Bush says 'sorry' 22 February 05

American technology

The more I read about Global Warming, the more impressed I am about the efforts by some Americans to deal with this issue. We should not be misled by the comments of the White House, Bush and the political process about what is really going on in America, and what is required to make the US deal with climate change. There are many American institutions, businesses, individuals, writers, political figures who are effectively grappling with this issue.

How we move from the current Energy Economy based on hydrocarbons, is a daunting challenge. We should not underestimate the efforts that will be required. However, I can’t help but feel that American technology, the country that gave us Microsoft and the Internet, is going to make a crucial difference in helping us deal with Global Warming. We should also be careful about being too hung-up on Kyoto as a point of difference between the US and Europe.

What does Bush have to apologize for? A bad treaty which would single out the US and hold them to standards no other country would have to adhere to? Anyone who has lived in Europe knows that the US is much cleaner. This is especially true when compared to eastern European and third world countries. I’d say only Japan, Switzerland, parts of Austria and some parts of France/ Germany are on par with the US in terms of air/water.

But again, it’s the evil US polluting the world. Right? I say hooey. Look at Russia and China. Russia has had how many nuclear incidents? cough Chernobyl cough and China has how many people? cough a billion and a half cough... We won’t even address India… cough garabage dump collapse just killed 200 families cough ...but let’s just target the polluting US!

Bush is trying to keep the US economy on track not filibuster our production with ridiculous standards that NO ONE else in the world adheres to!! Let’s look at one industry… cars. European cars don’t have all of the anti-pollution constraints the US has… that is why they are faster and get better gas mileage. Meanwhile the US citizens pay for all the anti-pollution technology from catalytic converters to unleaded and specially blended fuels for their cars.

England still burns coal in many homes! France has nuclear waste to deal with and Germany uses fossil fuel. We won’t even look at other third world areas like Russia, China, Asia, Africa or the Middle East. Get off the US’s back and start looking in your own back yard!

You say that Kyoto is a bad treaty.

Do you think that there should be an international treaty to limit greenhouse gases at all?

Each country has their OWN interests at heart. And the UN is a broken machine incapable of monitoring itself much less a country. It can’t even run things like UNICEF, oil for food, etc…

Treaty? No not really. Look at the latest volcanic eruptions. They release more CO2 in one burst, than a country does in a year!! Should that country then be fined/ penalized?? It makes no sense.

Translated this means, “Maybe in the distant future when technology hopefull improves to the point where we can make big buck off of addressing climate change, without, of course, harming the oil and coal industries, but in some way helping them to make even more money, then we can start taking climate change.”

More cynically, it may also mean, “Since I’m getting tough on abortion, there has to be some way to kill off people, and climate change just might do that trick very well, and solve that long term challenge of population control.”

If you like, take a look at the book “Environment & Statecraft” by Scott Barrett (2004).

It shows how powerful international environmental agreements can be – as an example, how the North Pacific Fur Seal Treaty saved the fur seal about a hundred years ago. It also helped each country participating in the treaty.

It was a treaty which was championed by US President Taft, and he was deservedly proud of it in his State of the Union address of 1911.

There are many other examples.

Whether it can be applied to CO2 emissions is a question of debate.

in cost-effective ways, saving money, part of which could then be plowed into alternative energy. My husband and I are saving $100s every year from energy efficiency & conservation, without lowering our living standards or cramping our style; we pay about a penny more per KWH for Green Mountain Energy’s 100% wind generated electricity. It’s available here in Texas & a few other states.

Amory Lovins estimates the entire U.S. economy could reduce its energy consumption by more than three-fourths, without lowering productivity. (see rmi.org & natcap.org).

So we really need to get beyond looking at the other fellow or other country & just start doing all we can, at the very least those many many measures that will save us money, whether or not you believe GW is real.

If you are a Christian, then it is wise to follow the counsels of prudence, and reduce our GHGs, even when we are not convinced they are doing harm. The cost to our material world and our souls will be very great, if those thousands of topnotch climate scientists are right that GW is happening, is harming the world, and will likely harm the world very greatly in the future, and possibily lead to an extinction level event, perhaps killing off 90% of life on earth. I wouldn’t want that on my soul.

sources of energy and better ways to produce energy. It’s too bad that those who represent the people don’t agree with your impression of wind mills for energy production.(article about new england reps fighting Cap Cod wind farm)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/21/MNG5H9V40D1.DTL

Hybrid cars seems very reasonable and US dollars won’t go to support anti-american sentiment of the middle east. The Prius looks promising!

As far as home energy another option for the future may be the use of fuel cell technology. They seem too cumbersome for cars but may be well suited for buildings, towns and cities. It is supposedly cheaper than conventional power and may create some competition to help drive pricing downward.

Jim,

I am an American and an engineer. I am knowledgeable enough to see the wasteful energy usage we create every day and to know for sure that we can do much to not only reduce our emissions but to diversify our energy resource base, and increase the fuel efficiency of our homes and vehicles. We can do much better to develop our land so our citizens can live closer to their jobs and reduce traffic congestion (do a Google on Smart Growth).

According to the Bush Energy Policy (I read it completely years ago), we will be 80 percent dependent on foreign oil by the year 2020. Now, if you recall the Arab Oil Embargo (if you are close to my age or older), then you will know that we were only 40 percent reliant on foreign oil back then. I may remind you that there was gas rationing whereby we were assigned either an odd or even number and if your license plate ended in a number which corresponded to the calendar day, then you could purchase gas by waiting in long lines when the service station opened for a few hours that morning.

Often the station ran out of fuel while people were waiting in line. Sometimes fights arose when people cut into line and there were a few incidents of people being shot at over a gallon of gas! Interestingly, the actual effect was that we wasted more fuel while waiting in line. People were so scared to run out of fuel that they would purchase fuel when their tanks were only ¾ full so they could always have a full tank.

Years later, after this embargo was lifted, Jimmy Carter was elected President and formed the Department of Energy and that Department has helped us become more energy efficient. There were tax credits that enabled solar energy companies to form. Americans purchased fuel efficient vehicles, and we were focused on having more a focus on energy conservation.

When Ronald Reagan was elected, the energy laws were reduced or eliminated. Energy efficiency did increase sufficiently while gas prices remained low. Solar energy companies went out of business without enough tax-incentive for consumers to invest in. Our citizens began to purchase larger vehicles again and over time this became an epidemic with everyone convinced they need an SUV to drive alone during rush hour traffic or to buy a truck that they will never use for what the purpose a truck is for. And now, in my opinion, we are setting ourselves up for a repeat of history.

Our media does not help inform us sufficiently. We our slaves to the incredible marketing psychology of our network news which did not even mention the word Kyoto on the day it became effective while the BBC news had plenty of coverage about it.

I talked to a media expert and our TV programs are specifically designed to sell products and he said that when the commercial airs, they want the person watching the TV program “to not be thinking about anything” so the total focus will be on the advertisement. If people are engaged in thought when the advertisement comes on, then they may not focus on the advertisement as he explained to me. Now, what this says for network news is that our media does not want you to think at all while the news is being reported because this will actually decrease commercial sales which support the program the media is airing.

Now, think about that Jim! When you check out our network news again, please pay close attention to how the information is presented to manipulate you toward the ads and ask yourself how much you really learned from that presentation. Then turn to the BBC news and especially our public television supported mostly by viewers which have near zero advertisements and see the difference in content and political dialogue.

First, I believe that Peter Winters, who lives in the UK, makes a good point not to overemphasize Kyoto with respect to working with Americans. Thank-you, Peter. The important aspect is that we address climate change issues in a responsible manner and that can be done with or without Kyoto. In that regard, you did point out some of the flaws in Kyoto concerning China and India. Mark Lynas concedes that Kyoto is not a perfect system if you read carefully his posts on that. Our focus on technology may be of great benefit as Peter pointed out and maybe more important than our signing of Kyoto.

A technological focus by us will be required in solving this problem in my opinion. As Kerry put it regarding energy efficiency, “We have to invent our way out of it”. That could have been said by Bush or the garbage man for that matter. Those words resonate with me. Also, other countries have developed their economies to be more energy-efficient that ours so I think we have much more to learn form other countries.

The important point regarding climate issues is that climate change knows no national boundaries. With that said, cooperation and international agreements are important. Kyoto is one example of a way to address this need for international agreements.

According to mainstream scientists, Kyoto is not even being close to sufficient to solve the climate problems. So, again, with that said, we still do not have a plan that can effectively prevent climate change. Kyoto is only a partial solution. The importance of Kyoto or agreements like Kyoto is that it would help to reduce the problem we may have to further address with technological solutions.

Now with all that said, the argument of the impact of Kyoto to our economy I believe is way overstated. Even though you make a few very valid points on the blame game, there is another aspect to this problem that makes me think that the USA can do more that could reduce emissions in a similar manner that Kyoto does and in a way which would help our economy and our national security.

First, when we talk about Kyoto, it is most fair in my opinion to address the per capita emission rate of the USA versus other industrialized counties. Your point that Kyoto “..is a bad treaty which would single out the US and hold them to standards no other country would have to adhere to?” is not quite accurate when put into the perspective of per capita emissions which is our emission rate of greenhouse gases averaged per person.

Here are some numbers for you to look at below and I trust that you can do the math. Each country is in order by per capita emission rate in terra-grams of CO2 equivalent. I have played with these numbers and have posted quite often on the results of a few simple calculations to put things into better perspective. Below, I share statistics on selected comparative countries of Australia, Canada, USA, Germany, UK, European Union, Japan, and France. I think that the per capita emission rates of these countries should be within 20 to 30 percent of one another. They are not at all. I include the European Union in this mix of countries since Europe as a whole is proactive to reduce the threat of climate change and is 36 percent larger in population than the USA but with 34 percent lower total emissions than the USA without Kyoto!

The per capita emission rates of these selected countries in carbon dioxide equivalents are: Australia (27.6), Canada (21.9), USA (21.1), Germany (11.9), UK (11.4), European Union (10.3), Japan (10.2), and France (8.2).

The population rates of these same countries in millions are: Australia (18.8), Canada (30.3), USA (274.9), Germany (82.1), UK (59.3), European Union (374.6), Japan (126.1), and France (58.4).

The total greenhouse gas emissions of these same countries in carbon dioxide equivalents are: Australia (519), Canada (662), USA (5806), Germany (975), UK (673), European Union (3847), Japan (1280), France (482).

Now, Kyoto may reduce our emission rate to about 7 percent below 1990 levels. I believe this would amount to 25 to 30 percent total reductions currently. Mark may help me with the actual numbers here. So I will use 30 percent for the sake of discussion.

With Kyoto, over time, our per capita emission rate would be reduced to 14.7. This is still much higher than all countries I mentioned except Australia and Canada. This means that we would be emitting 30 percent more than our British friends are emitting right now even if they did not meet their Kyoto reductions. We would have to reduce at twice that of Kyoto to be at par with the current UK per capita emission rate.

In other words, Kyoto is only a half measure to achieve where my selective comparable countries are currently at. The only exceptions are Australia and Canada which have higher per capita rates than us. However, we emit 5 times more emissions than both Australia and Canada combined because of our large population. Canada did sign Kyoto. So, the focus more on us is still understandable even though Australia emits more per capita that we do.

When we consider that these prosperous countries, many of which are already lower in per capita emissions than us, then I wonder Jim if we are being misled about the actual harm reducing emissions would do to our economy. I think you can see my point here. For me, reductions aligned with energy efficiency increases and diversifying our energy resources would help our long-term economy and we need to think more long term than we do now anyway.

Now, China and India both who have large populations do not have to gain much prosperity to overwhelm the earth with emissions if they continue on their course of development. The truth is China does much of our manufacturing of our consumer products based simply on the fact that almost everything I buy says “Made in China”. India has taken over many of our service jobs. We both know this is true Jim. But with respect to emission rates, it may be unfair to blame these countries who are gaining prosperity for the sake of cheap products we buy here. So, based on that line of reasoning, I must conclude our responsibility is even higher since our own prosperity is helping to fuel the emission rates of both China and India to some extent.

Now getting back to your sensitivity based on national pride. I am proud to be an American as I am sure you are too. Sometimes, it feels that we can be blamed for too much simply because of our status as a Superpower even though we do so much good with little acknowledgement.

However, I think that we can do better than we are doing when it comes to climate-change issues. For one, the idea of cutting funds to stations monitoring the climate as Bush thinks this is not needed is a bad idea. We need to continue collecting data on CO2 and measuring temperatures. I think not measuring for climate parameters is a very irresponsible thing to do. Kyoto or not, we should be doing this and increasing our efforts to monitor the climate more accurately.

Concerning the UK, I am very proud of our British friends who have suffered bloodshed at our side in Iraq as we try to deal with our Iraq problem. I disagreed with going to war with Iraq. Most in Britain did yet they were led to do so mostly because of our common heritage as people. I believe this.

Bush did say correctly after 911 that we have no better friend than Great Britain. I believe this to be true regardless of the politics. The British would love to see us do better not only for them and the world but for ourselves as well. I truly believe this to be true.

I think that the bonds between our nations are very strong. I believe this based on my understanding of the UK although I have never been there. I believe that the people of the UK are very intellectual, polite, and altruistic as compared to how our own culture has been evolving.

I think that our British friends have taken a lead role in addressing the climate issues we face today and I am proud of them for having the courage to do this. I think we have not stepped up to the plate on this.

So, I enjoy the dialogue with many from the UK on Mark’s site. Keep in mind that there is an understandable sensitivity to our indifference to climate change when many countries already low in per capita emissions see us being so indifferent to Kyoto.

It is natural to be a little pissed off since our higher emissions offset their efforts at mitigating climate change with their commitments to reduce.

Jim, I hope what I wrote here helped you and was of benefit to others because I do believe that you are a passionate person who cares deeply.

You made some important valid points and Mark’s site is mostly one of constructive dialogue rather than proving someone else wrong (although that can be necessary at times).

Please think about what I shared here because in the process of political manipulation, the truth is the first casualty and the constructive debate on Mark’s site I think helps us to find that truth so stay with us here and continue to share your thoughts.

Some have an axe to grind, but many here are simply trying to better understand these issues at a deeper level and many like me believe creative solutions are available if we open our minds to them.

Without international cooperation, we will not be able to insure a functioning earth climate system for our descendents.

We have a responsibility here. Climate change knows no national boundaries and we have only one earth so we better learn to find a way and get it right.

Best, Dan

PS

FYI, Coal burned in homes in England to heat them has about twice the emissions of using natural gas.

You are knowledgeable to know enough to mention their use of coal. Many people would not know this. Good for you! I did not know that myself.

However, if this same coal is burned to make electricity and this goes to a resistance heater still sold in America, then the emissions from burning coal go up by about a factor of four(assuming an electricity conversion from coal at a 25 percent fuel source efficiency).

So, if you have a portable resistance heater that you use, then you are worse than the fellow heating his home by coal by a factor of four.

Just food for further thought!

Also, if we reduced to the UK level of per capita emissions, then it would be equivalent to the UK reducing to zero multiplied by a factor of four! This is true too! No Joke! Do the math yourself! I already gave you the numbers in this post to do just that.

Jim,

You are in good company here!

Continue to post on Mark’s site and you may discover that you will find many friends you did not know you even had!

Fuel Cells have the potential ability to achieve 70 percent efficiency versus electricity straight from a power plant which is reduced to 40 percent efficiency based on limitations from the laws of physics. Further losses occur during transmission to lower that to 25 percent.

Have you bought any compact fluorescent light bulbs? The energy savings listed on the package are correct. They have a quick payback and a long life. Many times you can find an economy package of 60 watt equivalent bulbs but they use 14 watts instead.

We already have noticed a reduction in our monthly electric bill when we changed all our bulbs to them.

Also, CFBs reduce the heat load to an air conditioner since they give off less heat. This amounts to additional savings not calculated on the light bulb package. You know how hot incandescent bulbs can get. That is extra heat for an AC unit to take out!

If millions of people used CFBs, then maybe a coal plant burning a train-car load of coal every minute would not even have to be constructed!

Now that you know the score, you can purchase these bulbs and spread the word to others. They will be happy at the energy savings they gain regardless of their understanding of climate issues or other issues for that matter.

Take Care, Dan

Hello Jim,

read your post with great pleasure this morning: It’s good that you are angry and idignant about us nosey-interfering, do-gooding Europeans trying to spoil your party with this Kyoto nonsense!

You have asked, as does our good friend Norbertzangox, why should I bother, why should I change what I’m doing? isn’t this some kind of world wide bad joke at the expense of the US by those supercilious sniggering Brits and their mates?

Well, we could, of course, just be winding you all up for the fun of it, but then again , there might be something in it so (as a precaution), and in your own interests, would it be worth checking it out? Yep!

Firstly, I think Dan has given you a great response in putting global energy use and the consequent emissions per capita into perspective. I think he’s got rather a quaint idea that we are all very polite, decent and socially responsible in the UK: Sorry Dan, but we have a nuclear waste problem, a total absence of an energy policy, a crap transport system, poverty, some vain and pompous politicians, corruption in public office, and vaccuous daytime television too!

Oh yes and I have just added some coal (anthracite) to the log-stove becasue its -3C outside and there’s snow falling. But I live in the country, in North Wales (look it up) and am fortunate enough to have enough woodland around that makes a regular supply of fallen timber a worthwhile option for our primary heating of choice. This is untypical in the UK, where most heating is piped natural gas (methane), oil, or electricity.

Having met quite a few US citizen’s I have to say that likewise, you seem to be very largely genuine, polite, thoughful, hard-working, caring and principled and certainly the US is a fantastic country for innovation, technical achievement and productivity and has a fabulous natural environment, a world-class education system (especially the universities) and an immensely rich and vibrant culture in terms of the arts.

We are aware that aspects of your present administration (and ours) and the actions of some major corporates (and ours) and the slanted presentation given in your commercial news media and film industry (and ours) do not represent the whole picture or the views of the whole of the population: so I’m making an appeal to you to just keep asking why? and not being satisfied until you get answers that make sense to you.

Self interest: type ‘Peak oil production’ into your search engine on world-wide setting and read what you find. If you are feeling strong-minded, try www.dieoff.org as well.

When you have read this, then ask yourself the question, even if there is just the smallest risk that some of this stuff is true, what can I, personally do about it? Dan has mentioned changes, such as purchasing low energy, long-life bulbs that will save you $10’s or even $100’s a year with no change in standard of living.

Will your job allow you to use public transport, cycle or even work from home just 1 day a week? (no more) If yes, then that’s 20% of your annual fuel costs gone (to spend on something you’d really like) and you could even get some health benefits from it (more exercise, less stress). If more people could work this way each chosing a different way to travel to work just 1 day a week on different days, then there would be 20% less car traffic, meaning on the other 4 days, your car journeys would be faster, with less delays and congestion, and even less fuel wasted (and you could leave home later and get back earlier).

Recycle: up to 90% of your trash can be recycled. The best way to do it is to keep it clean and separated into different types. This is not difficult, it requires no more thought or practise to separate and store recycled materials than it does to sort them when you come from the grocery store and unpackage them for use. You may have a kerbside collection in your neighbourhood, you may have a local bring-site (recycling centre) you may have a charity or volutary welfare scheme that collects recyclate. If you don’t get a service and can’t find one, come back to me and will do some research for you. Why do this? Recycling in this way keeps the very substantial costs of handling and disposing of domestic waste down; This means your local taxes should not rise so fast when the costs of Oil start to climb again, saving you ever-increasing amounts of tax.

If you’re not sure about the economics of recycling, I can give you a lot more information.

All the above is not about looking good as a citizen or becoming some kind of green nerd, it is common sense, it saves more of your hard-earned cash for yourself and your family and you’ll find it has other more surprising benefits as well. If you start to do it, your freinds, family and neighbours may start to do it as well if they see that you are benefitting and not losing out.

If everyone in the US were to make these kind of simple changes over the next 5-10 years, the effect on your GHG emissions (and your national debt) would be enormous. You would not notice any negative difference in your lifestyle.

At a national level, there will be a huge and sudden demand for energy-super-efficient devices to replace all the current consumer goods in circulation. The US has a fantastic manufacturing base that could be responding to this now, creating new jobs and new wealth, reducing the dependance on imported oil and therefore reducing your (and our) need to go to war to protect foreign oil reserves. But this response will come only if consumers like you demand it.

We are all consumers, voters, complainants and litigants. There are millions of us. The government knows this, the oil companies know this, the other major corporates know this. Some of them are waking up to this and making preparations.

Why do you think you are being told that Kyoto is a bad thing, why are we all being told that making the changes necessary to meet the Climate change threat will devastate our econmies and demolish our standards of living? Could it be that those in power now (both political and commercial) just want to protect the status-quo?

As citizens and communities we can make the many small changes now that will colectively make a huge impact which the government, through legislation, cannot hope to achive in time. Even if, (in the unlikely event) that the effects of climate change do not hit us as hard as we fear, you will still end up being better off, and having a more enjoyable lifestyle.

Keep on being angry, keep on asking questions: when you get answers that make sense to you, act on your conclusions.

with all best wishes

Colin Keyse

Hi Jim.

I really agree. There are too many chinese and indian people and the worst nuclear disaster was located in Chernobil, currently Ukraine. It is great that you remind us of a few another great environmental problems.

And now, what about to focus on the GW matter?

Jim, I can talk to you as an European. Well, to be honest I am totally an European. I was born and live in Seville, Andalusia, the southern zone of Spain. It is not the most developed area of the EU but we have engineers, roads, trucks, cars and (what a surprise) even unleaded fuel!

There are 9 new gas Power Stations only in Southern Spain. Coal Stations are obsolete and we try to gasify the coal and the coke subproduct from oil refinery to improve the burning and electrical conversion efficency up to 42% (oil power stations are around 32-35%). Building Spanish nuclear stations is forbidden by law since 1988.

Solar and wind energy are improved year to year. Spain is the first wind energy producer in Europe. However, the solar way is not so developed as the greek one (man, they are really clever) Although the biggest european solar station is only being built. It is 20 kms from my flat.

I must confess I cannot remember the exact date the unleaded fuel was introduced, I was too young. Maybe 1990? Perhaps we simply copied the advanced californian environmental policy which it is the most advanced as far as SO2, NOx (precursors of “smog”) and lead is concerned, but I couldn’t find anything about GH gases… Hey! What we have here! Tobacco laws are really… well, tobacco too.

But the point is my car works with diesel fuel (gasoil). Do you know why? Because gasoil is cheaper and less pollutant in an engine which spents lees fuel. You really would wonder Jim, 60% of vehicles in Spain work with gasoil!

Normally my small Peugeot 206 (diesel) 70 HP spends 4 liters per 100 kms at 90 km/h (50 m/h). Spain limit speed is 120 km/h (70 m/h) on the highroad. But I have no many opportunities to check it because I use the bike as soon as I can.

I live at the Seville city center and I take 15 minutes to go to work by bike. By car it is half an hour. Can you say the same from L.A.? (by the way, L.A. and Andalusia climate are very simillar… up to now and thanx the Gulf Stream!)

Well, you are right. After looking for Seville at the map, you discover it is very small compared to L.A. Only 700.000 people!!! So, explain why the hell it is being constructed an underground line (tube) right now… to avoid pollution? YES! And because we heat being 3 hours of our life in traffic jams producing more CO2.

USA is powerful, USA is great and California enjoys the best environmental laws on earth. We simply love Hollywood movies, American dynamic people and the American dream and we feel citizens of NYC. We are really informed of what is USA and that not all american people think in the same way. So, please, get informed of the REALLY complex Europe before trying to think of.

Jim, this is not a matter of Nationalisms, regionalisms or another thing-ism. the GW is THE problem of the century due to a few reasons:

- Hard to stop its evolution. - Really hard to play good climate models. - Consequences are not still completely clear. - Again, poor people will be the most perjudicated.

And, I think, the most important one:

We must put all our heads together to find a solution, the sooner the better. Nevermind, american, chinese, european or brasilian. The problem will affect everybody and in a way we cannot maybe even imagine.

Long life to the american power. I still believe in all you, even Bush!

The fur seal treaty protected a species to the detriment of a very few humans, fur traders. The whaling treaties protected whales to the detriment of a very few humans, whalers. Japanese, who had come to like whale food products did not have to starve because of the treaty. The treaty exempted the Inuit peoples, who did depend upon whales for food. Other treaties are similar.

Kyoto is different in that it will restrict the supply of energy to every human on the planet. The treaty will hamper the developed nations, but it will be devastating to those in poorer countries.

Even if human-caused global warming is true and even I acknowledge that our carbon dioxide emissions may play a small role in the current warming, Kyoto and Kyoto-like mechanisms are the wrong way to go. I believe that we would be best served to stop listening to the hysterics broadcast by the Henny Penny and Chicken Little types and begin to develop more reasonable impact predictions. We then should begin preparations for the effects that are possible.

I just found your post about skepticism; it has fallen off the bottom of the page. I mostly agree with you.

I believe that I am a reasonable man. My problem in this global warming brouhaha is the existence of so many observations that do not fit the hypothesis. Coupled with these exceptions are what I believe are projections about future economic activity and future use of fossil fuels.

One must believe much of what I consider exaggerations before one can arrive at the position taken by the IPCC. I believe that it is those exaggerations that inhibit reasonable decision-making.

I appreciate your quotes from Russell, one of my favorites was his rhetorical question, “Why do nuns wear their habits when bathing?”

I also know that many persons who believe that appearance is reality inhabit the world. Those persons then try to create appearances that benefit them. (Is that paranoia or is it reasonable skepticism?)

As regards the fur trade arrangement, I think the crucial point is that all the countries benefitted from the arrangement, especially the fur traders. Numbers of seal dramatically increased – and then harvesting numbers – once the deal was done.

(I need to get to the part of the book which deals with Kyoto!)

But I think Game Theory is very powerful in understanding some of the posturing that is going on. My sense is that the US, and the oil majors (inc. Exxon-Mobil) are buying into the idea of Climate Change. (Meanwhile, OPEC will fight it!).

The US don’t like the arrangements and will fight to have another arrangement outside of Kyoto – but I do think that the US will start working hard to deal with climate change (perhaps, despite fossils like Dick Cheney).

By coincidence, following my blog of a couple of weeks ago about the vulnerability of Exxon to negative PR – I think that company is now starting to hedge it’s bets and will take Climate Change more seriously.

http://www2.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/Newsreleases/xom_nr_100205.asp

I’m afraid it’s a myth that volcanoes release sufficient CO2 into the atmosphere to rival human emissions. Volcanic activity does release small amounts, but nothing compared to the 7 gigatonnes of carbon spewed out by the burning of fossil fuels. It would show up on the readings of atmospheric concentrations otherwise. I don’t remember any sudden jumps in CO2 after Pinatubo (1991) or any other recent eruptions – the 2ppm or so rise annually is entirely down to us. And volcanoes, by adding lots of aerosols into the upper atmosphere, tend to cool the planet: that’s why the ‘year without a summer’ came after the Tambora eruption of 1815. So you’d better think of a new cop-out to excuse the US!

I enjoyed my month in Spain. The only place I visited was Zaragoza (sp) and surrounding areas. It was a different culture than I was used to. I began to see why the ciesta (sp) was so important as I saw so many people moving about at hours I was used to sleeping in! The beauty of the women in Spain was matched by few countries! I also love the wonderful styles and unique leather products. The architecture was soothing to the eye and views spectacular. This was especially true of the Pyrennes in the distance.

I was surprised at some unexpected things however. The water was one. Brown one minute and clear the next. I quickly learned the good times to wash clothes or other things to avoid water stains. I also did not like parts of the bull fights. Although deeply rooted in culture, it seemed cruel at times. The events which did not kill the bull was entertaining. The children riding the calves around the ring and the men from the audience going in the ring to challenge the huge bulls. That was very funny!

I saw some disturbing things as well though. Young girls of perhaps 10-12 trying to sell themselves to earn money. This was heartbreaking to see. Also an image of an old man sitting on a sidewalk begging for anything. He had been there so long his legs were flattened beneath him. I felt compelled to by him some food and did so. He cried when I gave it to him.

I am glad your town is growing! The underground rail seems like a good idea. However, I hope the country does not exceed the 1990 GHG levels as stipluated by Kyoto. They need to go the other direciton. The US was one of the first to introduce reformulated fuels to try and reduce pollution and various gases. I think it began in 1975. The US now has dozens of different mixes of gasoline based on the area of the country.

source http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/question6.pdf

I think the US is trying to move in the right direction but it just takes time. Kyoto is unfairly penalizing growth through energy restiction.

for further comments see http://www.marklynas.org/wind/message/842.html

their was a gas shortage? Because we were converting our refineries at the time to produce unleaded gasoline more exclusively. The oil was not in shortage, per say, we just could not refine it to produce unleaded gas at the time! They same goes today.

We have not built a new refinery in decades!! The oil has to be made into the specialized gasolines our country uses. These gasoline mixtures have been in place since the mid 70’s. Where would GHG be if it were not for catalytic convertors and unleaded gasoline! The US was the first to do this on a national scale and the American paid (and contiues to pay) the bill!

and I’ve learned something today. I thought the volcanoes made much more of a “mess” than they actually do. I stand corrected.

While web searching this, I also learned that a large culprit of CO2 production is uncontrolled wild fires. They were blamed for 15-40% increases of GHG in some areas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2413375.stm

Too bad many prohibited effective and responsible forest management. Those trees which burned in the US and elsewhere could have been used for people… instead they burned up because of limited governance of the forests and caused needless GHG.

Additionally I learned that nature appears to compensate when volcanoes erupt and take in more CO2 to provide some balance to the air.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011210co2absorb.html

Thanks for keeping me straight!

Jim,

Do other people outside the USA still use leaded gas?

I was not aware that others have stanadrds that low!

No catalytic convertors either?

Dan

be it flaring natural gas from oil wells, peat bogs, and forests.

Volcanoes emit sulfates that have a cooling effect. So do the sulfur emissions from our coal plants.

Dan

Hello Dan & Jim,

hope you’re both well. Catalytic converters have been mandatory on all new cars sold in the EU since January 1993. Very few vehicles on the road do not have them now. At the same time, leaded petrol has been phased out and we have not been able to purchase it, apart from at a few outlets that specialise in supplying classic and vintage car clubs, on a regular basis for some years. Even LRP (Lead Replacement Petrol) is now being phased out as the demand declines. Most cars run on either unleaded or low-sulphur diesel and average medium-size car mpg’s are now in the 40-55 range. I have been looking at the Smart car range, built by Daimler/Chrysler. Alloy spaceframe, ABS & Carbon body. There is a nice little 2-seat roadster as well: 3cyl engine, top speed <122mph><61mpg>

Jim makes a good point about Kyoto seeming to encourage both India and China to expand consumption and emissions as fast as possible in order to catch up with the developed world. Dan; you quoted the car ownership figures per capita. In Money Week magazine this week, they quoted similar figures and calculated that if China had the same per capita car ownership as the US, then they would require 600 million cars! At that rate, all the reamining oil on the planet would be gone inside 10 years!

In fact, India seems to be well aware of the potential disaster for their country if they follow the same route as the west. We have recently been able to import a new electric car being mass produced in India which is ideal for inner urban areas. With exemption from London parking charges and the congestion charge, together with a 1p (0.51c) per mile fuel cost as opposed to an average 9p (4.7c) per mile cost, users in London are reporting payback on purchase price from from savings inside 12 months! http://www.goingreen.co.uk/

OK its not for everyone, and won’t be much use outside cities, but I think that Jim’s right about the next logical step being Hybrids. Certainly I’m looking forward to a much better choice and lower price on Hybrid diesel-electric cars that you can run on electric urban cycle and fuel (including biodiesel) out of town. The inclusion of regenerative braking pushes the efficiency up a lot too. With an expected 20-23% efficiency improvement on current EU car performance, that should yield 60-72 mpg averages. With more biodiesel becoming available and using it as a 50/50 mix with conventional diesel that decreases the fossil fuel usage to over 120mpg!

Just in case my last post to you Jim came across as a bit smart-assed, please accept an apology for my quirky British sense of humour.

kind regards

Colin

And lived there several years! I was not sure if you had gone over to unleaded or not. It wasn’t around when I lived there in the late 80’s. Also can appreciate a dry sense of wit! :)

your stupid