Copenhagen's climate change battle
On Thursday night over dinner in Brussels there was a deep rift between the European leaders on how to pay for fighting climate change. There were long faces.
Early in the morning, over breakfast, I detected enormous frustration among some European leaders. "We must show leadership," said one. The irritation stemmed from the firmly held belief here that Europe has led the way in demanding binding targets.
So Europe had to set an example for the Chinese and the Americans, said a senior official, and that meant putting figures on the table. Some colleagues, said the same official, are already anticipating failure over Copenhagen.
Overnight the lawyers and those with specialised knowledge of climate issues toiled away and early today Gordon Brown claimed a breakthrough. He had been one of those most insistent at the dinner that to carry conviction you had to deal in numbers. The British Prime Minister thought European leaders had the makings of an excellent deal.
After 2020 the world would have to find 100 billion euros a year to help the poorer countries fight climate change. Between 15 and 40bn euros would have to come from global taxpayers. That figure was certainly vaguer than the British had wanted. Britain would have to contribute about a billion pounds a year. And what excited Gordon
Brown's team was a new commitment to fast-track some of this funding immediately.
But the key to these figures was that they were conditional on other countries chipping in with funding and for the developing world agreeing to cut their emissions.
As the morning wore on it was apparent that the "breakthrough" was less than had been stated.
Firstly, some countries - particularly Germany - did not want to set out what Europe would end up paying. They wanted to see what others were prepared to contribute. Secondly, Poland and other Eastern European countries objected to helping countries like Brazil which they considered wealthier. They also resisted any contribution being assessed on the basis of their emissions as opposed to their GDP. In the end they agreed to support Europe putting some figures on the table but the question of how much they would pay was referred to a committee.
It is an indication of just how hard it will be to get a comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen.
The consensus here was that agreeing some figures was a step forward. Many felt that the failure to state what Europe would pay was a missed opportunity. However some said that it would put pressure on the Americans to say what they would contribute. For as the senior European official said this morning "we have to create momentum".
At a time when there are such misgivings about what Copenhagen might achieve, any momentum may be judged a success.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~55~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
So yet again Gordon Brown jumps the gun announcing a breakthrough to make himself a headline,but will now have to backtrack because the important people have a different agenda.
Complain about this comment
Is it proven in historical records that the earth goes through cycles of a warmer period & onto ice ages then why are people al gores great scam after all his company profits from the great climate scam of the century
go seek the info & truth for yourselves ;)
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown needs a result from this summit so he goes in with two separate agendas - cash on the table for the third world emissions initiative and Blair for president. He knows he is not going to get both so Tony bites the dust while Gordon still looks good.
Too cynical?
Complain about this comment
Where does this money come from? From our 0.9% GDP foreign aid? Surely we can only pay for what we can afford.
Complain about this comment
Our national news agency wrote that a good part of the money shall be raised from selling emission rights instead of using tax money directly.
It also said that Blair becoming president is no longer on the agenda and that it is likely that either Mr Balkenende or Mr. Juncker might get the position.
I guess either one would fit as both are from small countries and both are conservative. With the social parties aiming for the high representative the two would represent the largest groups of the EP.
Complain about this comment
Jealousies have found fertile soil in the UN for the launch of a retaliation against America.
From Norway to Gambia, dubious motives will use fear of climate change, and Copenhagen in an attempt to create a new world power.
http://pacificgatepost.com/2009/10/un-new-world-power-through-climate.html
Complain about this comment
@ Carl Pheasant,
THAT, is actually the best question to ask. The answer will scare you.
Complain about this comment
Daily Express Friday October 30th 2009 p.4:
'A shadow cabinet minister said: "The message is clear- you can have President Blair and five years of internecine warfare with Britain over Europe; or you can have another president and a good working relationship." Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said that the debate about Mr Blair and the presidency showed British voters should have been given a say on the Lisbon Treaty establishing the president job.'
SB2: Much of this is spot on, but:
1) There will be trouble between the UK and the "EU" come what may because the UK does not belong in the "EU".
2) Why have five years of warfare? Why not just leave??!!!??
3) Five years of warfare is not enough. As long as we are in the "EU", five years of warfare is not enough. We should seek continually to undermine the sick monster until it throws us out or falls over.
Complain about this comment
22. At 9:58pm on 30 Oct 2009, Jukka_Rohila wrote:
" ... My suggestion to solve this conflict, this conflict of UK relation with the EU, is to force a choice between two options, the ever closer union or the door. ..."
Please, please please Jukka , go for it. I want friendship and cooperation with the continentals from outside the "EU".
Having said that, when we leave you will still have the problem that many more non-British "citizens" of the "EU" think like the British than I think you and others like you believe.
If I wanted to stay in the "EU", I could argue: "It is not the British who are out of step. It is Jukka, Merkel, Blair, Sarkozy, Barrosso etc. who are out of step.
Complain about this comment
12. At 6:43pm on 30 Oct 2009, tebiru wrote:
" ...
So I do hope that Blair gets the top job if it helps to bring the British public more in line with the rest of the EU."
It won't. He has already tried that and failed. As I understand it , he has given up in that idea.
I have not met anybody who has a good word to say about Blair for years.
Complain about this comment
With the Obama administration's health care bill in trouble in Congress, even in his own party, the much more controversial climate change carbon tax bill will probably face an even rougher time. Last time in a sense of the senate vote, Kyoto was turned down 95-0 and so the Clinton administration was forced to walk out of the talks, its task virtually impossible. We could see that again. We hear a lot of new technical challenges in America to the climate change theory. One theory has it that climate change is not happening at all. Another is that it is the result of activity in the sun. The evidence they point to is that CO2 levels follow temperature changes and not the other way around.
Americans will be hard pressed to accept another tax on their already battered economy. We know it is a tax, President Obama will not get away with calling it an opportunity. Extortion from Brazil and possibly Indonesia for not burning down the world's rain forests, refusal of China and India to make meaningful committments proving that our trade competitors are willing to make sacrifices will not make Obama's job any easier.
I haven't seen what the record is for nations meeting their committments under Kyoto but if the record is bad, that could be the last nail in the coffin for America's cooperation, there being no reason to expect that those who failed to do what they promised in the past will be any more likely to keep their promises in the future. And now the world wants the US to contribute money for everyone else to cooperate too? I think that is asking just too much of people who are skeptical to begin with.
If and when there is any action by the US government, I think it will be well watered down. Unlike some other countries, when the American administration negotiates a treaty, there is no guarantee that it will pass in the form that was agreed to at meetings with other parties or that it will pass at all.
Complain about this comment
From Open Europe:
As ratification of the EU's Lisbon Treaty draws closer, new research from Open Europe warns that the Treaty will help accelerate moves towards an EU surveillance state. The Lisbon Treaty marks a significant shift of power away from national governments and will lead to an increase in the volume and scope of EU legislation, which is already having a profound impact on EU citizens' civil liberties and privacy.
As well as measures on asylum and immigration policy, EU ministers and the European Commission are currently negotiating a raft of controversial new proposals, which are set to radically increase the EU's role in policing, criminal, and security matters.
They include: a target to train a third of all police officers across the EU in a "common culture" of policing; the mass collection and sharing of personal data including DNA records into an EU-wide database; controversial surveillance techniques including 'cyber patrols'; the creation of a fledgling 'EU Home Office' with powers to decide on cooperation on police, border, immigration and criminal justice issues; an EU "master plan" on information exchange; the transfer of criminal proceedings among EU member states; a three-fold increase in the number of controversial EU arrest warrants; access to other member states' national tax databases; and EU laws on citizens' right to internet access, among many other things.
The Government's claim that under Lisbon the UK will maintain independence and can 'pick and choose' which justice and home affairs policies it opts into is a smokescreen. In practice, the UK has often been a key driver of policy, and has in some instances even exported domestic initiatives to the rest of the EU, particularly those that increase the power of the state over the individual. The most prominent example is the Data Retention Directive, which requires telecoms service providers to record the destination of our every phone call, email and text message.
This method of 'exporting' UK initiatives to the EU is akin to policy making via the back door, circumventing the democratic control of Parliament.
SB2: Please note the reference to policing. I find much of continental policing totally unacceptable. I know that many people in the UK agree with me.
Complain about this comment
Austrian Radio website reports Dutch PM Jan Peter Balkenende as favourite for "EU" President's job.
Merkel: " ... and I can reveal that Jan Peter Balkenende speaks good German."
Complain about this comment
Why doesn't the EU cut out the middleman and just deposit the dosh into the Swiss bank accounts of the leaders of these 'poorer countries'.
That's where it will end up anyway.
Complain about this comment
#13 - SuffolkBoy2
So do you and I but nobody's approached us - have they? :-)))
Complain about this comment
To SuffolkBoy2 (9):
You answered to my message 22 in the 'Sarkozy's teaser' thread. It would be nice to keep these discussions going on in the same thread to keep the context in place and allow easier discussion.
However, let me just answer quickly...
You said:
"Please, please please Jukka , go for it. I want friendship and cooperation with the continentals from outside the "EU".
Having said that, when we leave you will still have the problem that many more non-British "citizens" of the "EU" think like the British than I think you and others like you believe."
If UK chooses to leave the union and does it correctly, then there is no reason for the Union and the UK to have friendly and co-operative relations with trade and possible other treaties that are beneficial to both participants. However going the way of extortion and blackmail will cause a backlash.
In case of the destination where the EU is going, it is not about what people like or think they like, the unfortunate truth is that our hands are tied by economy, by the workings of the both inter European production and manufacturing network and its ties into global networks.
Be my quest and start suggesting better replacements for the single market or the single currency, I really would like to hear any idea that would give more economic benefits to us Europeans than the current model that we have now. Just make a note that you have to back your ideas. You just can't say that for example braking up the Eurozone would be beneficial without telling on how on earth are you going to get same benefits as it has done in lower transactions costs and in externalization of the inflation.
Please, be my quest and suggest new ideas and back them up, federalization of Europe is not end of means but means to an end.
Complain about this comment
I suppose it is inevitable that a discussion of the EU response to climate change has, quickly, become a mix of sniping at Brown, Blair et al; and arguments against the EU. Whatever else is achieved by getting rid of the current Government, or leaving the EU it will do nothing to address the issue of climate change.
Which only goes to show. Short term political considerations will always take pecedence over long term (imprecise and uncertain) threats. So, neither the EU nor the World will ever be able to agree to reduce emissions enough to make a difference: and sooner or later we will learn whether the doom-monger or the nay-sayers are right.
Complain about this comment
"After 2020 the world would have to find 100 billion euros a year to help the poorer countries fight climate change. Between 15 and 40bn euros would have to come from global taxpayers. That figure was certainly vaguer than the British had wanted. Britain would have to contribute about a billion pounds a year."
Sounds bad, at first glance. But let's calculate: The current world population is about 6.7 Billion, so let's guess that it will be 8 Billion in 2020. 40 Billion EURO / 8 Billion people = 5 EURO/year.
So we can prevent global warming at a cost of 5 EURO/year per person.
Or just look at the estimate for Britain: The population is about 61 Million now, so at a guess of 65 Million in 2020, the per capita cost would be 1000/65 = 15.40 GBP per year.
Hey folks, what do you pay for life insurance? Earth insurance at these rates looks pretty cheap!
Complain about this comment
Amazing the man who has done so little for UK renewable energy or CO2 reduction over past 12 years, declares another triumph. How many times have we seen Brown and his government practice "save a penny to waste a pound". Subsidies for opencast coal mining, with vain hope Clean coal power will come to rescue, lack investment and fixing planning system for Wind, Severn Barrage, tidal schemes and other renewables; Even the last wind turbine manufacturer shuts down, so we have to spend billions on French nuclear power in a rush to avoid power shortages by 2014... the examples of lack of vision, drive and strategy for UK goes on and on.
Complain about this comment
18. At 1:44pm on 31 Oct 2009, nealjking wrote:
"Or just look at the estimate for Britain: The population is about 61 Million now, so at a guess of 65 Million in 2020, the per capita cost would be 1000/65 = 15.40 GBP per year."
Though this calculation for the US would be more or less the same I guess you seem to forget that they are even too selfish for that. They seem to prefer (as MI2 frequently mentions) to "move to higher ground" instead of paying 20 bucks (by that day probably rather 30 bucks) a year :-)
I wonder how long you will have to live in your new house in the hills until it pays off the 30 or lets even say 100 USD to really exaggarate on the costs you save per year.
Complain about this comment
Jukka
#16
"If UK chooses to leave the union and does it correctly, then there is no reason for the Union and the UK to have friendly and co-operative relations with trade and possible other treaties that are beneficial to both participants. However going the way of extortion and blackmail will cause a backlash".
You do of course know that here in the UK, we feel that we are victims of extortion and blackmail from the EU. That is a major reason why our membership and our role in the EU is so controversial: all the time we are being forced into an ever closer union by a combination of blackmail and fear.
"Be my guest and start suggesting better replacements for the single market or the single currency, I really would like to hear any idea that would give more economic benefits to us Europeans than the current model that we have now. Just make a note that you have to back your ideas. You just can't say that for example braking up the Eurozone would be beneficial without telling on how on earth are you going to get same benefits as it has done in lower transactions costs and in externalization of the inflation".
The single currency and the one size fits all interest rate is the problem. All the economies of the Euro Zone are different but are forced to follow the same monetary policies, irrespective of whether those policies are suitable for their economy at that particular time.
Ireland, for example, was enjoying a boom when they joined the Euro and had relatively high interest rates to control inflation. When they joined the Euro, interest rates fell to the lower rate set by the European Central Bank and inflation and unsustainable growth took off in Ireland. When the credit crunch came, Ireland was particulalry badlt hit and this was entirely down to joining the Euro and low interest rates which caused the boom in the first place.
The Irish experience shows that membership of the Euro does not externalise inflation. They had much higher inflation than the Euro Zone average which also meant that when the crunch came, they had problems of competitiveness.
Far from smoothing out economic peaks and troughs, it seems clear that membership of the Euro can only make them worse for any country that is not in the same part of the economic cycle, at any given time, as Germany and to a lesser extent France.
Complain about this comment
BBC as the rest of the so called "free" press is a effing joke!
While the plague sweeps through Ukraine with thousands already infected and many dead, they keep on pushing the most trivial and pointless "news" at the moment.
Complain about this comment
To busby2 (21):
You:
"You do of course know that here in the UK, we feel that we are victims of extortion and blackmail from the EU."
Emphasis on the part "we feel that". Britain is a sovereign democratic country, it has the right to leave the EU any time it wants. If most Brits don't want Britain anymore it to be part of the EU, then the fault lies in the British electorate on electing a government that takes it away from the EU. The EU nor rest of Europe can't make that decision instead of Brits themselves. Don't blame Europe on your own internal problems.
You:
"The single currency and the one size fits all interest rate is the problem. All the economies of the Euro Zone are different but are forced to follow the same monetary policies, irrespective of whether those policies are suitable for their economy at that particular time."
Actually, that is not a problem. Lets start from Ireland you took as an example...
Ireland turned from steadily growing economy to fast growing economy because of the Euro membership. After the start of the currency union in 1999, more and more especially American companies located to Ireland. The reason they located to there was a) non-existing corporate, tax b) English speaking country, and c) Euro membership. All these things made Ireland the perfect bank to circulate European and global revenues to there and dodge on paying US corporate taxes, that is why Microsoft, Intel, Google etc.. are there. This all wouldn't had happened without Euro membership as the Irish Pound was too small and too untrustworthy to allow US companies to circulate their moneys via Ireland.
In Eurozone, Ireland wasn't the only fast growing small country, Finland too growing fast most parts of the 00s. The difference between Ireland and Finland was that while in Finland the state tried to restrain the overheating of the economy by freezing public expenditure and running surplus budgets, Irish government didn't do anything to try to restrain the overheating of their economy, instead they ran budget deficits even in boom times. As boom went to bust, the Irish were first in trouble and much more deeper trouble than other countries because their governments had not tried to restrain the overheating of the economy.
You also discount the fact that we are living in global economy. If for example Ireland wouldn't had Euro, but instead they would have had their own currency, and still had the same growth, the effect of Irish central bank of increasing interest rates would have lead the companies and individuals to borrow currency loans from foreign countries, thus the result would have been the same overheating with enormous currency risks. If Ireland wouldn't have been in the Euro, they could have very well been in the same position that Iceland experiences, in essence going bankrupt.
The thing is that we are living in a global economy. Our economies in Europe largely go in the same beat, and globally we are interlinked so heavily that we have the same economic cycle already. In Europe in some states the growth or recession is just more extreme than in others, that however doesn't warrant on going away from single currency, but alleviates the responsibility of national governments to intervene the economy with real means and instruments that they have.
Finally, let me add one element to this whole conversation, namely exchange rates. Because of having a single currency, Eurozone states can't anymore devalue their currencies to subsidize their industries and companies, but the survival of industries and companies is solely depended on their ability to be competitive. When states interfere and devalue their currencies by either lowering their interest rates in artificially too low state or just printing money, the states are interfering to the working of the markets, and this leads into corruption of markets where those who survive are not necessarily strongest but those with states that have the deepest pockets.
Complain about this comment
BBC as the rest of the so called "free" press is a effing joke!
While the plague sweeps through Ukraine with thousands already infected and many dead, they keep on pushing the most trivial and pointless "news" at the moment.
Complain about this comment
#22 - Necropyro
We should be clear - for the benefit of anyone who believes otherwise - that the 'plague' that has apparently struck western Ukraine is being reported by the legitimate media as an outbreak of H1N1. The phrase 'pneumonic plague' has only been used in fringe media.
While no one would pretend it is not serious, it is not unexpected and here in neighbouring Hungary, immunisation is available. We should not be panicked into the mistaken belief that this is something other than a known strain unless and until someone comes forward with authoritative and scientifically reliable information to the contrary.
Complain about this comment
The whole climate change debate is so inane. Yeah, climates change. We know. anybody with even a smattering of knowledge about archaeology or geology know perfectly well that the earth goes through cycles of hot and cold.
I know, I know. Mankind has made this warming happen much faster, and so our governments must save us from ourselves. Save the babies! Save the babies! Look at the politician saving the baby from the terrorist with the large carbon footprint.
Sigh. Deep sigh.
I think it is all just a great excuse to spend the public's money in new, interesting ways. Thereby effectively gifting it to new, interesting folks.
I am not being 100% cynical here, I don't think. It is a fact that when new governments take office, they inherit a budget with established recipients. That is to say, most of the tax revenue is already spent, and if they want to spend tax revenue on projects managed by their "new" good friends corporations, they either have to raise taxes or take it away from folks who are accustomed to receiving a slice of the pie. And of course, they raise hell if you take away their slice of the government pie.
So I think new governments are always looking for new justifications for raising tax, and especially new ways to spend tax revenue.
That seems to be the only reasonable explanation for the whole global warming farce, the war on terror farce, and all the other insane government preoccupations that constitute the bulk of the news.
Being a politician must be an interesting job, in certain ways. Looking down on the people, wondering just how credulous they are. It must be curious for politicians to try and find out just how stupid and gullible the broader public really are. I'm sure that is what they talk about, at the summits.
"Hi Fred. How do like the food?"
"Not too bad this year, Hans. We've got a new bunch on the catering contract, and the guy in charge hasn;t worked out performance doesn't matter yet."
"Heh. Hey, do you think the public are really going to accept this new tax to stop the air getting warmer? I mean, its insane. Its INSANE!"
"Yeah, but we have to give it a try. The alternative is trying on "the war on saddness", and the PR guys say that is not going to fly. So we have to stick with this global warming thing. It is our best shot. And anyway, the daytime TV mums are going for it. They don't want their babies to die in the warmer air."
"But Fred, most ten year olds know that the dinosaurs lived at a time when there were no polar ice caps. Surely the people are going to figure it out?"
"What? You're joking! Most of "the people" still give money to the priests! The PRIESTS!!! As long as that is going on, as long as the catholic church is still running a profit, do not tell me about the public wising up to the ice age thing. No chance. Anyway, we've bought off the scientific community with all the global warming study funds, so they are going to keep quiet. We 'll be fine."
"But Fred, nobody I know believes in it. And it doesn't make sense, anyway. Even if we were helping the warming, there is no chance of stopping it. It's absurd."
"Hey, speak for yourself. Nobody YOU know belives in it. I know plenty of idiots. Remember, I chair the faith council. Like I said, as long as the catholic church is making profit selling an afterlife to adults, we can make a bundle selling a cooler tomorrow. Don't confuse the people you know with the average voter. You're educated and rational. The average voter gets upset about football and excited about pornography. We are working with very soft clay, Hans."
"But it seems so deceitful, Fred. Isn't their anything else we could do?"
"Sure. We could try and push "the war on saddness". But like I said, the PR guys say that isn't going to fly. Not yet. Give it a few years. The people aren't ready for that yet."
"No, I mean something honest. Couldn't we spend the money on something useful?"
"That is a slippery slope, Hans. Very slippery. As soon as we start doing something really useful, then we are going to be stepping on big toes. I mean, that is what the market is for. To provide for actual demand. If we in government start catering for actual demand, ipso facto we start to take money from the private sector. That's communism! We'd end up at war with the aristocracy. How do you think that would end?"
"Oh well, global warming it is, then."
"Not for ever. Not for ever, Hans. Cheer up! Next term we'll give the war on sadness a try!"
"Nobody is ever going to go for that. It .."
"What? Absurd? That is what you were going to say, isn't it? You amuse me Hans, you really do. Next you are going to tell me you've decided to question the existence of god! Ha!"
"Mmm. Hey, those little things with the avocados and sausage are nice, don't you think?"
"Yeah, not bad. Not bad. But my policy on sausages... well you know what bismark said about that."
"What, that we should tax them?"
"Don't be funny, Hans. You know germans have no sense of humour."
Complain about this comment
#26 - democracythreat
I am beginning to wonder if everyone is going completely mad on this thread. There are a whole host of theories about why the climate is warming up including your own not entirely unreasonable one that we are simply in that stage of the earth's cycle of cooling and warming up. What is unquestionably true, even if you want to rule out that the current warming phase is not directly caused by emissions of the so called greenhouse gases, is that these emissions are seriously exacerbating the situation.
Now of course one can be deeply cynical about this and argue that there is no point in simply throwing money at the problem and imaging that it will go away, especially if you are one of those who believe that most of it is going to end up in someone's Swiss bank account - as one contributor suggested recently. However, the facts are staring you in the face. The earth is warming at a fairly alarming rate and only a completely naive person would dismiss the idea that greenhouse gas emissions are not contributing to the problem. Given this to be the case, would you not agree that it would be more fruitful to have an open discussion about what should be done about it rather than retreating into denial.
I don't want to take anything away from your very amusing post but the point about inherited expenditure remains the case even if you take away all of the proposed spending on climate related matters. The simple truth is that government cannot continue to escalate taxation to fund everything it wants to do and stand a hope of remaining in office so prioritisation is an essential part of the budgetary process. Can we at least have this discussion on the basis of the facts and not indulge in ostrich like behaviour.
At the risk of being referred yet again,I have no idea why my last post was referred except possibly on the grounds of relevance but I would like to point out that the purpose of it was to dispute what I regarded as a dangerous piece of scaremongering by an earlier contributor. I would like to add that there are a number of other posts in this thread which are not relevant to climate change and, furthermore, it was not uncommon in Mark Mardell's time, for threads to wander way off topic when the central subject matter had appeared to have run its course. Whoever it is who has decided to be trigger happy with the referral button does nobody any favours and a disservice to open dialogue. If you disagree with me, please have the courtesy to discuss in open forum rather than appointing yourself censor.
Complain about this comment
threnodio, why do you presume that there is anything we CAN do about it?
This is where we part company, with regards to global warming.
Yeah, I agree, the earth is getting warmer. Sure.
Yes, i agree it is POSSIBLE that human influence is part of that.
But .... SO WHAT?
So what?
Forgive me for pointing it out, but you are going to die some day. And the chances are, it will be painful. And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, because that is just the way things are.
OK? OK.
Now has it occurred to you that global warming is another one of those things that you just can't do anything about?
Horror of horrors, the earth is going to get warmer, and we might even be contributing to it. OH NO. So what?
This assumption that you make, along with everybody else, that there is something we can do about it...... it is absurd. Excuse me, but it is.
IF... and I do not concede that human's are an influence on global warming, because we know it would be happening anyway, and I read a very great deal of science and I am hesitant to comment on the cycles of the earths oceans and the gasses they release over time because that is an extremely recent body of knowledge that is growing very fast and changing all the time... even IF humans are contributing to global warming, what on earth makes you suppose there is something we can or should do about it?
Follow my logic here: If humans contribute to global warming, then that is because of our energy use, otherwise called our "carbon footprint". Right? Industrialization, call it want you want. It is the consequence and by product of energy use by human beings.
Now the fact is that the vast majority of the world's population NEED to use that energy to survive, and in fact the vast majority need to use ten times as much as they already do just to have a reasonable standard of living.
So even if humans are creating all the excess warming, I just do not see that there is any reasonable alternative.
This is what upsets me about the herds of, forgive me, idiots taking part in this debate. Nobody has a reasonable alternative to human activity that generates POSSIBLE global warming. Nobody. When you point out that China is opening coals fired power stations at the rate of one per week, and that millions of childrens' lives depend on that being done, the trendy global warmists just stare at the wall for a few seconds, and then keep on chattering where they left off a moment ago.
If, god help you, you point out that life with energy AND increased global warmth is clearly better than POSSIBLE slower rates of warming with massively reduced energy consumption and miserable taxation and low standards of living...... well that is simply unacceptable. Such is the irrationality of the debate, nobody is prepared to accept the fundamental truth: We are just going to have to deal with a warmer earth.
And that is true NO MATTER WHAT. Anyone who doesn't understand that simply doesn't understand fundamental facts of geology. The earth is going to get much warmer, regardless of human activity, and in spite of it. So sooner or later we are going to have to deal with that fact.
And guess what else?
It is far easier to imagine dealing with increased warming than it is to imagine dealing with reduced consumption of energy and carbon generation. Yes, the polar bears are going suffer. But if a polar bear has to get his feet wet so that I can get on the internet and argue the toss with you good folks, so be it.
Truth be told, if it was just me and Knut the bear alone on an ice pack, I would shoot him and make a coat from his hide. And he would eat me, if he got the chance. I know it, he knows it. It is only when the crazy green fascists get involved that the issue becomes complex and difficult.
It is us or the bears, threnodio, and just because the daytime TV watching mothers like pretty playful bears, that does not mean the reality chances one iota.
Serves them right for not evolving a bigger frontal lobe, anyway.
But most of all, it is the insanity of the delusion of power that appalls me. People actually believe that they can stop or even affect global warming. INSANE.
It is like the war on terror. You have to be fundamentally stupid to believe, even for a second, that going to war is a realistic way of stopping the human habit of being terrified by other human activity. In fact, you've got to be an idiot to believe it is possible at all. Terror, like stupidity and global warming and cooling, these are all inevitable facts. And yet politicians get on their stumps and say "I CAN SAVE YOUR BABY!! PUT THE MONEY IN THIS TIN, I HAVE A TEAM OF EXPERTS WHO WILL GET RIGHT ON IT!!!"
It is selling the prevention of the inevitable to the gormless and easily terrified, threnodio. It is spooking silly people and then asking them for money. It is a business model, just like the church selling the afterlife to timid fools who can't face the fact of their own mortality.
All the babies are going to die, and so are the polar bears. The TV mums are going to feel insecure, and people who pay their own bills and who try to obey the law are going to end up working to support the criminal and the fraudulent activities of charlatans.
That is just how it goes, and all reasonable people can do is tell idiots to shut up and get back to work, and to not listen to thieves and party members.
Complain about this comment
To democracythreat (28):
Global warming does count, the human factor in global warming counts a lot.
Lets cut the chase, go to the real deal...
Real deal is this. Global warming, the rise of temperatures could and probably will melt large amounts of frozen methane under Siberian permafrost and under oceans. This is very bad as methane is even worser green house gas that CO2 is. The worst case scenario is that newly freed methane will put us over the tipping point and trigger the release of more and more methane to our atmosphere which will lead into sharp rise in global temperatures and could put forward a catastrophic failure of our whole ecosystem. In essence, if that happens, it is Game Over for humanity.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/could-methane-t/
Now, the fact is that we are not sure what exactly will happen, but we will know very well what could happen. However what we know is that we A) do add to the global warming via greenhouse gases and B) by decreasing our greenhouse gas emissions, we can at least decrease the rate of global warming which gives us more time.
I would also add that fighting global warming doesn't have to cost us or make our lives less prosperous, the money that is needed to help third world countries is minuscule amount from our GDP, and we ourselves can make a huge difference by moving to clean energy, in essence mix of nuclear, hydro, wind and sun.
Now yes, the global warming does also open up possibilities to subsidize or make political favors. For example Germany and Denmark have subsidized wind energy to allow their machine building industries to have work, and the German interest to solar energy while Germany is not a good place to get solar energy is because they want to subsidize their chemical, material and manufacturing industries. So yes, the global warming does benefit some, but then again, so what, we are dealing with a possible dooms day scenario so we have to work towards defeating that to happen no matter what means used.
Complain about this comment
#28 - democracythreat
Now we are on common ground. The idea that a handful of experts can lead the entire global population by the hand onto the moral high ground where nobody cuts down trees, burns fossil fuels or uses anything that can't be renewed is living in a complete fantasy world. And yes you are right, I am going to die, probably quite soon given my age (I prefer not to think about the painful bit thank you) so I personally am unlikely to experience the expected catastrophe.
I do, however, think there is an economic investment argument here. Given that we are also expecting a world food crisis, it must be a solid investment to bring non productive land into use by irrigating it so as to increase food production and oxygen output. There has to be a case for trying to reverse the trend of population flow from the country to cities, many of which are low lying coastal locations which will become very vulnerable (Catrina, anyone?). If you are concerned about the cost of prevention now,just reflect for a moment on the cost of recue and rehabilitation after a disaster has struck.
Pricing mechanisms may be useful to forcing or persuading people to take on greener modes of transport shifting from gasoline to lpg and electic power This can be relatively cheap using high gasoline prices to drive people to other sources and the nuclear option should e firmly back on the equation.
I argue with the fatalists who tell us it is not happen regardless and the ostriches who say there is nothing to done. The world needs cleaning up anyway so why not start now? It may not reduce emissions overnight but it is a move in the right diection.
Complain about this comment
Last Chance for Fairness.
One of the foundation stones for human society was the principle of 'fairness'.
Indeed, not just humans but most social animals (chimps, bonobos, crows etc) recognise this code.
One might claim the concept is a primary component of forming a society, and as societies outlive the individual, so it becomes a reinforced survival trait. And as a social meme, it evolves... over countless generations.
It has some interesting corollaries:
A Set of Rules: The Law
Although biologically set, fairness is subjectively applied, and to be regulated by society it needs rules.
Even in the most primitive societies these evolve; The Ten Commandments being a relatively recent example.
Next, as society coagulates into larger lumps, you need a National Law, a Constitution, a Magna Carta.
Further on, an International Law, a Global set of rules.
Perhaps one day, a Universal Law, a Cosmic Charter even.
Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Universal Suffrage, Human Rights, Racial Equality are merely spin-offs of the fairness theme. This has extended to Animal Rights, Freedom of Information, and all the other PC stuff.
Whenever the government cheats and robs you; stealth taxes, warmongering, wire-tapping, zero-tolerance policies, it offends your sense of fairness even if they can claim it is 'legal'. It is a reminder of how far we have come from simple principles to the (some would say over-) complex rulebooks of today.
A grand cycle from innate fairness, through basic Law, ending in over-regulated mindlessness. Such is the rise and fall of civilisations.
God and Religion
Life is unjust; nature, your rulers and your enemies conspire to shaft you.
Even life itself is intensely unfair; you just get your act together and your thoughts and finances straight by about the age of sixty, for your body to start telling you it?s time to die. What a waste of all that experience, stability and resources; all those struggles.
You need three things for a good life: health, means and the time to enjoy them.
When you are young you have health, time but not the means.
In your middle years, you have health, means but no time.
When you are old you have the time and the means, but not the health.
How inherently iniquitous can life be?
And society doesn't help.. you are robbed, and the police tell you they are too busy catching people who drive too fast. Your insurance company wriggles out of its commitments through some legal loophole. You are prosecuted because some burglar got hurt while you were struggling to defend your property, your life even.
So you need someone to appeal to, some universal ombudsman...
Rather than just hearing your plea, better if they are endowed with the power to do something about it.
And with the Book of Justice in their mighty mitt!
So why doesn't it happen? Where is my avenger, my compensation, my closure?
Ah, you have to wait.. maybe even until your after-life. Nothing is instant, you know.
So pray quietly in the privacy of your home, your bedroom, and be patient.
God has heard you and written it down in his Big Book.
So our desire for fairness, for justice for balance, especially in times of repression, drives us to seek God.
And politicising of this urge by society leads naturally to religion, 'the opiate of the masses'.
Its attendant add-ons: after-life, heaven, judgement, purgatory, neatly crafted to motivate us to tow the line, be good citizens, even fight for the cause!
Then, of course, the greed of the Church usurps the Religion.. everybody must give 10% of his income... leave to the church your best olive trees, else no redemption; we need more soldiers, ban contraception.
So typically human; from a concept of fairness full circle to "Let's clobber them over there because they believe in a different God".
Buddha
Now Buddha had a different take... out with the Gods and in with Karma.
Your fate, actions and reactions are training.
You are robbed to teach you about equality, about giving.
You are lied to to teach you about equanimity, composure, tolerance.
The government cheats and robs you to teach you about humility, about joy in small things.
So what add-ons does this invoke?
Well, you are judged again.. bad Karma means you end up as an insect in the next life.
Next Life?
Yes, we live thru a series of lives designed to hone us and allow us to lift ourselves to universal enlightenment.
Wow, that's cool. When do I get there?
Have patience; life is the journey not the getting there.. Enjoy, learn, love your brothers and sisters.
Sounds too good to be true; and indeed it claims to be a belief, a way of life, rather than a religion. So it's more difficult to politicise, and thus less 'successful' if you measure success in a non-Buddhist way. It can't compete.
So Where is Fairness in 2009?
Fairness was heavily eroded during the Bush/Cheney tyranny. The 'War on Terror' was invented to divert attention from a corrupt leadership. Other nations followed suit, chiselling away at their citizens freedoms in the name of Security. The Law was not only disregarded, but blatantly perverted.
The other foundations of fairness are being eroded; religion is in disrepute, either irrelevant or hijacked by extremists. Karma is replaced by consumerism.
The naked truth of Atheism is no consolation, nor the revelations of Science or the wonders of Engineering.
Global Warming has highlighted the worldwide nature of unfairness. The developed nations have burnt the coal, exploited their production capabilities, had the luxuries, and are determined to hang onto them.
The developing nations now have chainsaws and bulldozers and the ability to cut down rainforest seven times faster than it can replace itself. Their populations are burgeoning, demanding more food, more power, more everything.
More people are shouting "More"
Everyone else is shouting "Not Less"
Various agencies calculate our current consumption as being between 2 Earths Capacities and 7.
The Internet, too, plays its part. Whereas historically the rich have lived in luxury behind high walls, now they are subject to the glare of publicity; Google Earth reveals all.
Want a bigger television? There it is at http//www.GettaBiggaBox.com
Can't afford it? not available in your region? for members only? that's not fair!
Can't wait for the film to come to your local cinema? Steal it, download it!
Disquieting ideas which you perceived vaguely before are now revealed, discussed, exposed even.
Forget the quiet grumblings of your bedside prayers and put it all on a blog which will wind up the world. For sure if it is spread wide enough it will offend someone; the Jews, the Sunnis, the Orthodox Christians, the Mormons, the Aborigines.
Give it Up?
So in 2010 will Global citizens abandon the concept of Fairness?
No, they cannot. It is deeply built into human nature, however much it has been subsequently concreted over.
And if it is not attainable?
They will do what they have always done? Fight!
Liberte, Equalite, Fraternite has forever been an irresistible rallying call.
Will logic and caution restrain them?
No Way! Countless psychological tests have proved that humans will take huge losses to punish someone who they perceive to have cheated them.
Mutually Assured Destruction is not sufficient disincentive in these circumstances.
Last Chance
The UN negotiations in Copenhagen in December this year are supposed to be the venue for negotiating a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol. Already there are signs of cheating.. many countries have declared unilateral carbon reduction targets, thus building lines of defence to hide behind when they should be open to discussion.
China has openly stated it will not cut emissions in the near future, and Africa is more concerned with extracting 'compensation' from the climate process, most of which will end up in Presidential Bank Accounts.
This conference will be heavily monitored and widely discussed; probably more than any previous assembly. The ordinary people of the world will be watching; many of them acutely aware of the issues involved and how it will affect them and their families.
If the politicians fudge it again, refusing to grasp the nettle, hiding behind rhetoric and obfuscations, kowtowing to their domestic interests and coming up with no meaningful deal, there will be hell to pay.. everybody in the world will feel cheated.
And they will react, in their millions. Not overnight, of course, it takes time to prepare for war.
And don't imagine it won't affect you.. there's only one atmosphere, one ocean and, for us humans, no escape from human nature.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat (yes I am back :o) Kisses, and embraces :o))))
You rightly reason that there may be no chioce.
Now, if there is one - one CAN live in the dacha for 2 months without plastic and internet and any thing made for consumption later that 1948.
I just tried and was feeling excellent. (Now I am bck to the city and immediately got a flu.)
If such a back-to-the-nature life style can in parallel save this planet from somersaulting over and changing places of the Northern pole and that other? Southern? Pole? warming melting whatever - I mean - an additional benefit, wow!
With some modifications and minor improvements :o) - dacha life style can be practiced and applied by millions of zillions. With much fun.
I could have kept to grandfather's woolen blankets and grandma's cotton aprons in tiny flowers in the kitchen - not the plastic Brussels apron or whatever and modern China-made bed covers. Etc.
I found out I don't need a million things this city flat is stuffed with - never needed one - in 2 months! All I needed for life got squeezed into 1 (very large) taxi - pans and lamps and bed-covers and writing paper and all. Still, the contents of this apartment will get into trucks only. This simple test shows we can cut consumption 5 times -any one - and without much stress - from 2-3 trucks' load - to a one taxi boot. Even if not to apply so radical cuts - a twice or 3 times - any one can do without missing his things the day after, you'll forget tomorrow what you have had before. As anyone who moved apartments and threw out accumulated rubbish knows well.
So, there is a huge un-utilised resource to cut the bloody consumption. The saying here goes - "less people - more oxygen!" Can be paraphrased to "less things (in the apartment)- more oxygen!" More air and space.
And as to the the whole consumption cut thing being probaly useless as the planet will somersault over anyway - well. Well? Need to think. Yes, may be useless. But does it matter what to do. You'll me meaningfully employed cutting consumption, not less meaningfully than humanity doing other stupid things. A work not worse than other employments we are busy with. Simply in another direction. Same difficult to cut than to try to increase the consumption in countries. What's the difference? Anyway you'll be doing something "right" :o)))) And yes, you can re-distribute things, so that you don't buy a second lamp for the dacha, but carry your city one with to it. Likewise, rich nations can re-distribute their spare lamps to poor nations, and not producing 2 sets of them instead. :o) The amount of electricity I used in the dacah - I could have kept lit 5 gasterbeiters in a second adjacent house lit by lights along as well. I mean, there are hidden internal resources stupidly used and not streamlined and things where things can be improved.
Efficiently.
I don't know. Just, thoughts.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (32):
Just a minor note...
The most greenest style of living is modern urban living in a big city. City living is very energy efficient, as apartment complexes take less energy to heat and upkeep than detached houses, as transit can be organized via metro or tram lines, as work and housing and services can be build near each other logistics become much more efficient. The most non environmental friendly style of living is living in rural areas as it consumes more arable land, it isn't very energy efficient etc..
If we want to save the planet what we need to do is to at least upgrade our infrastructure and living conditions at least to the levels of western Europe and hopefully over that into nuclear-hydrogen energy driven modern urban society.
Complain about this comment
Jukka, you may be wrongly right, about economic way of living in big cities. There are huge hidden costs of life in a big city, I suspect.
As to the living in rural areas thus consuming "arable land" - LOL, not a Finnish or a Russian problem clearly, :o), no lack of land for any purposes you wish. Not the African continent problem either. Not a Brazil problem. Lack of land - is only a Europe beyond Russia problem and China's problem. The majority of other countries, I don't know, Chili? whatever. Afghanistan. Azerbajan - take anyone. Georgia. Ukraine. Whoever - don't have any "lack of land". It's a problem with over-populated places only. Europe got overpopulated as all streamed there, and China - because it multiplied too much. And Gaza strip got overpopulated, all squeezed into a narrow stripe. Most places are normal, that is, people have enough space to live in detached houses AND have land left over for agriculture.
Complain about this comment
The Western world is just so spoiled, re "consumption cuts", that you don't ever realise the level of how spoiled you are. Of the "West" my definition is - "the ones who lived in comfort last 60 years".
My grand plan of saving the universe :o) is to have a huge fixing- things bureau per city plus lots of airplanes traffic towards African continent and Afghanistan and other places in dire need of "things".
I've got a steel pan with 2 plastic handles one of which is broken.
I carry it to the city's "fixing bureaue", they fix it, then it goes to the hub and then the fixed pan is flown over to Africa. A lamp with a lamp shade that doesn't hold on, because there are no fixers left over in the city able to forge two metal pieces together :o) - also gets fixed and travels to Africa. And my window plastic? those curtains, made of metal stripes that turn around their axis, letting light in or shutting it away - goes through the same procedure. Otherwise I dump them all into the garbage lot and someone has to use energy to make replica-s. (In fact, if someone fixes the rope of the window curtains, I won't even send it "to Africa", but leave for myself :o)
Damn lack of old-fashioned fixers! and false beliefs "you can't use a metal pan with 2 handles of different colours, what will the guests who see it say?"
That's what drives this planet to melt away or to turn upside down.
I once had an English family visiting me in the Russian dacha; most of the time they had "square eyes". At my ordinary things in the household.
At that, (I thought :o) I boasted with my life arrangement, but they said at the end philosophically :o) like, "all chose how to live; if this is your (pathetic) :o))) choice - so be it" and all. :o))))
When the English family saw my water dispenser - they took out video cameras. :o))) They never saw a thing like that. And I thought - with the English training to use water sparingly - a water dispenser is a universal thing.
It's basically a metal container attached to the wall with a lid on top. You lift the lid and pour in water, froma bucket (that you brought froma well) into the water dispenser. In the bottom of it there is a hole, for water to pour out in a narrow stream, to wash hands and face and brush teeth and all. A morning thing. Now, the hole is plugged by a kind of a long metal thing that sticks out of the bottom, passes through it. Like, by a huge metal nail. The nail's hat plugs the hole. The rest of the "nail" sticks out. When you push it by your hand below upwards, the nail moves up, its lid moves up in the water, and the narrow piece of it now stays in the hole. The narrow pieces does not plug the hole as the lod does, so water streams down through the hole along the "nail". And you can wash you hands as if it's coming out down pouring from a tap. All Russian dachas are adorned by outdoor water dispensers on all sides, attached to the walls, you pass by after gardening work and wash your hands on the go and then go further one whenever you went. Water pours down into a bucket on the ground, or into a bucket on the floor insde, put under the dispenser above, and then you simply through a bucket of used water away, whenever in the land plot is your "water throw away place" and voila.
We like running water, not staying water, like the English do, that's why not "basins" approach but "water dispenser" approach.
Simple things.
I can use water dispenswer alright, and don't feel ? anything I am supposed it feel? that it is cheap ? or? poor?
Better - a water dispenser, a hot burning wood in the fire place, champaign (Crimean) (cheap) and caviar sandwiches - than? Than - what? I don't wish for any thing better. Can't even think.
The English friends, though, mentioned, that it is not ecologically to burn wood as it burns trees away. But trees get old. Old huge birch trees after 50 years rot inside, and fall onto electric wires or onto your roof. You have to cut trees at some pint of their life, they don't stand eternally. Why shouldn't I burn away a couple of old birch trees from near the shed and near the fence, say, once for winter. Simply - have a lot of trees! Then the old ones as they age, you can use for heating.
It's different worlds, different paradigms of thinking. I think, some cultural exchange can be very instructive. Re - what's "ecological", what's not.
Complain about this comment
WebAlice you're alive. And here I thoght, "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore."
OMG, what's the world coming to? I actually agree with democracythreat this time. I'd better check my reasoning again to see if I've somehow made a mistake? Could it be that he is getting smarter? Nah, must be just luck. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
dt, clearly if there is a maximum collective global energy footprint or carbon footprint or whatever the eco-Nazis want to call it that allows the climate to not undergo change due to human activity, if there is no control over population than as there are more and more footprints alive, each one will have to get smaller and smaller. Already to meet the 70 to 80 percent reduction that scientists tell us we must achieve, within the existing technology we'd all have to go back to living the lifestyle of the mid 19th century collecting our water in rainbuckets like webAlice does but no burning logs for heat. How does that nail thing work exactly again WA?
"Truth be told, if it was just me and Knut the bear alone on an ice pack, I would shoot him and make a coat from his hide."
Look on the bright side, if global warming goes far enough you won't need to make a coat out of his pelt after you shoot him. You will of course still need to shoot him unless you want to become his dinner. If you shot him, he'd be your dinner...and breakfast...and lunch....and....I think after a while it would get boring eating just polar bear meat. What are you doing on an ice floe in the Arctic anyway dt? That's Jukka's territory. Do they have polar bears in the Swiss Alps? No? Well then just wait for winter and shoot skiiers. If you don't want to eat them, maybe you could steal their food back at their cabin while they are out on the slopes. That's what the bears do. That's why you have to shoot the bears, kill off the competition.
Alice, if living rough is so attractive, why do you go back to Leningrad...er I mean Saint Petersburg for the winter, why not just stay in your dacha hut all year long? Nothing made after 1948 huh? Sleep on an old Army cot? What do you use for a coffee table, a World War II Russian tank?
Complain about this comment
Maaa-vrelius :o) glad to see you :o))))
In fact, I said you hello yest, in over there, "the BNP", but you didn't notice :o(. (((.
I returned to "St. Petersburg where live Leningraders", as we say, ah, oh. Because without grandfa the house got spoiled, and standards of living in it - are worse than they were in 1948! in the beginning, long time ago. Roof leaks, floors fall through, warmth that you create by various means does not stay shut in the house but leaks out through various holes acquired by the house. It's not winter-liveable any more alas. I held as long as I could, but minus 6 - that's it.
Only grandfather's spirit, eh, flying theoretically somehow around, saved us all this time from burning down or whatever, it's long that sockets burn from modern electric heaters, no news that wires burn when water leaks onto them from the holes, - but this autumn water began to pour from the ceiling onto the very electricity main switch and meter!
Which is something. :o) I tried to attach an umbrella above it, above the meter, but. :o))))
Still, it's good I held out there long, it is important that a wooden house "goes under the winter dry". That I kept it warm and dry (in 90 per cent of the parts) through the "in-between the seasons' time". Rainy autumn. Now it's frost, will be frozen, will stand through the winter.
No, no tanks for a coffee table alas. Only a fire-place added to the stove (which ate away best part of inside the wall stove air ways and made the original stove useless, or half effective as before. bad pull of air now), well, a fire-place that incorporates a design piece, something that allows rockets fly under water at 300 km per hour in the water depth :o)))))) Effectively, you put in a log, starts a roar, a log burns away in seconds and disappears. No warmth from the fire place at all. Very effective :o))) High tech. :o)))) In comparison, old-fashioned grandfather's tiled stove wall held warmth, once heated, for 4-5 hours.
I feel strange in the city, bump into people. So many people! And they all get in my way and push :o))) In the dacha street block, we are? 20-25 people. On a good July day. This time of the year - about 8, in the whole street. You walk the street your own in the middle - and won't bump into anybody! Ah, what to say. Just returned from the dacha, full of best ecological dacha intentions and flower beds "dancing in my head". All so strange in the city. Will pass. With years!
2 months in 2 years' time in the dacha - not much. I was hungry for it. Flower beds and all.
Anyway, better tell me the words, I heard a song one dacha night, on the Echo of Moscow radio station. American accent. Echo , after 2 am, cuts away all politics and starts music, "120 minutes of classics" or something. It went like "Oh jolly rolly poly merry summer, the time of pretzels and ? tra la? and beer Oh that ? jolly -polly tra la la la summer, you'd wish that summer - shall always be here!" King Nat? something?
Complain about this comment
Hi Alice! Great to hear your again.
We don't have bears in the Alps, Marcus. You shouldn't bring it up, either, because it is a source of a lot of bitter debate.
There was a huge international incident last year when "Problem Bear Number 3" (the swiss name).... anyway, i am not going to go into it. Too many painful memories.
However, I have been saying for some time that it would be good for the tourist industry if we could release a few bears onto the ski pistes.
My reasoning is that people go off piste skiing for the thrill of danger, amongst other things, and that having a few hungry bears thrown into the mix would boost the psychological appeal of the sport. It is like the sharks whilst surfing thing: a rite of passage for men who would like to be bona fide men, instead of modern Europeans.
Anyway, the idea is ahead of its time. Nobody is totally going for it just yet, though from the expressions on peoples faces, I can tell the idea is fundamentally sound. The Swiss just take a little time to accommodate themselves to a new thing, and my Swiss german is not what I could be.
Complain about this comment
WA;
Roll out those hazy lazy crazy days of summer,
The days of soda, and pretzels, and beer
Roll out those hazy lazy crazy days of summer
We wish that summer could always be here.
Nat King Cole is.....CORRECT!. You get to go on to the next round.
Google the first line and you will find links to the lyrics. Reprinting them here is against the rules because of copyright laws.
dt, would you believe black bears in NJ suburbs not far from NYC? I saw a cub myself in a suburban backyard in Montclair I'd say no more than half an hour's ride from Manhattan. And I understand that the deer population is so overwhelming that they are now starting to appear in the boroughs of NYC. I saw one TV video filmed in a convenience store where a deer came into the store and wrecked havoc. In another story, a deer literally mauled a man with its front hooves ripping at his face. Where I live in a rural area they are all over the place. I've seen a dozen at a time on my lawn. So brazen they come right up to the house even with the dogs inside. Two mixed breed Rottweilers about 260 pounds together and the deer are not afraid of them. Once winter I counted a herd of 41 deer run across my neighbor's back yard. Americans are successfully reintroducing wolves into national parks for ecological reasons. Many decades ago, wolves were hunted down and all but eliminated in much of the US. Even coyotes find their way into urban areas and in some rural areas such as in California, mountain lions cross paths with humans and to them, humans are food to be stalked and attacked. There are also many areas in America where you can find poisonous snakes such as rattlesnakes and coral snakes. Alligators in the swamps of gulf coast states of Louisiana and Florida and they are also very dangerous. And you probably thought the only real dangers in America came from two legged animals. BTW, we also have lots of poisonous plants which can be dangerous even to touch. Poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac are three. Poison ivy is widespread on the east coast while poison oak is more common in the Western US. It's a jungle out there.
Complain about this comment
"Good day a pleasant minute dear" democracythreat :o) (They'll give you the Rus equivalent of the greeting, you've got who to ask)(refer to the White Sun of the Desert movie)
I'm glad you noticed me because you got somehow concentrated on that white polar bear Knut exclusively, personal counts with that Knut must be :o) Voracious intentions towards him and all. Either that Knut walks his snow piles or you have internet. Talking of bears, you've got 2 to release onto Alps' slopes to keep tourists to the recommended ski ?tracks? We heard here that Medvedev's wife when visiting Switzerland, brought over two bear cubs as presents, that they were delivered slightly in advance before her arrival to? what is the city name? And even managed to bit the city mayor, before Svetlana Medvedeva arrived. Russian media wrote that the city mayor held very well, thanked for the bears, pretended they are sweet and un-bity, and was very polite :o))))
We also train in this direction; Putin bought Caucasian leopards and delivered them to the future winter Olympic games' site; so far they are kept boarded up in a land plot, but will be released onto the ski slopes right before the Olympics :o))) We all suppose they will eat a couple or two of foreign skiiers during the Olymopic games in Sochi and all, as Putin is set on "restoring leopard population in Sochi". :o))))
So, if Switzerland won't start first, we'll tell you of the Sochi experience, how it works. Quantity of skiiers consumed by wildlife per day, and all. :o))))
Complain about this comment
Here kitty kitty kitty, here kitty kitty kitty. Mama's got a nice morsel for your dinner, a Swedish meatball. (He should have stayed in the ski lodge and stuck to aquavit instead of venturing out on the slopes. Skoal!)
Complain about this comment
MA, :o).
So, that's what you say to cats in English. Here it's (I know it sounds strange to you): Kiss-kiss-kiss. Because a cat (in shorthand:o) is "a kisa". Kitty-kitty a Rus. cat won't understand it's dinner time, only "kis-kis-kis".
So, it'll be "kiss-kiss-kiss", "a Swedish meatball", "or a Finnish one if any such luck" :o)
"roll out", not "rolly-polly", aha. Thanks. I don't know Nat King Cole but the tone / voice was very comforting and pleasant.
Complain about this comment
WA;
Do Russian cats drink vodka? I had a dog that would drink any alcohol. She once got really drunk when someone was sitting outside in the backyard and put a full martini glass on the ground. Next think I knew all four legs went out in all directions. She couldn't get up she was so stewed.
I was at the gas station last week and some gasoline spilled out over the tank on to the ground before the valve on the hose shut off. The owner's cat came by and lapped it up off the ground. Next thing you know the cat was running round and round in circles like it was chasing its tail. Then it jumped up into the air, came down and just lay there......
....and then you say....was it dead?.......
....and then I say.....no, it just ran out of gas!
Oooooh, bad one. For that I should be sent to the punitentiary.
Complain about this comment
I see Russo-American dialogue is back and up to its usual standard.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (35):
I think the problem that you have is that you are stuck in an old paradigm of consumption. Consumption as an word means that one consumes something and after that something has been consumed, it will never come back again, in essence the resource is gone away for ever. However that is a false notation.
The frying ban that is broken, you can put into recycling, it will be melted and new products will be formed out of it. Fixing the frying ban would be uneconomical as the price of human labor would easily exceed the cost of recycling, melting and manufacturing of a new frying ban. The same holds true with most things as thanks to industrialized and automated production, the cost of manufacturing has decreased enormously into a point where human labor and time cost more.
What you have to understand is that while we western societies full fill the lives of their members with consuming, we are not actually consuming. What has happened is that we recycle at increased speed the resources that we and increase the energy going into the system. If we increase the amount of energy, and increase the speed of recycling, there is no reason that the whole world couldn't live with the same standards of living and consuming as the western world.
To MarcusAureliusII (36):
Your notation that we would have to give up our standards of living to get reduction of 70% - 80% decrease in our emitted green house gases is a false one.
You make this argument is you the whole global warming phenomenon as some kind of eco-nazi plot. The same argument actually is being made by the 'eco-nazis', but their reason to make this argument is not the environment but rejection of scientific and technological civilization.
The truth however is that thanks to science and technology, we can actually make a dramatic decrease in green house gas emissions without sacrificing our standards of living. If we would free-up the building of nuclear power and transform ourselves into nuclear-hydrogen based society, we could get rid of most of our green house gases and still be more cost effective. After achieving the transformation we could make the final transformation and base our societies into fully green energy sources like fusion, hydro, wind and solar power.
To I what bothers me most is this defeatist attitude, when we already have the technology and resources to make throe this time.
PS. You do know that you can rev your Hummer with hydrogen too?
Complain about this comment
#45 - Jukka_Rohila
Very nice Jukka. Now all you have to do now is to create a whole new economic world order and persuade all the guys that were planning on getting rich on the back of this technology that they have a clear duty to give it away. And I do not see Tesco doing a 'buy one, get one free' on nuclear power stations this week.
Wake up, Jukka - this is going to cost mega-billions. Where is it coming from - taxation?
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (46):
Nuclear power is almost as cheap as coal power, even with the cost of burying the nuclear waste and dismantling the power station.
Private investors will gladly pay the investment if given the option to do it. Just for example here in Finland we are now planning to give new nuclear plants permits, to this day three companies have made plans to build them, and now politicians are discussing on what to do, the conservative party would like to give permits to all three companies. Currently we are importing one nuclear plant worth of electricity from Russia, and with building two other plants we could replace all our coal power plants.
What is needed is the removal of barriers to get technology in use. The French have already moved into nuclear based society, they only need to increase and make their current energy production cycles more efficient so that they can jump into nuclear-hydrogen driven society. There is no reason on why we can't make the jump.
Complain about this comment
Well, all are very clever. Especially - you, threnodio! :o) "standards" Yeah, well.
And it is unclear, what will save the world quicker, green house gas emissions' reduction or? a cat, by the gas station. Humour might "save the world", I mean. Don't know how, but , how to say, it is sometimes useless to search for a solution where it seems to be (lost), it's like - like in a joke! when a drunk Russian is searching for a lost purse under a lamp post. He is asked where he lost it - "I don't know". So, why do you search for it here - it is lighter here. May be the solution lies in other paths, I mean, not where everyone is looking for it. So narrow-focused an approach - very un-scientific. To look in the known paths.
Complain about this comment
The whole 'climate change' fiasco is a farce. Have a look at what Burt Rutan, a data specialist, has to say about it. In any case, why should we be handing our hard earned cash over to some poor countries who would never return the favour. This is a scam and a move toward roping the world into a central government.
Complain about this comment
Sorry. threnodio. I thought, we take it all for granted, and agree, Copenhagen conference' agenda is to be morally and fiscally supported, that the emissions must be reduced? No? Yes we all agree.
democracythreat doesn't exactly agree but he is a kind man and will agree if asked very much :o)
jukka agrees. to make a 1000 new things! to improve the technology of producing the 100 things that have to be made :o) If you promise him that "the 1000. sure. tomorrow. meanwhile - a hundred. a 1000 - granted, yes. high tech. next century. (afer we survive this one) - he is an honest Finn who don't lie, and he will believe the promise (of a thousand high tech new ones. in the 22nd century :o) - will be kept.
(it will also help to promise him 10 new nuclear reactors as a bonus)
Mavrelius - does not agree to any thing, he will have to be pulled out of his New Jersey house to be re-located into a Russian dacha conditions by the ears. of his rottweilers. I don't know how to convince him that no TV sets is possible. He won't give an inch away of his TV set. Instead - will go buy 2 more! Well, there must be a way, even with Mavrelius. One can refer to the rottweiler health benefits, from green house gas emissions reduction in China, or smth. I know 2 sure ways more but won't reveal the "handles" before time :o)
I - agree. If all think, I mean. I will leave birch trees in the dacha, won't burn them, let them fall onto me, and all. As we say - in the view of the world - even death is red! (beautiful), so, I agree to suffer from extra vegetation (spectacularly :o)
So, don't we support the greenhouse reduction expense?
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (50):
10 new nuclear reactors! Oh boy! Count me in! But I want those new models, with at least 1600 megawatts of power per unit!
Just to be pedantic, you don't have to give up on burning birch trees and suffer frin extra vegetation as burning wood or other bio-materials is carbon neutral as long as there is at least the same amount of new wood or other bio growth than the burned amount.
You see what we want to do is to avoid adding more CO2 into our global ecosystem. CO2 and methane that have been buried into ground are sealed away from our system. Now if we drill them, we introduce them back to the system which is bad. However if we just transform matter from one elemental form into to the other under that is already inside our ecosystem, we are carbon neutrals and wont contribute to global warming.
Now if you want to be ecological, investing to your dacha, for example adding new wooden fixtures or wooden furniture you are taking CO2 temporarily away from the ecosystem and storing it inside wood, which helps in fight against global warming.
Complain about this comment
#50 - WebAliceinwonderland
#47 - Jukka_Rohila
Well yes and no, Alice. Jukka is quite right about the relative cost of nuclear energy once the power stations are built. He does not address the question of where the money is coming from to build them but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that the return on invested capital justifies the sums involved and still produce affordable energy.
Now what has been going on at this summit in planning what the EU are going to take to Copenhagen? Everyone agrees that the EU must be a lead player in setting an example by cutting it's own emissions. There is also an understanding that there is no point in us and the other developed nations doing all this if the developing world is going to carry on increasing omissions. Some of the EU nations, notably Britain are saying we must put hard cash on the table to invest in clean energy technologies in the developing world.
Three problems with this:
1. There are growing economies in the developing world, some of them very large indeed - Brazil, Indonesia and the Philippines for example - who are demanding western finance for new technologies while continuing to turn a blind eye to deforestation on a grand scale. It is merely gesture politics to invest in their projects all the time they are allowing practices in other sectors of their economy which mitigate against the benefits.
2. Some of these countries have a very obvious case for pursuing the nuclear option. Iran is one of these but we flatly refuse to believe them when they claim their program is entirely peaceful - probably rightly so. But what do we do? Do we tell every nation for whom nuclear technology would be useful that they must comply with our western standards before they can have it? They are only going to shop in China, India or Russian instead anyway.
3. It is all hot air anyway if we fail to face up to the biggest offenders in our own societies - ordinary people. You are never going to persuade people not to use the car unless you provide them with affordable and reliable public transport, you will not get them to use LPG, electric power or other technologies unless it is available and cheap. You will not get parents to send their kids to school on foot or by bicycle if they don't think their kids are safe on the street on their own.
So yes, we do need to cut greenhouse gas emissions but we fool ourselves if we think we can simply throw money at it and everything will be fine. A government that wants its people to lead by example and is willing to put cash on the table to help developing countries but insists that public transport is a business, not a service and must operate in profit is living in cloud cuckoo land. It is time for some hard headed realism before we start throwing cash about.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (52):
Just quickly...
You said:
"Well yes and no, Alice. Jukka is quite right about the relative cost of nuclear energy once the power stations are built. He does not address the question of where the money is coming from to build them but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that the return on invested capital justifies the sums involved and still produce affordable energy."
The costs of building a nuclear plant have been already taken into account in price of electricity. You see in my home municipality, we have two nuclear reactors build and owned by TVO, a private company founded, funded and owned by our large forest companies. From the end of 70s, TVO has generated electricity to its owners and sold it at minimum price, still the price that they have gotten has included paying back the capital, paying their costs, paying to the state mandated fund which will be used to bury and dismantle nuclear reactors in the future and still has made a small profit all this time. All this in the country that still has one of the most cheapest rates of electricity.
Now yes, some nuclear plants have been very non cost effective, but that was because they were less powerful, were done with simpler technology, there was no adequate maintenance, there were no good leadership etc.. For example TVO has continually invested to their power plants increasing their output per reactor from initial 710 MWe in 1984 to 860 MWe in 2006 and by renewing parts of the plant they intend to increase the power output even more and make sure that reactors can get even more lengthier lifespans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Finland
So again, the money can be found from private investors. For example if private individuals could invest into a stock of a new company that would build and operate nuclear plants, I would certainly invest as building and operating a nuclear plants is more or less the same as printing money.
Complain about this comment
I agree, about "throwing cash around", for example, it'll be totally useless by the EU to throw it into us in Russia, as a "developing place". No, I mean, it'll be used for the purpose, not stolen, but overall it's a shame. A better way with big "promising" (something :o) places like we are would have been to invite Russia "like a grown-up" , to that conference, or any next one, and "with clear honest blue eyes look" , as we say, express the strong confidence that "Russi is also going to invest into better ecological technologies being available "to the developing world". We'd feel quite silly :o))) but what to do, if you are taken seriously - it'll be a charmer to see our authorities "helping techno-ecological advance of the developing world", while drastically spoiling every single bit at home like there is no tomorrow! o))) By one hand, I mean, and by the other... May be then Russia will slowly turn around in its seat and invest more meaningfully and with more vigour into own tech-eco things.
It's a pan-Russian joke that even the energy-saving lamps we buy are China-made, as if we can't make an own light eh, not bulb, "a light? swirl? curve?" Seriously, I feel ashamed we don't contribute fiscally to this good plan, because I suppose we can and should. What's the difference if we spend a couple of billions on eco things for the developing world, any way the money will be uselessly stolen otherwise and converted into yachts or piled away into foreign bank coffers.
The only thing that saves us so far is vast expanse of air and space and water where the dirtying we do dissolves somehow without much harm. Because Russian industries do things awfully un-eco safely and barbarously barbarous to the nature. (lso, it helps that we don't do much these days :o) but pack oil and gas into various tubes and containers :o) where you can't spoil much more theoretically in the process by definition. :o))))) But overall there is much to be desired, or take Russian-made cars (aaah) (in terms of "Euro-3, Euro-4, Euro-5" emissions' standard.) It's a joke. And road transport is the single biggest source of atmospheric air pollution in cities.
Complain about this comment
Western money is countable, that's why parties to the Copenhagen conference wriggle and sway and hesitate to put onto the common table "way too much". "How about public consent" and all.
And Russian money is un-countable, un-transparent and , how to say, hell knows where all disappears here. So you've got Russian population consent automatically for any things "abroad and useful". We've got nothing to lose! We won't see them either way. And, from the moral point of view, such a spend is very instructive and educative and good. The more Russia spends in meaningful ways - the less is left for stealing away at home and corruption.
Complain about this comment
WA;
"Mavrelius - does not agree to any thing, he will have to be pulled out of his New Jersey house to be re-located into a Russian dacha conditions by the ears. of his rottweilers."
Why go all the way to Russia to suffer when I could just pitch a tent in my backyard and suffer with the bitter cold and snow in the winter and the mosquitos and gnats in the summer. Ahhh, rural New Jersey where the deer and the antelope play. Well just the deer anyway, I don't think we have any antelope around these parts yet.
When I was young, I thought Hoboken New Jersey was where all the hobos came from. Then I went to college there....and found out that it was true. Actually Hoboken has become gentrified. Rebuilt as a "model city" and is quite fashionable, a short bus or train ride from Manhattan. I was there for a college reunion last June, the first time I'd been there in a very long time. I liked it better when it was hobo-land. Even my alma mater had become "gentrified." Most mercenary money grubbing place I'd ever seen, worse than California. Every move you made they had their hand out for money. You would never imagine how fithy rich the school actually is. And it has become spit polished and scrubbed. It looks too clean, too tidy, too rich. Too much glass and chrome, too many new buildings. I wonder if they actually still teach anything there or just pose for photographs. Disgusting, I don't know if I will ever go back for another visit again.
I wont' agree to anything unless I think it is right.
""How about public consent""
That is what we have Congress for. President Obama can promise the world the moon at Copenhagen for all good it will do him. If Congress says NYET, it's NYET. Last time in a non binding vote called "sense of the Senate" the US Senate said NYET to Kyoto 95-0. President Clinton was forced to have his representatives walk out of the talks. It was pointless to negotiate a treaty that didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing. If Obama thinks he will get away with giving the store away having Americans make sacrifices while China and India don't have to do a thing, he can forget about that too. America is about making money. That's what the pursuit of happiness is really about, that is why we hate taxes and government.
WA, what makes you think I'd settle for just two TV sets in my tent. I can run as many extension cords out of the house as I have to for a dozen or two dozen if I want to. Imagine watching two dozen TV sets (or 27) at the same time, each tuned to a different channel. It would be like listening to the EU.
BTW Jukka, you are as usual wrong about everything. I'm not going to waste my time telling you in detail why this time but if you went to engineering school to get your knowledge about energy and the environment, my advice to you is to go back and get a refund of your tuition money. Your teachers didn't earn it.
Well, at least in the tent, I'll have my Rottweilers to keep me warm. I just hope they don't get fleas.
Complain about this comment
Jukka, I'm not crazy fond of nuclear power stations don't know why. Even that one here feeds the whole St. Petersburg and allows for an electric train city-dacha and all my electricty that I've successfully burned there. Natural kind of? alertness. We have one nuclear station in St. Petersburg these past 30?40? yrs , "LAES" - Leningrad Atomic Electro Station, and still all dislike it, out of general eh? say, intuitevely being scared of it just in case. I think it is a healthy attitude :o) towards these things.
LAES swears to us every day they are doing alright and are safe, but still, you know, 30 km away from the city is nothing of a distance in case of any thing.
Still, I advocate Russian dacha life style as the most eco friendly possible. Nothing compares (to me) these past 2 months, a shining example for a Copehangen conference :o))) Should have been kept there on stage in a glass cage :o)))) Thanks for the permission to burn my extra birch-trees; I guessed un-scientifically it's OK, as this is what Russia was doing during the past 1000 years plus and no one ever heard of global warming here before. Likewise, Jolly Roger lifting his hind leg on a tree :o) - dogs do it past 2 thousand years and nothing happened to the trees because of it. Russian modern (alas) country style of life beats all "Euro-3-4-5" standards :o))) as you can't possibly do less harm to the environment in it. Commuting as I said is electricty, a train; dad's old car now mine is locked in the garage forever; water from the well I trolley on a trolley which doesn't harm the environemnt I guess, and even the waste I throw away to the containers I can reduce as all do who live there permanently. Normal neighbours split waste into 2 categories - paper wraps from food - into the stove along the cutwood; food waste various carrot and potato peels and un-eaten soup and rotten tomatoes - into the compost special places, where it is mixed with shredded tree brances, various leaves, earth, and in 2-3 years is re-deposited onto the ground, kitchen ground ? piles? those elevated strips of land, to grow vegetables on, are made of it. Basically, it's a full-cycle waste done away life-cycle. Even the sewage out of the village is not arriving anywhere as a sewage to be dealt with - because there is no sweage network! All have got a serie of 3 underground holes shut, where exhaust eh well, say, water :o) is filtered inside from one into another gradually, and somehow it is dealt up with.
Alas I don't have that, would have explained an outdoor toilet system, but Mavrelius will have a heart break. Say, a tunnel vertically down into the ground goes deep, laced inside with beton rings, and a little wooden house is perched on top :o))) Once every 20 yrs you close the hole to the hole by earth and re-locate the upper structure to another place in the land plot. :o))))
Food wraps I don't burn in the stove, lots of plastic these days, dirties the chimney immensely, and chimney sweepers those ? men visits to clean the chimney are awful expensive these days. In fact, I don't even burn cut-wood at all, only when want to somehow. Electric heaters are clean, otherwise you need to clean the ashes away and brush away out the soot from the stove, ugh.
I do think Russian approach to housing is ideal, (well, in our Northern climate), the idea of an expanadable house. All you need is a land plot grown over with pine trees. Some you cut and make a central log house like my grandfather did. 4-5 you leave for decorative purposes or to attach the swings to or whatever plans you've got for your pine-trees.
To the central log house you attach verandas on 3 sides, made up of crap, that is simple wooden boards, cold rooms. And add a second "cold floor" on top, also for summer use. This is how your house "stretches", April-November you use verhandas. December-March your house effectively shrinks. You resort to the central log part, and live minimalistically, locked inside for the winter, as logs keep warmth in, but veranda wooden boards - ha ha. Anyway, why should you heat the whole large place in winter? You'll die cutting wood and piling it for the winter, for a large house. Not more than one man can pile up, and one man can pile up only enough for the central log square of a house. That's the idea, roughly.
Critical are good THICK, WELL FIT, doors, inner doors, between your verandas and the central part of the house. And double windows, WELL FIT as well, in the central part of the house. Not to let the warmth run away. You eneter not the central part right away in winter, but wooden cold veranda first, where you shake snow off yourself and all, and only then enter the central part. All is thought through, throughout the centuries. And no inner staircase, from the ground floor to the upper floor. All the warm air will run away up through the staircase, from the ground floor up. We have outdoor staircases btw the ground and the upper floors.
MA, I have no TV in the dacha at all. Grandafather's anthenna fell from the roof and I don't know how to attach it back. Anyway no time there to watch TV. I took with a guitar and played the three tunes I can :o) when I wanted some entertainment :o))))) and then Roger can be made howling to the Moon :o))))) and, an occasional "thump!" (an apple fell down in the yard) :o)))) that's all the sounds you can get there :o))))
An awful, desolate hole! :o))) And you ask why I returned back to the city! Way to quiet, for a city person.
Anyway dacha is my motherland, because you can't seriously consider your motherland to be a tiny flat on a ninth floor :o))) made up of cement and pre-fabricated blocks, in a multi-apartment block. That's a no-go. :o)))). In comparison, to the dacha I was delivered about a week after birth, deposited into grandfather's apple basket, for the lack of a pram or any baby containers either, and (they say) I liked it very much. Ergo - it is my native place where I'm a born "natural". :o))))
Complain about this comment
WA, I know what an outhouse is, I've seen them. Never used one myself. They're also called privies by Americans. Come to think of it, I'll bet these days very few Americans know what they are.
I'd be scared of a Soviet nuclear power plant too. Those plants don't have containment buildings. I once drove close enough to Three Mile Island to see the containment buildings and cooling towers in the distance. It gave me the creeps and I worked on a nuclear power plant...in an office in New York City a thousand miles from where it was going to be built. Soviets said they didn't need containment buildings for their power plants because radioactive contaminents escaping the plant into the environment was a capitalist problem, those things just couldn't happen in a socialist nuclear power plant.
Well it sounds to me like your dacha would be a very familiar place to Alexandar Nevsky. All the comforts of a typical Russian home he'd have expected when he was alive...in the thirteenth century.
Complain about this comment
WA;
One day many years ago it occurred to me that if the capitalist world I was born into hadn't conditioned me to be so materialistic, I might be happy living in a one room shack or hut. That was in Antigua where there are 365 tropical beaches, one for every day of the year and every day is perfect for going to the beach. I wonder if you could get tired spending your days going to the beach all the time. Maybe one day when I retire I'll go there and try to find out. Whenever I'm down there in Buccaneer's Cove, I keep asking myself do I really want to get back on the ship that brought me there? I wonder what would happen to me if one day I just didn't.
Complain about this comment
threnodio: On post 27, I’d gone completely mad long before this thread. The difficulty of discussion on this topic is not that it can’t be based upon facts, but that it will be based upon conclusions drawn from those facts, and different people can draw radically different conclusions from the same sets (or most likely subsets) of facts.
For posts 30 and 52, in my case, pricing has a greater effect on heating than transport, since over the course of a year I consume more (heating) oil than petrol, despite living in a sparsely populated rural area. My thermostat doesn’t get set higher than 16° (61°F). Public transport is non-existent, but the elementary school is within walking distance.
WebAliceinwonderland: Добро пожаловать! (Welcome back!) Regarding post 35, perhaps the visiting family were wondering where the second nail was for the hot water? ;*)
Jukka_Rohila: For post 53, may I ask how much a person in your municipality pays for a kilowatt·hour (or megajoule, or whatever the billing unit is) of electricity?
Complain about this comment
Marcus wrote:
"America is about making money. That's what the pursuit of happiness is really about, that is why we hate taxes and government. "
I thought the game was freedom, rather than cash?
After all, you can collectively "make money" (the glory of socialism), but you cannot collectively exercise freedom. Freedom is axiomatically the experience of the individual, and therefore, if you agree with Jung, the only enduring reality worth pursuing.
For myself, I hate taxes and government because they seek to curtail my freedom, not because they cost me money I might otherwise have for myself. It is not the cost of unjust tax which irks me, but the outrageous feeling that I am working to support another who, by lies and deceit, does not work. Spurious taxation enslaves me, for the commercial benefit of political actors.
I think Carl Jung was definitely onto something when he warned that statistics and the concept of the "average person" present an abstract fantasy, and never a reality. The more I consider the way politicians operate, the more certain I become that they consciously prey upon the confused and the lonely by appealing to abstract fantasies of the collective experience.
In this sense I think there is an ironic liberating aspect to endemic corruption: at least you can see where you taxes are going. They are going into the pocket of an individual you can see. The transaction is real, and you know where you stand.
With modern western governments, nobody can see what happens to their taxes. It is like a colossal shell game, where you money disappears into a central pot, then the political parties shuffle the shells around until you don't know what happened to your contribution.
I think this global warming farce is just another shell game by government, and another step down the dangerous road of collectivist thinking by far too many individuals. The way in which, and the speed with which, global warming and the war on terror became trends alarms me. As Jung said, you can reason with individuals. You can convince individuals to change their behavior. But the collective mob is an abstract concept. It can't be swayed by reason, because it just doesn't exist. The average man will never be convinced of anything, because he doesn't exist: he is a statistical concept, not a sentient being with freedom and will.
And yet the global warming debate, like the war on terror, is aimed squarely at the collective mass of people who are presumed to be in danger of ... getting too warm or being terrified.
I'm tired, so this may be garbled and confused nonsense I am writing, but I just read that some government person in Australia has published a warning that everyone will need to be told to abandon their homes and move inland, because..... I am not making this up... because global warming is causing sea levels to rise.
This sort of thing is beyond "big stupid". It is madness, pure and simple. It is a madness brought on by prolonged exposure to media driven fantasies that have no basis in reality.
I wonder now if this is how significant wars kick off: if politicians and the press bang on about fantasy scenarios for so long that the politicians begin to believe their own abstract reasoning, and start treating individuals as mere statistical data.
I think it is a thirst for freedom, Marcus, and not money, which drives my own hatred of representative government and bogus taxes. I'm nearly certain of it, in fact.
Complain about this comment
I know our Dr Zhivago with Omar Sharif and Julie Christie is not widely loved(?) in your Russia,
But, *WebAlice*
- welcome back -- but my favorite part of that movie/book was their adulterous (scuze me) hideaway in a Dacha in East Russia - can't remember the name of the town,
but it was a fantasy, forever, after seeing the movie--"Splendid Isolation" from apocalypse happening in the "real" world of the people 'outside' :)
Sick fantasy, yes?:) Well. again, welcome:)
Complain about this comment
No, we hate competition, DT,
Freedom of speech means y'all get to hear about us lot in the USA lolol
Money is for boredom reduction and/or..for some..eating and shelter.
But, the USA is widely reviled for giving money a Good Name..evil laughter...then comes generosity
"Oh, I have too too much of it,.. here, have some," i.e., making new friends:)
Remember "nobody knows you when you're down and out"
Complain about this comment
No offence, DT,
Do you want Joe Six-pack from Trailor city with his 10 cats and dogs and his Triple A gun collection running your country, mandating his likes and dislikes onto your life??
Or for that matter, do you want ME, the liberal perverse -- oddly different -- tyrant, with my wants, hopes, dreams and desires, telling you what is ok and what is not ok in YOUR life?
Yukk, huh? Better a lawyer with knowledge of law and human rights laws, REPRESENTIBG you, just as in a lawsuit -- What a luxury we now have here..IMO.
Complain about this comment
Welome back Alice.
I have to agree with a previous poster who stated that the world goes through certain cycles. I would normally agree to the cutting of CO2 but I have become very suspicious of governments when they say that there is to be a tax on CO2 emissions. Sounds like a con to me to extract more money from the people at the bottom of the pile who always end up paying more than their fair share.
Complain about this comment
Oh my god...
Are unfortunately the first words coming into my head when I read some/most of the comments.
If and I emphasize "if" the world is indeed going into one of those warmer periods that is first of all not a voucher to just go full speed ahead with pollution...what kind of stupid idea is that. The amount of gases that are getting blown into the atmosphere is insane, the idea that we are not responsible or only by a very small degree is not only laughable it is dangerous. It makes people think they do not have to do anything about it.
Just an idea for all the people who do not want to pay for "mother nature". You actually save your own butts, nature will survive humanity no matter what we do. But humanity might not survive humanity.
Has anyone thought about the implications of global warming, vast areas will become uninhabitable. Meaning that a lot of people will want to come to Europe and uhhh bummer the US. And short of killing there is no way to stop them, especially if they have no other place to go too.
So instead of saying one cannot do anything about it, we should sit ourselves down on our collective asses and try to sort the mess out that we either have largely or entirely created ourselves...and for once please think more than 4-5 years ahead into the future.
Some people with their ideas in this threat literally make me sick, reminds me of those stupid gulls in "Finding Nemo" who where always crying "mine, mine, mine" all the time.
This discussion is not only about you, your children or your grandchildren for that matter. It is about the fact that humanity will survive on this planet, without having to take refuge in a few secluded areas when global warming really strikes.(not to mention there are 6.7 billion of us, so how do we do it only the rich survive or the brightest...) As exaggerated as this may sound, on whatever scale these are the problems we have to face, and when it comes to that point the costs will be much higher (including money).
And just a little thing about nuclear engergy...again are you kidding me. The waste produced will be toxic for 1000s of years we are dumping enough problems on future generations without adding thousands of tons of nuclear waste.
Yes it is still necessary, and that will not change for some time, but every freakin scientist(having something to do with engergy) on this world should be looking for a way to end that necessity sooner than later. Especially with all the third world countries in mind who will demand energy as well. Oil is dead, Nuclear Power is dead, regenerative engergies for the win.
Complain about this comment
dt;
""America is about making money. That's what the pursuit of happiness is really about, that is why we hate taxes and government. "
I thought the game was freedom, rather than cash?"
Without property rights there are no rights. For many people, the pursuit of happiness is the acquisition of money and the things money can buy. Tyranny as Lincoln put is is "you earn the bread and I'll eat it." That is the same as "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" which is the way Marx put it. Marx made no apologies for despotism. He advocated a dictatorship of the proletariat. Dictatorship is dictatorship, period. But he said that after that, the government would wither away. Did you ever hear of a government just withering away? Not in all of human history. Collapse yes, wither not hardly.
We have a saying here in the US; the power to tax is the power to destroy. And another which has it that; no one's life or property is safe while the legislature is in session.
"After all, you can collectively "make money" (the glory of socialism), but you cannot collectively exercise freedom."
The freedom to individually keep and spend most of the money we earn is only one of many freedoms we enjoy and guard jealously. Taxes are already much to high in America as most of us see it. Another is to tell our governments to go to hell when they hold their hands out asking for more of our earnings. Prop 13 in California was just such a statement. But the government of California didn't listen. As a result, it went from a 15 billion dollar surplus in its coffers in 1978 to a 40 billion dollar deficit in 2008. It spent about 2 billion dollars a year more than it took in for 30 years. Guess who will have to pay for it. Not me who fled California in 1982 seeing that such irrationality was unsustainable. Unlike the Federal Government, it does not have the power to print money.
I knew when I read your position on global warming that your being right that time was just a fluke. Back to the old dt I've come to know.
Complain about this comment
As far as I'm concerned the first thing these guys should do is to stop the so called scientists from going to the ice caps on their great big ships smashing up all the ice that is there.
It has been proved that the world is turning, the north pole will become south and visa versa. It doesn't do any harm to make the planet cleaner mind you so that is ok but to try to change natures course is just a waist of time and money.
On top of all this, politicians aren;t really bothered I'm sure, they are just showing up so they can say they are doing something.
As for Blair, he couldn't deal with the last task he was given (middle East), what makes anyone think he would do any good with a new job. Blair is history, get someone with clout and who isn't still stuck up GWB's backside.
Complain about this comment
Wow 2 nice things in one topic
Firstly welcome back Alice!
Secondly a discussion that not discusses Blair's not existing chances to become president of europe or the Lisbon Treaty yet again.
Jukka before we start into mass production of nuclear power plants we should think a of a long term solution for the wastes they produce (some wastes will be a problem for many thousand years). Don't get me wrong I am rather in favour than against Nuclear power plants, but they have disadvantages that should not be forgotten.
Almost sad that windy places like the one I live in are so limited. With a modern 2 or even 5 MW wind generators they manage to have costs of only 8-9 Euro cent which is just marginally above the 6-8 that traditional coal burning plants achieve.
Complain about this comment
To Jan_Keeskop (60):
The price of energy depends. This is because we have liberated our energy markets. Let me clarify the system that we have in Finland.
I as an consumer of electricity, be it individual or an organization, can put out mu usage to tender and choose and buy my electricity from almost 50 energy providers. This is because in here we have separated the energy business into two: generation of electricity and transfer of electricity.
The usage of national grid is open to every electricity provider and consumer and fees of the network are standardized. The usage of local municipal level electricity network are also opened by government regulating on how much the owners of those networks can charge from the transfer of electricity. Thus I can choose the cheapest or the best option for me provider of electricity regardless on does the provider have local network or not.
Going back to your question on how much would it cost. To answer your question I will be using the statistics from VaasaEMG, a research group from University of Vaasa. http://www.vaasaemg.com
For example, if you would have a small detached house with electric heating, with an overall yearly consumption of 18 000 kWh, with a price plan of two prices, a day time price and a night time price, you would be paying for electricity with average usage pattern...
At day: 4,85 c/kWh
At night: 3,75 c/kWh
Basic fee: 60e/year
Yearly total: 843e
However this price is only in effect until 31.12.2009
If you would like to make a years deal, then the lowest tender would be...
At day: 5,26 c/kWh
At night: 4,54 c/kWh
Basic fee: 35,76e/year
Yearly total: 924,24e
If I correctly remember, my parents pay at total for their approx 200 sq meter house somewhere around 1500e in a year for both electricity and its transfer. The actual cost for the house could be somewhat lower as they also use electricity to heat their cars motors in the winter.
I should also add that you can also buy electricity based on seasons, for example there is one price for a winter day and another price for other times. Then you can also buy electricity that has been generated with renewable sources.
More information and statistics on electricity costs:
http://www.energia.fi/fi/tilastot/muuttilastot/sahkonkansainvalisiahintatilastoja-electricitypricesineurope.html
To Nimjaneb (66):
And so what if nuclear waste is radioactive for the next 1000 years? When the waste is buried deep into underground in special storage facilities, it will be there safely and wont harm any future generations.
May also remind you that it is better to use nuclear power now even with having to dispose waste into underground facilities than it is to use coal and other carbon sources. If we insist to only use wind, solar and biofuels that are still all way out of reach of industrial scale production and usage and more importantly way too expensive and inefficient, we will never get the change done. The only option is to offer more efficient and cheaper option for the time be and then when new options arise such as fusion then we will move to them.
To democracythreat (61):
I like paying taxes! You know why. Because by paying taxes to the society, I myself contribute back to it and make my part on making our whole society being a good place to live. Having had and experiences the benefits of free health care, free education, social benefits when in trouble and the knowledge that if something would happen to my health or my family's health, it wouldn't be the end of the world, the safety nets of the society would be there to help.
Of course I too do like that some people are abusing the services that our society gives, but then again, with adequate regulations, that can be minimized and again having a society where you get help and get investment from the society, if you are willing to accept and receive it, then having few people skim is a small price to pay for that.
To MarcusAureliusII (56):
Dude, I'n no engineer, have master degree in economics and business administration, and the education was free, so no refunds. If you differ on some thing, then why don't you share your knowledge on the topic so we can discuss it.
To WebAliceinwonderland (57):
People usually are afraid on things that they don't understand. Maybe you should apply for a job at the local nuclear plant so you could get more familiar with it. I myself, after the army, worked in our local plant and it was the most funniest summer job that I ever had :-)
Complain about this comment
Nimjaneb wrote:
"Oh my god...
Are unfortunately the first words coming into my head when I read some/most of the comments."
I agree it is unfortunate. What is worse is that the next words that appear to enter your head are "... please deliver me from evil and grant others the wisdom to see your glory and your power, and please help me save all the unbelievers!"
You are precisely the sort of "eco-fascist" I and others are worried about, due to the latest craze for global warming. You have grabbed hold of a sensational newspaper headline, and now you think you know enough to tell everybody else how to live and what the future holds for them.
You have seized upon a perceived crisis, and your list of demands comes streaming out as a result.
You are going to SAVE THE WORLD, and by golly you know just exactly how to do it. Or, if you don't know right now, we should still listen to your perfect understanding of the situation because you have what it takes to save everybody from themselves.
You are the self proclaimed messiah for "mother nature", Nimjaneb, which I fear is really just a cheap copy of the self proclaimed messiah for mother Mary.
Most tellingly, you make a distinction between human activity and the natural world. Are human beings not part of nature? Are we not animals?
Aha! No, humans are god's children. Evolution is not a process: it is a glorious history. Everything evolved and then god came and plonked his latest greatest creation "Man" onto the earth. And there ensued a wonderfully entertaining drama in which the GOOD guys save other GOOD guys from the BAD guys.
And make a healthy profit at the same time.
Which is even more glory heaped upon the mercantile deity, who created us in his own image.
By the way, Stellabeloved, you present me with a choice between dictatorship of the right, dictatorship of the left, and benign representation by a lawyer.
I don't see those as my only choices. In fact, i don't see them as your choices, either. Direct democracy does not have to be the dictatorship of the majority, and in any case that is absolutely not how it operates where I live.
I think your example is too cute, and the result of perceiving society the way it is delivered to you via the television. You presume that half the population are crazy right wingers, and the other half crazy left wingers. You then presume lawyers are benign, wise and selfless.
Those are TV stereotypes, and to believe they are real is to already have given up on democracy in favour of rule by the few wise men.
As a lawyer myself, I would argue that lawyers are seldom benign, wise or selfless. They are just people who wanted to pass law degrees. That is it. End of story. And furthermore, in my experience the common masses are extremely intelligent and able to understand complex issues and argue with considerable force.
Look at this thread, for a prime example. A person will learn far more reading the entries on this thread than by reading the blog itself. With respect, the intellectual level of the journalism concerning global warming is not great. Journalists tend to be very timid, especially in the BBC, which is a state broadcaster. Journalists write with a constant understanding that their livelihood can be destroyed by an editor, an owner or a party boss.
I think the common mass of people is far, far more intelligent than we perceive from the media. You shouldn't give up on them, no matter how idiotic Marcus seems. Marcus is only one man, and possibly not even that.
Complain about this comment
To Seraphim85 (69):
I would otherwise support building of wind power even with subsidies, except for the fact that wind power is very unreliable source of power.
On the subject...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/wind_power_needs_dirty_pricey_gas_backup_report/
The first problem of wind power is that those 5 megawatts power figures are the peak capacity that is rarely at use and the average power output that wind power gives is somewhere of 1/3 of the peak output. The bigger problem is that, when there isn't wind in some part of Europe, there is high probability that there is no wind at any part of Europe.
So if you are building lots of wind power, you have to also build lots of other power that acts as an adjustment of emergency power. In reality this means building of carbon fuel based energy plants to make up for the changes in wind. For example Denmark which has relatively produces most power with wind, is one of the most biggest carbon polluter in Europe because they have use carbon fuels to make up for the lack of wind.
And again, when it doesn't blow in one corner of Europe, there is high likelihood that it doesn't wind in any part of Europe, thus just distributing large amounts of wind power of Europe and connecting these sources together into Europe wide HVDC network doesn't help at all. So in essence, you have to add to the cost of wind the cost of having backup power and the environmental consequences of using that backup power.
Now yes, nuclear energy does have the drawback that it does produce nuclear waste, but then again the amount of waste produced is very small and can be storages into a very small storage facility. In Finland the waste coming from all of our plants will go into an underground storage facility deep inside our bedrock. Now if we manage to find a way to use that waste, either by recycling to into a new fuel or doing something other to it, we can do it.
I myself have to confess that at this point I really don't care that we are burying waste into the bedrock as the global warming and climate change are more important, more riskier to us humans and more quicker to happen than anything other. In my list of priorities the global warming comes first at list of things to do, nuclear waste we can manage after that if we as a species have survived this ordeal.
Complain about this comment
Jukka writes:
" In my list of priorities the global warming comes first at list of things to do..."
Jukka, you are from Finland. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Finland is covered with snow and taxes.
Global warming should be one of the very last things on your list of stuff to get done.
Jung was speaking directly at you when he said the only reality was the individual. Snap out of it, Jukka.
Do you know the Chinese government are so convinced that they can control the weather that they have been seeding every cloud in northern china for rain over the past year?
And guess what: the total volume of rain that has fallen is not more than previously.
And guess what else: The chinese government claims the project is a great success!!
Complain about this comment
Juka Boxa;
"Dude, I'n no engineer"
Dude....I am.
You said #47;
"Nuclear power is almost as cheap as coal power, even with the cost of burying the nuclear waste and dismantling the power station."
That isn't even remotely close to the truth. I know, I worked on one. The plant was to be 1150 MWe, a Westinghouse BWR (boiling water reactor.) It was to be built in the Midwest United States. Design began in 1974. There were 3 projected startup dates, (1983 fast track, 1984, and 1985.) With a projected 1985 startup date, the estimated cost to build including interest during construction was 1.1 billion dollars. The cost today would probably be 3 to 5 times that IF you could find engineers who could satisfy the NRC's design requirements. That is not likely today since there are relatively few engineers who worked on nuclear power plants still around and those that are undoubtedly forgot how since a nuclear power plant hasn't been built in the US in 30 years. The technical cadre that grew up with the industry is gone. The plant I worked oh was cancelled in early 1977.
Not only the perpetual cost of getting rid of the radioactive waste compared to the one time cost of building fume scrubbers for coal fired plants is huge but the difference of cost in processing uranium ore into fuel pellets and rods compared to shipping coal is also huge. BTW, foreign imported engineers could not possibly meet NRC criteria in their designs including French engineers. They are geared towards IAEA standards instead, not NRC, ANSI, NEMA, ASHRAE, EPA and other US standards.
The US is the largest producer and consumer of electricity. It generates more nuclear power from about 100 nuclear power plants in the US than any other country. The 20% of America's power demand met by nuclear plants is more in terms of megawatts than the 80% of its demand France produces. The remaining power demand in the US is met by 50% coal, 20% petroleum distillates, 20% natural gas, and most of the rest by hydroelectric power. Renewable power and other alternative power is only a very small percentage, probably around 1 or 2 percent at most but I think the US is now also the largest producer of these eco-friendly methods as well. There is no possible way for the US to meet its needs in any significant proportion with eco friendly generating methods, the difficulties, cost, and sheer amount is just too large. Also the grid is not geared to tie in at points where this power is available. For example, the proposed wind farm south of Los Angeles has not found a satisfactory route yet for high voltage transmission lines despite 10 years of political haggling. The last such power lines built in California were 30 years ago. Just in maintaining and replacing its existing aging infrastructure, the US has a lot of expensive and complex work to do.
The US is the Saudi Arabia of coal with about a 200 year proven supply. It also has enormous reserves of natural gas. Off shore on our continental shelves and in the Gulf there are proven reserves of over 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Compared to building and operating nuclear power plants, building and operating fossil fuel plants is dirt cheap and very easy.
You are also no chemist;
"You see what we want to do is to avoid adding more CO2 into our global ecosystem. CO2 and methane that have been buried into ground are sealed away from our system. Now if we drill them, we introduce them back to the system which is bad. However if we just transform matter from one elemental form into to the other under that is already inside our ecosystem, we are carbon neutrals and wont contribute to global warming."
Matter cannot be transformed from one elemental form into another. You cannot change carbon into silicon (except in a nuclear reactor and not on an industrial scale.) The only known method for converting CO2 back to carbon and oxygen in an ecofriendly way is photosynthesis. But the rain forests are being burned down for short term profits of a handful of people and not all that much profit either so even that is going away. Any method including photosynthesis consumes more energy than was obtained from burning the carbon in the first place. Energy required to break down CO2 except from nuclear, hydroelectric, and eco-friendly power plants and photosynthesis creates more CO2 than it eliminates.
Carbon sequestration strikes me as one of the most dangerously foolish ideas to have come along in a very long time. When the CO2 inevitably escapes, it will quickly kill everone in the vacinity. That is how a village of several thousand around a lake in Africa are believed to have died. They were suffocated when a large bubble of CO2 trapped under the lake escaped. By sequestering carbon dioxide in geological formations, each site will become a ticking time bomb as lethal as any terrorist could possibly dream of.
Complain about this comment
Well, well, well...
Good afternoon, Jan_Keeskop
Good afternoon, David
Good evening, gedguy2,
Good evening, Seraphim85
:o)))))))
Now, things are better. I feel like Scarlett O'Hara in the lawn in the green dress! :o))))))))
(This will ruin me eventually. Sensible girls get focused on getting only one. :o))))
I wanted it to be different "good mornings" and "good afternoons" but the BBC system took the fancy to re-register me as something like? new BBC id? and? only confused itself, for nothing! as all stuck. Temporarily.
Very glad to see you, even in this, eh, alphabetic format.
stellarbeloved, no, why we "don't widely love Omar Sharif"; Russians do love him and exactly wildly, in that movie. Granted, he is same close to self-reflecting and doubting intelligencia Doctor Zhivago as ? Say, the view of an all-happy all-American hero for the doc is same odd as? Like a submarine in Ukrainian steppe! (there is a saying - "a sub in the steppes of Ukraine!)
but it's the intent that counts, and the intents were all good, and it was done with a flair, how to say, and the music beats absolutely all.
On the subject; so, if the world is going to somersault anyway, and CO2 have no in-put into it - we don't cut them? I agree, gedguy, a tax on air (breathed or exhausted) is highly suspicious and resembles medieval black humour, like "what else? next thing he'll charge us for the air we breathe"). But if the governments as usual are going to manage the issue wrongly, as they manage most things - does not mean the aim is wrong. It may be the case that the means are spoiling the image of the aim. ?
The Northern Pole moves its position it's a fact, it's now closer to Canada; planet's axis went astray; all ships correct their compasses or whatever for it, it's compass deviation correction, an old thing, but now they simply have to correct it more and the rate of the North shifting is accelerating. What does this have to do with green house gasses ? probaly nothing, simply the old planet decided to somersault as it did many times already changing her poles.
About this we seemingly can't do much :o) but polluting the life on the planet, in the time that we've got to spend on it - is no good anyway. Simple female housekeeping considerations, democracythreat. You know there is a difference of breathing air in a big city or in the suburbs, so why not to bring city air to suburbs's standard? Living by a big dirty industrial plant is bad. Throwing un-clean exhaust water from that plant into a river is bad - fish turns bellies up. And swimmers :o)))
Those Amazon forests - no idea, but the more of those them trees, presumably, the better?
May be it got too narrow-focused, "CO2 or else", should be formulated simply "let's cash in to make others slow their polluting practices"?
I wouldn't focus narrow on CO2. What the hell CO2 cares when one Siberian factory throws up into the air the whole Mendeleev's table, at levels "15 times the breathing limit, 200 times "PDK" (Rus. abbreviation - Limit of Allowed Concentration.) We count emisssions in those "PDK" - how many times worse than enough to die from it if inhaled by mistake :o) immediately at the source.
And I think programmes to manage these eh, "occurances" :o) should be financed by the state budgets, not some taxes on people. But then, I guess, state budgets are made of those taxes? How difficult it is in the West, your governments can't take money "from nowhere" and allocate them for a purpose. Ours constantly does :o)) I mean, we see no relation btw our taxes and the state budget size.
Mavrelius, I wouldn't boast so much that "our US Congress would veto... " even if BO accidentally apears in Copenhagen and utters something that can be interpreted as a committment...
What I mean, what goes around comes around. :o) In un-expected places. One such is that I heard by own ears on state Russian TV that "the US Congress is a capital thing. And European Parliaments as well; let's learn from them, and stop behaving like clinical idiots. Whenever we want something from a European partner, and our presidents talk, the other pres. promises. Then he comes back with apologies and says "Sorry; but the Parliament vetoed it. What to do: democracy".
Let's do this as well! When Europe wants something from Russia - why should Putin or Medvedev say simple "No" single handedly at once and take all the blame? No, they should promise as well. Then have the President's suggestion voted for by the State Duma. Then you come back to whoever it is and say "I'd love to take troops out of Abkhasia - but my State Duma vetoed it. What to do - will of the people. Representative democracy. A sweet smile." :o))))))
(as matters stand - Rus. State Duma approves all that Medvedev proposes without reading :o))) Obne of their last meetings they took 36 laws in 1,5 hrs, a lot got accumulated and pending "people's approval" during Duma's hols :o))))
And, Mavrelius - you are greedy ab hard cash now - and next thing your "365 beaches in Antigua, one for every day of the year" - may somersault! And you won't know which is No 1, which - No 365! At that, you won't even have the consolation that "I did all I could, paid for CO2 cuts in China, but the Earth's pole didn't care strangely :o)
Complain about this comment
Jukka, "in Finland the waste of the nuclear plants goes.. stored.. in Finland..etc. " Alright.
The waste of nuclear plants built elsewhere gets stored in Russia. I am not sure about the numbers, but I think it's a lumpy sum in the Russian state budget, a continuous source of income, that for decades we take in nuclear waste of Europe and store it in Siberian eternal frost areas. This is well known (here) fact and business. Russia is loaded with nuclear plants' waste of others. Surprise surprise - Russians object AND protest AND picket those arriving ships in the port. And those trains going throughout whole country "in secrecy" carrying stuff to Siberia.
And no it is not safe - neither the route, nor the storage, to say nothing damn permafrost melts. And no there is no insurance it'll end alright. Enough is enough as it is, and your ideas to multiply the rate at which nuclear plants are built - first find anyone else BUT Russia willing to take the non-stop poison that those plants produce non-stop, for a sec., since when in operation.
Another thing is the danger of these facilities even when they don't break down themselves. They are first aim on the map of attack of "potential adversary", and even if we OK forget about the USA here now - there are still how to say, occasional terrorists hanging around. In hordes. :o)
Complain about this comment
WA;
"The Northern Pole moves its position it's a fact, it's now closer to Canada"
It is of course secret US military technology. Russia claimed oil rights at the North Pole. By the time they are ready to drill for it, the North Pole will be in the middle of Kansas.
You told me you don't like hot weather. But there is nothing like a warm sunny beach and a refreshing swim in the clearest bluest water that can exist when it is nice and warm and has no chill to it. Don't worry about which beach it is WA, the taxi driver who dropped me off will know where to pick me up. And when I'm sitting there in the shade under a palm tree sipping Scotch, I'll be thinking all the time, the North Pole is in Kansas, the South Pole has moved to China and WebAliceinWonderland has a new hole in the roof of her dacha but who cares, she's sipping vodka and all is right with the world.
Complain about this comment
MA, take the sun out of the picture (palm-tree, scotch and things you can leave in) and I'd agree, generally. Nothing better than sea side (in un-sunny weather) :o) OK, after the sun-set, when it just divied into the sea and left only an orange road? on the water. Sun heats, burns, blazes (blazes?), dries up the air, ugh.
Then - what sea? There is only one sea: Black Sea. The rest are shallow bluish light minded things of shallow water ripple - edges of oceans.
Black Sea is a sea. Deep, dark, has character, a mighty thing that you can deal with and take seriously. The rest are, in my small experience, light-blue water, or ocean fringes.
Complain about this comment
WA, it's all a matter of frames of reference. One day the USSR disappears from the face of the earth but the mentality that the Black sea is Paradise found doesn't go away. It was the aspiration of probably all the proles in the USSR to some day enjoy a vacation there. But in the perspective of the wider world, it isn't even a pimple. Ever hear of some multi multi millionaire deciding to retire, get away from it all and move there? Neither have I. Of all the places to go and enjoy life, those who can go anywhere wouldn't dream of it. Not if they knew the larger world. I don't know what difference it makes but if all you can see to the horizon is water, why does it matter whether the other shore is 30 miles away or 3000 miles away?
I know pale skinned vampires melt in the sun but take my word for it, your skin is no fairer than mine and sun blocker with an SPF of 25 is plenty to protect me all day. A good pair of sunglasses and a hat with a wide brim and that's all I need....ooops and a bathing suit and towel. Clean towels can be had right near the pool on the sun deck or at the gangway just as you leave the ship. Just please be sure bring them back and leave them in your cabin so the steward can return them to the ship's laundry.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8333973.stm
I'll bet you don't see even half the ship before the cruise is over. There are still tickets available for the maiden voyage. Royal Carribean Cruise Lines trades on the NYSE under the ticker symbol RCL.
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius, you don't know what you are talking about. The half-penny worth of the Black Sea standing, from an int'l traveller's , or a tourist's, or a one looking for a retirement place - I well realise.
It does not matter. Simply, it's internal, an enclave btw Russia and Turkey, and nobody gets interested in these quarters traditionally. But Anglia :o) But they are old known sea-collectors, to let one go.
I'm talking about the quality of the sea. Not coloured water, coloured by tiles' colour in the walls, of a swimming pool. For that matter, standing on a shore 5 metres btw a pool on one side and , even eh well, any sea, on the other side - do you think I will turn my attentions towards the pool?
Insane.
Carribbean I also found full-watered, heavy watered, how to say, there is a content in the water. Even, overly inhabited :o) But not by Mendeleev's table elements, various salts and things, but full of fauna substance :o) Heaps of fishes like a live soup kick you on all sides and bite sand around! Still, better than empty no substance seas other.
Black Sea is full, heavy watered. Weighs kilos! Not salt, don't know what. It is live and outrageously pleasant in contact. I don't know what I'd give to fall down into its embrace again. No dolphins or fishes turn around in water with such pleasure as I do. Blasted dog, since I've got it, and can't entrust the treasure to anyone, me and Black Sea are separated. Black sea is deep. In fact, it's one deep vertical hole like tunnel :o) And it is crazy, it is liveable only upper 40? 20? 80? meters, forgot, why the 80% of the depth are dead zone, full of some dangerous stuff forgot what. Black depths. It has storms; raging October storms, beats around mad, crushes things around. In summer it's normally tamed and looks a sweetie sweet darling :o) but still never like Mediterranean, one can see at once: it is not Mediterranean, watch out.
MA, the day before yest. in St. Pete humidity was horrendous "55%" (must be witches' play at Halloween) and I cracked all over, it's not suntanning problem, I suntan nicely. It's humidity problem, I need my normal St. Petersburg 97%, OK, 80%-97%, like a frog.
That you have moved the "true Nord" I've also thought it must be the CIA :o))) We plant titanium flags with such difficulty and pomp, to grow :o) , guarding ourselves , like a pole into the ground in Eldorado, and you steal and move the sea bottom under it, pull the blanket onto your side.
Complain about this comment
This Direct Democracy that you would like, Democracy Threat,
Who is going to identify the issues, news media?
But, expecially who is going to write these law choices that will be voted on?
Then, we will vote on whatever?
I think you mean that the representatives will put everything they want, on our table then we will vote...many, many times using whatever funds, and it still won't be perfect because of the amount of voters voting.
That is why I trust a representative democracy--the lack of voters voting in most elections means that the conservatives always win because the amount of voters never is representative of the people---if always the liberal people who are are nice and genteel of mind are--to me--the majority--
look at polls of who is in one party and who is in another party.
The conservatives usually win the elections because of low voter turnout--therefore, I trust representative democracy because it IS more represetational of the whole opinion of the people. It knows where to stop...its limits.
Complain about this comment
WA, the deepest lake in the world is Lake Baikal. It's over a mile deep. It holds 20% of the world's fresh water, more than all of America's Great Lakes combined. It's also a UN protected site. Too bad the Soviets and Russians polluted it so badly. So what?
You keep your Black Sea, I'll stay with the warm tropical waters of the Caribbean. The color doesn't come from tiles, it comes from the sun and the fact that it is so pure. In Cozumel, you can look down at the bottom from the pier and it looks like it is two feet deep. Actually it is 80 feet deep. According to one ship captain, looking out on the ocean, at the very moment the sun sets, you can occasional see the entire sky illuminated in a blue or green flash that only lasts for a tiny fraction of a second. It is some peculiar optical phenomenon.
OK, don't go on a cruise or vacation to a tropical island see if I care. I know your problem. I won't leave my dogs with someone else or a kennel either. I don't think they'd be the same when I got back. They'd never trust me again, never know when they might be abandoned again. No more vacations as long as they are alive.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Jukka, "in Finland the waste of the nuclear plants goes.. stored.. in Finland..etc. "
In Finnland only short and middle ranged wastes are stored so anything up to a couple of decades. Though I agree on your point as for having other more urgent problems, the fact that long term radioactive wastes can easyly be stored right now is made up. We have some salt domes on our own which about a kilometer deep, yet there still seem to be problems with escaping radioactivity just now and not in 1000 years.
Marcus I hope you will find time to enjoy those beaches while they still exist. Because those are one of the first things to be gone with rising sea water levels :-)
Complain about this comment
MA, see, if you look into it in a non-agitated manner, the USA and Russia can easily split the "zones of influence" :o)))) You don't need the Black Sea and we approve of, generally, but have zero emotions raised by the Carrribean. Neither the Mediterranean. "Some wish for a water-melon while others fancy to gnaw a pork gristle."
Don't be so pessimistic, one paper-making Soviet factory tried of course to pollute Baikal as much as it could, but couldn't. What's one factory for Baikal. You can still drink water of it straight out, and they say it's kept 4 years without any measures so clean it is, but I guess if you pack clean any water - it does exactly the same?
Complain about this comment
When we ran out of gas we plan to start packing Baikal into tubes and containers other :o), so it is kept more or less alright, as a reserve.
Complain about this comment
Seraphim85, by the way, how is it with raising sea levels in the place where you are? I swear St. Petersburg Gulf of Finland shore is drowning.
I can watch without any science, since dacha is there, and it is there since 1948. Granfather - even I remember! used to water things by a pipe, and a pump, from the pond. He kept non-stop adding water to the orchard.
Now, I wear wellington boots in that orchard, and any 10cm hole I make in the ground - immediately becomes a pond forever. The path to some dacha corners I had to make up of wooden panels, put onto granite rocks, water stands knee deep on the ground. The whole land plot is drowning, I fight flooding like the Dutch do :o) building dams here and there :o)) And this happened during last 10 yrs; in the beg was simply too wet soil - now - there stand lakes! That's the same all villages along the shore, all the gardeners and dacha owners complain and wonder.
Complain about this comment
Thank you for your concerns Alice but actually the countryside near the north sea is a lot safer than cities such as Hamburg. We already have huge dikes of 8 or 9m as we have been fighting against the sea for our dear land for over 800 years. Some areas here are below sea level for an equally long time. So if the sea level only rises a few meters we can always increase the heights of the dikes, especially as there is hardly anything near them except for farmland. In the citys near the sea or even the rivers they have far more problems when the sea levels rise as there is not really a chance to build anything like a dike there.
Complain about this comment
Good for you. You can see the sea, know where your water can come from.
My water is underground, appears from somewhere inside the ground, which confuses me, how it got there and why suddenly all is so soaked through where it never was.
I also suspect nearby shore, the sea, as we are low land on the sea side, but when you look at it :o) the shore seems to stay where it was, behaves normal. Sea is there, I am here, where I got water from? :o)
Anyway I'm glad I found an expert on these flooding things; what's the strategic direction to de-water land: to bring in loads of (expensive) trucks with soil and try to lift the place up, by throwing piles on top of it, or to dig various dugouts :o))) around the land plot on all sides, trying to route away water somewhere away from the land plot. ?
Complain about this comment
Nimjaneb: Regarding post 66, have you read the book Sustainable Energy — without the hot air, available gratis in PDF form (or readable online) at withouthotair.com? It will provide an idea of what it would take for regenerative energies to deliver the win, particularly in the context of the UK.
Jukka_Rohila: Thanks for your reply in 70; the quoted prices are comparable to residential prices in North America from large hydroelectric sources. The documents linked at energia.fi were also informative.
MarcusAureliusII: In post 74, would you give some examples in how the differences between e.g. NRC and IAEA criteria would affect designs, for the understanding of non-engineers like myself?
On post 79, I can assure you that SPF 25 is nowhere near shield enough for me to survive a day unscathed here in the temperate latitudes, let alone in the tropics…
Complain about this comment
Webalice:
"Anyway I'm glad I found an expert on these flooding things; what's the strategic direction to de-water land: to bring in loads of (expensive) trucks with soil and try to lift the place up, by throwing piles on top of it, or to dig various dugouts :o))) around the land plot on all sides, trying to route away water somewhere away from the land plot.?"
Nah we don't actually do it that way. See in the sea water there is always some soil in it which gets moved by the waves. So when the water comes it moves this soil near the shore and when it goes again it takes it away. Hwoever they use I think mostly wooden construction to prevent the water from taking the soil away again by building small traps for the water. So this is a rather slow way to get new land. But you don't need hundreds of thousands of lorries to transport the soil here. The only time you may need some is for constructing new dikes, but I am not sure if they even do that or just take soil out of the sea for it. (Since the most dikes were build before there were lorries I guess the later one is more realistic) A good thing about this way is that the new land you gain is about the best quality you can possibly get for growing things on it.
"Good for you. You can see the sea, know where your water can come from."
I doubt that much sea water is used for that purpose. Removing the salt from it costs far too much energy. So ways like the one you described or possibly using cleaner rivers is far more likely to be our source for water as well.
Complain about this comment
How very clever. You know, a Dutch company is building us a port now in St. Pete, selected because it's not a port, but a whole new place to be gained for it from the sea, and who else better nearby to gain land from the sea clerly Holland. But I'm afraid we didn't give them the time to slowly sift the soil :o))) arriving with every wave, so they take it from the sea direct, huge mess in the Gulf of Finland. The Gulf doesn't suffer, it's so damn shallow, it's good it'll be deeper so that cruise liners can approach. An interesting thing is that your compatriots are widening the old channel, digged by tsar Peter in the Gulf, he made a deep way in it for the ships to arrive, well - now ships got somewhat bigger :o))))
Overall tsar Peter did all well, laid streets wide enough for 300 yrs after, suppose because a troyka ride in a hey-hop mood takes more place than any Mercedes or a MacTruck :o), so a street where 2 tryokas can dash in both directions at once, plus one extra if it happens to be a tsar who can over-ride others :o))) is enough, but the tsar couldn't unortunately imagine cruise liners :o( so his port space leaves much to be desired and is now artificially moved into the Gulf.
(I didn't mean "water from the sea" for watering, sorry, put it awkwardly, I meant flooding water coming from the sea, which you see where it comes from, and can board up against it. As mine comes from inside the ground, this is another type of flooding, something got violated in terms of underground lakes or cavities in the shore, shifts under. Some other hydro? whatever, problem.
Complain about this comment
I am expecting world leaders to fail to achieve anything of value on climate change at the talks, however with all the buzz and press about it before the conference, to simply come out of it after and announce it a failure must be praying on their minds. At worst I think they will claim it an important milestone to ward us off thinking it was a failure, but they are unlikely to achieve what needs to be achieved without a drastic hit of common sense, which politicians seem to have been lacking for years.
Heaven forbid they might actually realize quality of life might be more important than banks.
Complain about this comment
It's silly to be passing new laws on emissions when the biggest and richest company, ExxonMobil, has all their old plants and infrastructure grandfathered and exempt from the Clean Air Act in the USA. It's the old stuff that is still running and leaking that creates huge volumes of emissions. I live on a 38,000 acre South Texas Ranch with ExxonMobil. They have leased the place since the 1930's -- it's still huffing and puffing away on old grandfathered plants. They not only pollute, they are wasteful. All the new production of ExxonMobil's JV partners requires that the partners process all the gas at ExxonMobil's 1950's King Ranch Plant -- another huge polluter. ExxonMobil leased almost 2,000,000 contiguous acres between Corpus Christi and the Rio Grande Valley by the 1940's -- they still control the area and use old junk. Regardless of new rules, XOM will be exempt. I made a website www.RanchoLosMalulos.com - you can see what a Texas XOM op looks like.
We need to make the biggest polluter that can afford to improve do so. That would reduce emissions! People think that ExxonMobil is serious about emissions - they seem to promote this internationally - in reality - in the USA they skirt the law and have old rickety junk - and they require their partners to run their gas thru the old facilities. There needs to be rules that don't let big companies with tons of lawyers weasel out of compliance.
Complain about this comment
We are all accountable for this issue. In order to solve this issue? SIMPLE:, " LET US BE PART OF OUR ENVIRONMENT AND NOT BE PART OF THE PROBLEMS."
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS