S
sunrock
Guest
Must correct my previous post where i said we use .5 liters of oil a day per each person on earth.
I t should be 2 liters of oil per person on earth per day.
I t should be 2 liters of oil per person on earth per day.
Forget Property prices - the real elephant in the room is Energy
- Thread starter edo
- Start date
I agree completely, I'm very much of the opinion that it's better not to take chances on such things. What I don't like is people coming out with these supposedly incontrovertible truths about how global warming is undoubtedly due to man's influence (and I'm not having a go a you here).
I think I must be getting very old. I just realised it is now 21 years since I was involved in editing a short briefing document about the evidence for climate change prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme to brief decision makers in governments on the arguments for and against.
In the interim the only thing I think I've changed my opinion on is that I feel more pessimistic and less optimistic that human beings are capable of sufficient foresight, altruism or even comprehension of the concept of deferred benefit to do anything about this issue.
One of the fantastic advantages Ireland has is that as a small country with a particularly well-educated civil service, it can bring about much more radical change over a much shorter timescale than almost any other OECD country when it chooses, despite being at the mercy of global fluctuations due to its open economy. I don't see any sign that the country's brains and power brokers are focussed on this issue. I wish they were.
All the best
Imogen
In the interim the only thing I think I've changed my opinion on is that I feel more pessimistic and less optimistic that human beings are capable of sufficient foresight, altruism or even comprehension of the concept of deferred benefit to do anything about this issue.
One of the fantastic advantages Ireland has is that as a small country with a particularly well-educated civil service, it can bring about much more radical change over a much shorter timescale than almost any other OECD country when it chooses, despite being at the mercy of global fluctuations due to its open economy. I don't see any sign that the country's brains and power brokers are focussed on this issue. I wish they were.
All the best
Imogen
M
MadPad
Guest
Dont know if you were being serious or not but that is a good point.. Oil of some form is essential for all high tech manufacturing, just burning it (particularly in patio heaters) is such a waste....
The core thesis of the green party is progressive in that they have realised ahead of others that we can't sacrifice the environment in the name of economic growth. However there is no doubt that they have reactionary elements - such as the Irish greens policy on Europe (not shared by all European greens by the way).
I think the jury is out on Nuclear power. In a global sense it certainly looks to be much the lesser of two evils as the moment and hence supporting it would be progressive I suppose.
However I just don't see nuclear as being a real option for Ireland. I think we would be much better off building a decent connector to the UK and using their nuclear power and selling them surplus wind energy when we have it. We can ramp up wind energy supplies pretty quickly but it would take us forever to get a nuclear power station up and running.
Also uranium supplies are limited and so if every country ramps up nuclear energy production all at the same time uranium prices are going to go sky high. Ireland would be better to concentrate on what what we have the natural resources for and that is wind power. This country is one of the best spots in the world for wind power.
Do you have a link to the source for this?
That make's about as much sense as saying we can't offend This post will be deleted if not edited immediately in the pursuit of economic growth. It's not 'progressive' it's dogma.
"EU climate policy is gearing up to confront the US. Imports from countries that refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol could be subject to punitive tariff duties -- a new measure intended to pressure the Bush Administration. A climate tax on flights may also be introduced. "
For the detail see:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,448968,00.html
For the detail see:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,448968,00.html
M
MadPad
Guest
heres my 2 cents on this; its a bit long but then I didnt have time to write a short post....
Its worth going back to the basics, we are still governed by basic physics. The law of conservation of energy states that energy may neither be created nor destroyed, energy is just converted from one form to another. Outside of nuclear, energy is not generated. To take oil, tremendous energy (heat and pressure) was exerted on decayed algae and other organic material over millennia to convert some of this material to oil. Some of this energy is now released when the oil is burned. A cup of oil will move a one ton car 10 kilometres in as many minutes. How many people/horses are needed to do that? The peak oil merchants say were screwed, we have used up half of the oil already. Anyways, we are using oil at a faster rate than it is being produced. So we are 'borrowing' energy from the future.
However, unfortunately, the oil/coal etc won’t just disappear after use; it will be discharged to the atmosphere. No physical matter will be destroyed; it will all end up as "greenhouse gases"
A good macro view of the environment is described by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory_(science)) Its only a theory but it has gained credibility over the past number of years... Anyways, conversion of oil etc. to energy, whether for electricity generation or transport, is producing literally millions of tons of CO/CO2 emissions which, whatever about theory, is seriously affecting the environment
People, we haven’t changed that much over the years and aren’t that different in different countries. The Easter Islanders who cut down their trees and effectively screwed their descendants over were probably no more stupid than us. Or the people who built Newgrange would be able to drive a car or use an ipod, they were every bit as smart as we think we are. We, at least in ireland, are incredibly fortunate to be alive at this time in history...But, we don’t inherit the earth from our parents; we borrow it from our children. If we care about them, we should leave it in as good nick as we found it, and that means not leaving a mess for them to clean up.
The economic aspect….. Capitalism is a great system, but it is based on growth. A company must grow and continue to grow in order to succeed e.g. imagine if AIB said profits were static? At a fundamental level, there is a conflict between capitalism and sustainability, unless the limits to growth are so far off as to be meaningless. I prefer capatilism, growth sounds more exciting than suatainability but are we approaching limits to growth?
Whether the ultimate constraint to our fabulous lifestyle is supply (oil etc), or environmental degradation (pop growth, global warming, water etc), there is a constraint. It may not be imminent (less than 50 years) but its there and, unless we want to do an “Easter Island” for our children, we should react to it in plenty of time.
While we all like to mock the Ireland of the 50’s and 60’s, back then we did play an important part in the biggest global issue of the day --- non proliferation of nuclear weapons. The big global issues today are the environment, energy and world poverty.
Ireland could contribute significantly to brokering change on a global scale. We should at least have an energy policy, and stop obsessing about property
Its worth going back to the basics, we are still governed by basic physics. The law of conservation of energy states that energy may neither be created nor destroyed, energy is just converted from one form to another. Outside of nuclear, energy is not generated. To take oil, tremendous energy (heat and pressure) was exerted on decayed algae and other organic material over millennia to convert some of this material to oil. Some of this energy is now released when the oil is burned. A cup of oil will move a one ton car 10 kilometres in as many minutes. How many people/horses are needed to do that? The peak oil merchants say were screwed, we have used up half of the oil already. Anyways, we are using oil at a faster rate than it is being produced. So we are 'borrowing' energy from the future.
However, unfortunately, the oil/coal etc won’t just disappear after use; it will be discharged to the atmosphere. No physical matter will be destroyed; it will all end up as "greenhouse gases"
A good macro view of the environment is described by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory_(science)) Its only a theory but it has gained credibility over the past number of years... Anyways, conversion of oil etc. to energy, whether for electricity generation or transport, is producing literally millions of tons of CO/CO2 emissions which, whatever about theory, is seriously affecting the environment
People, we haven’t changed that much over the years and aren’t that different in different countries. The Easter Islanders who cut down their trees and effectively screwed their descendants over were probably no more stupid than us. Or the people who built Newgrange would be able to drive a car or use an ipod, they were every bit as smart as we think we are. We, at least in ireland, are incredibly fortunate to be alive at this time in history...But, we don’t inherit the earth from our parents; we borrow it from our children. If we care about them, we should leave it in as good nick as we found it, and that means not leaving a mess for them to clean up.
The economic aspect….. Capitalism is a great system, but it is based on growth. A company must grow and continue to grow in order to succeed e.g. imagine if AIB said profits were static? At a fundamental level, there is a conflict between capitalism and sustainability, unless the limits to growth are so far off as to be meaningless. I prefer capatilism, growth sounds more exciting than suatainability but are we approaching limits to growth?
Whether the ultimate constraint to our fabulous lifestyle is supply (oil etc), or environmental degradation (pop growth, global warming, water etc), there is a constraint. It may not be imminent (less than 50 years) but its there and, unless we want to do an “Easter Island” for our children, we should react to it in plenty of time.
While we all like to mock the Ireland of the 50’s and 60’s, back then we did play an important part in the biggest global issue of the day --- non proliferation of nuclear weapons. The big global issues today are the environment, energy and world poverty.
Ireland could contribute significantly to brokering change on a global scale. We should at least have an energy policy, and stop obsessing about property
S
sunrock
Guest
I agree with a lot of what you say,but not the gaii theory.
The gaii theory assumes that the earth is self regulating,assuming a kind of inbuilt control.That may seem to be the case,with our abundant planet.
But if earth ends up like mars or venus it won t look very smart.
I m not 100% au fait with the gaii theory ,so I stand to be corrected.
Climate change is a worry with would be winners and losers _possibly many more losers with low lying cities getting flooded with rising sea levels.
Nevertheless sydney wasn t much 200 years ago, so I imagine cities can be rebuilt on higher ground,and of course keeps house prices high
So everyone in the world is using finite fossil fuels according to their means and needs.
At an individual level very few are willing to reduce their use, and our politicians know this, and anyway why should one individual make a sacrifice ,or even an individual country when they look at others enjoying their fossilfuel fired lifestyles.
Despite all the platitudes and alternatives and concerns,world use of fossil fuels is at an all time high.
Imagine if a government or groups of governments decided to double the price of fossil fuels in an attempt to prevent climate changes etc.
I d imagine there would be riots in the streets.
No one however riots for austerity,even to leave fossil fuels to our grandchildren.
All this is human nature playing out,with peoples present concerns more important than any concern about the future.
Coal will be burned till its used up.Nuclear and renewables will be utilised.
But we do really need a new energy soucre for humanity in about 100 years time.
In the meantime everyone should use energy sensibly.
Some one mentioned nanotechnology_can this generate energy or maybe nuclear fusion?
The gaii theory assumes that the earth is self regulating,assuming a kind of inbuilt control.That may seem to be the case,with our abundant planet.
But if earth ends up like mars or venus it won t look very smart.
I m not 100% au fait with the gaii theory ,so I stand to be corrected.
Climate change is a worry with would be winners and losers _possibly many more losers with low lying cities getting flooded with rising sea levels.
Nevertheless sydney wasn t much 200 years ago, so I imagine cities can be rebuilt on higher ground,and of course keeps house prices high
So everyone in the world is using finite fossil fuels according to their means and needs.
At an individual level very few are willing to reduce their use, and our politicians know this, and anyway why should one individual make a sacrifice ,or even an individual country when they look at others enjoying their fossilfuel fired lifestyles.
Despite all the platitudes and alternatives and concerns,world use of fossil fuels is at an all time high.
Imagine if a government or groups of governments decided to double the price of fossil fuels in an attempt to prevent climate changes etc.
I d imagine there would be riots in the streets.
No one however riots for austerity,even to leave fossil fuels to our grandchildren.
All this is human nature playing out,with peoples present concerns more important than any concern about the future.
Coal will be burned till its used up.Nuclear and renewables will be utilised.
But we do really need a new energy soucre for humanity in about 100 years time.
In the meantime everyone should use energy sensibly.
Some one mentioned nanotechnology_can this generate energy or maybe nuclear fusion?
If CO2 is a by product of burning fuel then nanotechnology, by definition, has the ability to separate the carbon from the oxygen. Could it mix the Carbon with another element to make fuel and only release oxygen into the atmosphere? The theory would say it could. Think about what a plant does.
How do you know the irish civil service is "particularly well-educated". Id say particularly well insulated and unaccountable and unfireable would be the descriptions I would use. Ive never heard of any country trumpeting their civil service as some sort of national resource not even Russia at the height of communism where everyone worked for the state would have made such a claim. I think it proves that the civil service lives in a world of its own far removed from reality.
Hello Joe sod (?)
It's based on my personal experience and I also have personal experience of the Commission and the UK. I think that when civil servants in Ireland want to move and have the requisite political backup, they are creative and swift. I've dealt with lots of civil servants in the 15 years I've been here and I can only think of one or two who were less than excellent. That's a pretty good hit rate.
All the best
Imogen
It's based on my personal experience and I also have personal experience of the Commission and the UK. I think that when civil servants in Ireland want to move and have the requisite political backup, they are creative and swift. I've dealt with lots of civil servants in the 15 years I've been here and I can only think of one or two who were less than excellent. That's a pretty good hit rate.
All the best
Imogen
S
sunrock
Guest
One of the fantastic advantages Ireland has is that as a small country with a particularly well-educated civil service, it can bring about much more radical change over a much shorter timescale than almost any other OECD country when it chooses, despite being at the mercy of global fluctuations due to its open economy. I don't see any sign that the country's brains and power brokers are focussed on this issue. I wish they were.
Our well educated and indeed insulated civil service,I would have thought would resist change.
Their high salaries,benchmarking,generous govenment pensions,and unfireable positions even in the 80s recession betray what they are really about_A PAMPERED elite looking out for its own interests and getting the government to kowtow to their ever increasing demands!
What radical change do you suggest they embrace?
THEY DO NOT CREATE WEALTH_they just make sure they get a very big slice of the cake.
I m sure they re all very agreable gents and ladies in the civil service,especially in the higher levels, and probably doing a good job administering the country, but risk takers or boat rockers they are not!
Our well educated and indeed insulated civil service,I would have thought would resist change.
Their high salaries,benchmarking,generous govenment pensions,and unfireable positions even in the 80s recession betray what they are really about_A PAMPERED elite looking out for its own interests and getting the government to kowtow to their ever increasing demands!
What radical change do you suggest they embrace?
THEY DO NOT CREATE WEALTH_they just make sure they get a very big slice of the cake.
I m sure they re all very agreable gents and ladies in the civil service,especially in the higher levels, and probably doing a good job administering the country, but risk takers or boat rockers they are not!
M
MadPad
Guest
I know very little about it but I think the gist of it is that its self regulating i.e. will try to regulate at a certain 'steady state' up to a point. When that gets exceeded, the 'steady state' shifts and it will try to regulate on the new state....
e.g.; if a little (a few million tons) extra CO2 is dumped in the air, it increases warming, but this increases plant activity which works on the Co2 to use the extra up and bring the system back to steady state. These negative feedback loops stop "small" events (volcanoes etc) that happen every so often from having a cumulative effect....as the system recovers provided it gets some recovery time...
But if too much is released, too quickly, then there are positive feedback loops which upset the system. Too much greenhouse gases, too quickly means more/quicker warming, ice melts... then that area of ground no longer reflects out the suns heat ==> more warming ==> tundra defrosts ==> releases more greenhouse gases..
At some point it stabalizes again at a new level (thats the theory) but its a sudden jump to a new temperature... and when it stabalizes, the feedback loops then kick in to stop it cooling...
the temperature example is the only one i have read about but i think there are many others...
Agree 100% with your other points.. not sure which is the more difficult problem, beating the law of conservation of energy, or human nature
There is lots of evidence that these feedback loops are occurring, regardless of whether you believe the Gaia theory.
For example, the melting of the icecaps means less of the earth's surface is white, meaning less heat reflected back into space, leading to further warming of the oceans, leading to more melting of the icecaps, etc...
For example, the melting of the icecaps means less of the earth's surface is white, meaning less heat reflected back into space, leading to further warming of the oceans, leading to more melting of the icecaps, etc...