Global Warmers Promote Dark Ages, Permanently

[BenBurch]

Is shipping a big CO2 contributor?
I was unaware of that. Can you point me to some relevant info?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/03/travelsenvironmentalimpact.transportintheuk

And what solutions are available for shipping?

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/beluga-shipping.html

ETA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

 

[The Don]

Global Warming is not in the Bible or the Constitution.

'Nuff said.

Neither is Mr Pibb.

Are you a Mr Pibb denier ?

 

[tyr_13]

But what if global warming isn't real and we end up with green jobs and a cleaner environment all for nothing? Then what!?

I think this says it nicely.

 

[varwoche]

Elbe,

The CFR, and RIIA for starters

Two think tanks that, so far as I can tell, aren't even involved with GW advocacy. How bizarre to finger these random organizations.

 

[mhaze]

Thousands per year are already dying due directly to impacts from AGW, within a few decades of business as usual, this number could easily increase into the millions per year. If no changes are made and this continues much beyond the next few decades, it is quite possible, and even probable, that the human death toll due to the impacts of AGW could easily reduce the human population to pre-industrial era numbers and beyond,over the course of the coming century or two.

http://www.news.wisc.edu/11878

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/index.html

http://www.cdc.gov/climatechange/

Nonsense. For every short sighted effort by lunatic environemntals to cut or control business, actually causing it to move other places, there is a reaction. Note the following:

A recent study by a Chinese research institute found that 400,000 premature deaths are caused every year in China by diseases linked to air pollution. And China's Ministry of Science and Technology reports that 50,000 newborn babies are killed by air pollution a year.

That's good old fashioned pollution, not your imaginary and alarmist AGW fantasies. But it seems like your fellow alarmists pushing for lower emissions and causing business to move offshore (both from US and Europe) are largely to blame for the above described conditions in China, doesn't it?

Seems to me that the ones killing people are short sighted, ignorant, pushy environmentals. No different than when they caused the banning of DDT. No different than when they caused a stoppage of nuclear plant construction in the 1980s.

PS: Add to list of what lunatic environmentals would like to control in the name of their latest agenda, AGW:

1. cow produced (I'm sure also cow farts and car belches)
2. airplanes
3. cars
4. power plants
5. population level to be "sustainable"
6. shipping

 

[BenBurch]

Somebody here never read Thomas Malthus.

 

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane
Is shipping a big CO2 contributor?
I was unaware of that. Can you point me to some relevant info?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/03/travelsenvironmentalimpact.transportintheuk

Here's an AEA report on the issue: http://hmccc.s3.amazonaws.com/pdfs/AEA shipping report for the CCC.pdf
(section seven deals with a lot of the potential technological addressments)

in excerpt format:
-Estimates suggest that there is the potential to reduce CO2 emissions from existing ships by around 10% through operational measures and by retrofitting various technical measures. Emissions from new state-of-the-art ships could be reduced by up to 30% per vessel compared to emissions of existing ships through design measures.
-In the future, a 2022 state-of-the-art ship might emit around a third fewer CO2 emissions than existing ships, while by 2050 a new ship might be emitting half as much CO2 as a current ship.
-The potential application of a carbon price for the shipping sector was examined, and this analysis indicated that carbon prices of between €50 and €200 per tonne of CO2 could lead to significant future reductions in total global emissions from the shipping sector when compared to baseline BAU projections.
-There is also a trend towards larger ships, which might introduce economies of scale.
-It was not possible to identify the costs associated with all the potential abatement measures, although an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of a couple of the measures (waste heat reduction and kite sails) suggests that these were cost-effective ways of reducing CO2 emissions.
etc.,...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/beluga-shipping.html

ETA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

Good concepts both, I believe in the first case that a purpose built modern sail/fuel hybrid could be amazingly efficient, however, they would probably also be quite expensive and not likely until fuel costs are considerably higher than present.
I'm curious also, if rather than looking at fleets of nuclear-powered commercial cargo haulers, if it might not be better to encourage a few extremely robust nuclear-powered tugs that cycle across the oceans towing trains of cargo vessels. If the towing fees are below the fuel costs it might well be a compelling use of maritime nuclear power, without opening the flood gates of potentially concerning technology ripe for the picking by groups no more sophisticated than Somali pirates.

 

[Trakar]

post retracted

 

[johnny karate]

Neither is Mr Pibb.

Are you a Mr Pibb denier ?

I have a study here that disproves the existence of Mr. Pibb entirely.

It's from noted scholar Dr. Pepper.

*rimshot*

 

[fuelair]

Effeminate?

From Post 16:I expect the number of hydroelectric stations to decrease, but the effeminacy to increase along with less intrusive design.

 

[tyr_13]

From Post 16:I expect the number of hydroelectric stations to decrease, but the effeminacy to increase along with less intrusive design.

Ohhhhhh.

They're in Canada.

 

[Toontown]

Speaking of Doomsayers claiming the sky will fall...

If the US cut it’s per capita CO2 by 50% it would be right in line with the Japan, UK, Germany and most of the other developed countries in Europe. If it cut it’s per capita CO2 by 70% it would be right in line with where France is today. Not only that, these countries are managing to reduce their carbon footprint.

Seems to me the only doomsayers claiming the sky will fall are the ones who say the US can’t cut its carbon footprint.

And if these countries you're touting would boost their manufacturing output to US levels, then their CO2 outputs would be right up there with the US.

Your example, France, completely fails to stack up to the US when CO2 emmission is correlated with manufacturing output. According to your numbers, France inexplicably blows out 30% as much CO2 as the US, while producing only 16% of the industrial output. That is unacceptable.

In fact, the US is the clear leader where it counts - in terms of manufacturing production per unit of CO2 emmission.


http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-top-manufacturing-countries.htm


"The world's top manufacturing country is the United States, as has been the case since before WWII. In 2007, the United States' manufacturing output was $1.831 trillion US Dollars (USD). This is about 12% of the USA's entire GDP (Gross Domestic Product), or $12,206 USD for every person in the 150 million-strong labor force. Still, the USA's output per capita is not the world's greatest among manufacturing countries -- that honor goes to Japan. Important goods manufactured in the United States include, in order of percentage of exports in 2007: production machinery and equipment, 31.4%; industrial supplies, 27.5%; non-auto consumer goods, 12.7%; motor vehicles and parts, 10.5%; aircraft and parts, 7.6%; food, feed and beverages, and 7.3%; and other, 3.0%.

In 2007, the top manufacturing countries besides the United States were China ($1,106 billion USD), Japan ($926 billion USD), Germany ($670 billion USD), the Russian Federation ($362 billion USD), Italy ($345 billion USD), the United Kingdom ($342 billion USD), France ($296 billion USD), South Korea ($241 billion USD), Canada ($218 billion USD), Spain ($208 billion USD), and Brazil ($206 billion USD)."

 

[Upchurch]

Just to clarify, is anyone arguing against the science of global warming or is it just what to do about it that is in question?

 

[DavidJames]

Just to clarify, is anyone arguing against the science of global warming or is it just what to do about it that is in question?

I think you will need to wait a bit to get a representative response as mhaze and JQ have both been suspended.

 

[Eddie Dane]

I think you will need to wait a bit to get a representative response as mhaze and JQ have both been suspended.

In that case: the remaining forum members are not deniers and are just looking for solutions to the problem of global warming.

Or did I miss a denier?

 

[a_unique_person]

Just to clarify, is anyone arguing against the science of global warming

You can't do that, we have The One True Thread for global warming debates.

 

[bit_pattern]

I wish they'd do the same to the Israel threads, they're way more snarky that climate threads.

 

[Furcifer]

And if these countries you're touting would boost their manufacturing output to US levels, then their CO2 outputs would be right up there with the US.

Your example, France, completely fails to stack up to the US when CO2 emmission is correlated with manufacturing output. According to your numbers, France inexplicably blows out 30% as much CO2 as the US, while producing only 16% of the industrial output. That is unacceptable.

In fact, the US is the clear leader where it counts - in terms of manufacturing production per unit of CO2 emmission.


http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-top-manufacturing-countries.htm


"The world's top manufacturing country is the United States, as has been the case since before WWII. In 2007, the United States' manufacturing output was $1.831 trillion US Dollars (USD). This is about 12% of the USA's entire GDP (Gross Domestic Product), or $12,206 USD for every person in the 150 million-strong labor force. Still, the USA's output per capita is not the world's greatest among manufacturing countries -- that honor goes to Japan. Important goods manufactured in the United States include, in order of percentage of exports in 2007: production machinery and equipment, 31.4%; industrial supplies, 27.5%; non-auto consumer goods, 12.7%; motor vehicles and parts, 10.5%; aircraft and parts, 7.6%; food, feed and beverages, and 7.3%; and other, 3.0%.

In 2007, the top manufacturing countries besides the United States were China ($1,106 billion USD), Japan ($926 billion USD), Germany ($670 billion USD), the Russian Federation ($362 billion USD), Italy ($345 billion USD), the United Kingdom ($342 billion USD), France ($296 billion USD), South Korea ($241 billion USD), Canada ($218 billion USD), Spain ($208 billion USD), and Brazil ($206 billion USD)."

Finally someone that gets it.

The solution is simple isn't it, shift the bulk of energy intensive manufacturing to 3rd world countries with already low per capita CO2 emissions and import their goods in exchange for carbon credits, wheat, soy and corn.

 

[tyr_13]

And if these countries you're touting would boost their manufacturing output to US levels, then their CO2 outputs would be right up there with the US.

Your example, France, completely fails to stack up to the US when CO2 emmission is correlated with manufacturing output. According to your numbers, France inexplicably blows out 30% as much CO2 as the US, while producing only 16% of the industrial output. That is unacceptable.

In fact, the US is the clear leader where it counts - in terms of manufacturing production per unit of CO2 emmission.


http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-top-manufacturing-countries.htm


"The world's top manufacturing country is the United States, as has been the case since before WWII. In 2007, the United States' manufacturing output was $1.831 trillion US Dollars (USD). This is about 12% of the USA's entire GDP (Gross Domestic Product), or $12,206 USD for every person in the 150 million-strong labor force. Still, the USA's output per capita is not the world's greatest among manufacturing countries -- that honor goes to Japan. Important goods manufactured in the United States include, in order of percentage of exports in 2007: production machinery and equipment, 31.4%; industrial supplies, 27.5%; non-auto consumer goods, 12.7%; motor vehicles and parts, 10.5%; aircraft and parts, 7.6%; food, feed and beverages, and 7.3%; and other, 3.0%.

In 2007, the top manufacturing countries besides the United States were China ($1,106 billion USD), Japan ($926 billion USD), Germany ($670 billion USD), the Russian Federation ($362 billion USD), Italy ($345 billion USD), the United Kingdom ($342 billion USD), France ($296 billion USD), South Korea ($241 billion USD), Canada ($218 billion USD), Spain ($208 billion USD), and Brazil ($206 billion USD)."

That's a very good point. I get very tired of silly finger pointing, usually at the US, as if it will help accomplish anything. All the finger pointing we should be doing is at the amazing new technology and techniques and proclaiming, "Wow that's neat!"

 

[AlBell]

Warmers would be easier to talk to if they didn't get spittle all over you attacking in particular the US.