaders to do something about it.


I sure dunno who's waving. About all I've said that might seem negative is that not everything will always work all the time as some sort of "THE" solution, and that all these various technologies have certain limitation.

'rat, I think we ultimately agree on the principle, if not the implementations.

[Desertrat]

I follow your comment about Phoenix, although the CAP is a little playtoy compared to the efforts to keep the LA basin from dying of thirst. And the size of the electric grid in California reaches to Washington State.

But insofar as green technology, it appears as though the private sector in energy, here, is going great guns. As I've commented, there are over 500 new wind units along I-10 and US 190 in west Texas.

I was in statewide water resource planning here, 1965-1975. I then got into the NOAA Coastal Zone program through 1979, which of course was a national-level effort. That got me used to "big picture" stuff. For some reason or another I got into the habit at looking at side-effects of "good deeds", the unanticipated results that accompany some solutions.

For instance: The location of wind farms necessitates a helluva lot of miles of transmission lines. The utility folks are finding resistance from the NIMBY crowd. Some places, it's the BANANA group that's the problem. IOW, in many areas the physical solutions that are suggested often don't take social factors into account.

Hey, how many people realized that the craze for gasahol would result in food riots in Mexico? Or increased costs, here, for Post Toasties, Fritos, milk, meat and eggs? Not to mention reduced habitat for wildlife and further depletion of the Ogalalla Aquifer?

To me, looking for unintended consequences is an important part of any proposed solution to anything. I just figure it's part of the homework. If it's not done, we can wind up with "cures" that may come to be worse than the original problem. Without doing that homework, it sometimes happens...

'Rat

[hulugu]

...I was in statewide water resource planning here, 1965-1975. I then got into the NOAA Coastal Zone program through 1979, which of course was a national-level effort. That got me used to "big picture" stuff. For some reason or another I got into the habit at looking at side-effects of "good deeds", the unanticipated results that accompany some solutions....To me, looking for unintended consequences is an important part of any proposed solution to anything. I just figure it's part of the homework. If it's not done, we can wind up with "cures" that may come to be worse than the original problem. Without doing that homework, it sometimes happens...

'Rat

Interesting you worked for water resource planning and NOAA.

I agree with you about blowback, everything has unintended consequences.

[Desertrat]

Those were some interesting days. I went from a mechanical engineering background to civil engineering, learning all about "dirt"--Soil Mechanics. And an in-depth near-memorizing of the Bureau of Reclamation's "Design of Small Dams". I got into design of dams, pipelines and canals, and doing the cost estimating.

If you've ever seen the California Water Project, which takes water from the Oroville projec down to LA, we worked with folks who designed that effort. I then "stole" a lot of their ideas to design a system to take water from the Miss. R. to Lubbock. A couple of billion bucks' worth in 1968-sized dollars. I got a mild chewing out for telling the Texas then-Speaker of the House, Billy Clayton, that he couldn't afford the water. :D The boss didn't know I occasionally drank beer with the Speaker at "Texas' finest honky-tonk", the Broken Spoke.

Fun times, those eleven years.

The NOAA period had me doing serious brain-picking on the bug-and-bunny PhDs. More learning about estuarine and marine environments and all the inter-relationships. The effort included a Citizens' Advisory Group, including all the environmental folks, natural resource agency folks, and movers and shakers of the Texas coast.

More fun times.

But, I got involved in writing legislation for hazardous waste stuff and a sort of "mini super fund"--and that got me too close to the Legislature, which will drive a buzzard off a gut-wagon.

So I dropped out in 1979 and have been doing penny-ante entrepreneuring ever since. No gripes; my wrinkles come from grinning. :)

Life's a hoot!

'Rat

[mactastic]

Maybe you can help me here 'Rat... Why are Civil Engineers consistently the worst performers among the various consultants? Doesn't seem to matter which one I hire, they all seem to forget the cardinal rule of civil engineering: Poop only flows downhill.

Nothing personal, just having a frustrating time with multiple civil engineers at the same time...