Thread: So lets assume its all a lie

Originally Posted by garry17

After a cursory examination, I would have to agree that my comment made from my perception, is inaccurate. Without providing evidence of figures and how I derived the result of my research, I would have to say, that my comment of "insignificant" would be inaccurate. I could go into the public sector spending in comparison to the private sector spending, BUT that would be splitting hairs. As I have not covered ALL the funding, and have not gone in depth in many areas but the figures are compelling.

HOWEVER, IMO there is still to much being spent on the study of these issues and not enough spent on solutions.

Again, I agree my comment was made without the full facts of the issue stated.




Maybe I was too general to that point of mitigation. You have correctly shown that direct mitigation is an issue that is current and within the realm of reductions in CO2. However, my point of planting a tree to OFFSET the emissions of CO2 is in no way reducing the emissions of CO2 that many tout as being a good way of reduction of emissions. MOST ETS schemes rely totally on this process when they knowingly are going to emit MORE CO2 into the atmosphere as being a good way to reduce emissions. THIS is the mitigation I am talking about. Perhaps I should be more direct to my position with this particular issue, but as I have raised this issue elsewhere I simply made the mistake that all only considered the mitigation as a standard term.

Thank you for you honest response!
Agree 100%. It is the additional CO2 that has been sequestered in FF and is now being released that is the problem. Planting more trees to counteract the effects of that additional CO2 would require more trees than were growing in 1850.

Originally Posted by MannieD

Thank you for you honest response!
Agree 100%. It is the additional CO2 that has been sequestered in FF and is now being released that is the problem. Planting more trees to counteract the effects of that additional CO2 would require more trees than were growing in 1850.

My problem with these schemes that rely totally on offsetting emissions is that not only will the emphasis be drawn away from food growing areas but it actually has no impact on emissions. Sure there is a reason for planting more trees but there should be more importance for reduction in removal of vegetation around the world. This impacts heavily on food growing for populace.

However, it will in no way reduce emissions by simply offsetting them.

Originally Posted by MannieD

Greenhouse effect, global warming and climate change are not the same. The greenhouse effect is one cause of global warming. You cannot state that global warming is the cause of the greenhouse effect. Different meanings.
Global warming is one cause of climate change. You cannot state that climate change is one cause of global warming. Different meanings.
The terms are not interchangeable.

When was the IPCC created? I am certain it was not created in the early 2000s.

IPCC originated in 1988.

However, for the most part, the general usage of "global climate change" didn't occur until the late 1990s. I've been following the arguments since before the IPCC originated. The usage has changed.

Originally Posted by wyly

how do you move a hydro dam closer to a city??? power has been transferred from northern Quebec to the eastern US for decades ...wind power will be no different...

Industries were moved close to hydro dams. (for example, most aluminum processing is done in proximity to hydro dams). Also, wind power is much more dispersed than hydro. The transmission losses will be greater.

Originally Posted by MannieD

But wars for resources can be avoided.
I agree with you on that. But you are assuming environmental damgae from FF is less than all other damage.
ou will have to be more specific and explain this "widespread degradation".

The area around every windmill is effected (noise, appearance, bird deaths). You would need a lot of windmills to replace a FF plant. That's a lot of total land area effected.

Originally Posted by MannieD

Longterm consequences of BP spill have not yet been studied. The long term consequences of Exxon Valdez are still being felt.

I am familiar with the salmon problem but have not reead of any environmental problems of tidal power. Perhaps you would enlighten me.

Well, first, we haven't done a whole lot of tidal energy projects, thankfully. However, they are basically dams at the end of an estuary. Any problems that dams cause (entrainment and destruction of planktonic larvae, migration problems with fish, the effects of the loss of energy in an environment (i.e. an active bay to a more stagnant bay)) can be caused by tidal. Estuarine organisms live in areas of ideal current, etc. Tidal dams will cause changes in those estuarine organism communities. Our basic record of changing environmental communities is that we don't improve them.

Originally Posted by wyly

huh? do I need to post it agai, read it SLOWLY!

"both can be modified(engineered) to be more environmentally friendly, neither do as much damage to aquatic life as CO2..."

That's a big conjecture without evidence behind it.

Originally Posted by perdidochas

Well, first, we haven't done a whole lot of tidal energy projects, thankfully. However, they are basically dams at the end of an estuary.

That is factually incorrect. While designs do vary none that I am aware of work on a dam principle.

Originally Posted by Corn Fed

That is factually incorrect. While designs do vary none that I am aware of work on a dam principle.

What you show extracts power from waves - not tides.

Tides power generators when water runs from a higher place to a lower place. How do you do that without a dam?

Empty a basin through a generator at low tide, fill it through a generator at high tide. That requires a dam. The height differential is really low (compared to a hydro plant), and requires high flow rate instead of pressure differential, so is inefficient.

Tapping the natural flow in and out of a bay is much less efficient.

Originally Posted by Not Amused

What you show extracts power from waves - not tides.

Tides power generators when water runs from a higher place to a lower place. How do you do that without a dam?

Empty a basin through a generator at low tide, fill it through a generator at high tide. That requires a dam. The height differential is really low (compared to a hydro plant), and requires high flow rate instead of pressure differential, so is inefficient.

Tapping the natural flow in and out of a bay is much less efficient.

how? without a dam like this...turbines could work in both directions incoming and outgoing tides...

Originally Posted by perdidochas

That's a big conjecture without evidence behind it.

that's a lot of denial without evidence behind it...