|Imagine being wrong about climate change ...22-11-2017 06:03|
|... and switching to renewable energy and sustainable living - for no good reason?|
monckton wrote:... and switching to renewable energy and sustainable living - for no good reason?I loved my electric bicycle, traveling from town to town on hydro & wind power & leaving no pollution to injure or kill the susceptible in our city.
Edited on 22-11-2017 06:28
|Tim the plumber★★★★☆
If the choice was that cost free it would be done already.
Today the price of basic food stuffs is 40% to 70% more expensive than it should be due to the US us of food as fuel. The effect of EU biofuel is on top of this.
Forus rich people this is of little consequence. The extra £500 or so pounds it costs me does not cause me much harm at all. For those billions living on $2 a day or less, often lots less, it is a crime against humanity not seen since the Mongol invaisions.
My guess is that at least 20 million people die of hunger and poverty related causes due to this per year.
The extra effect of the repression of economic development for the poor of the world is vastly more of a killer but would take a few years to work through so I have not included this in my guess.
Once upon a time, 1815 to 1846, there were the corn laws in Britian. These were protectionist tarrifs on imported corn. The repeal of these was the point at which the poor of Britian started to climb out of utter destitution. What is happening now to the whole world's poor is far worse.
|I think biofuels came along as the solution to peak oil not climate change, and were an attempt to maintain business as usual.|
They were the big buzz about 10 years back.
They might be part of the picture to reduce emissions but many would agree they are not the solution.
Yup, peak oil, peak oil, peak oil.
Nothing about hungry africans.
Biofuels in the energy transition beyond peak oil. A macroscopic study of energy demand...
"The Efficiency Of Biofuels"
Finally, a Biofuel to Get Excited About
I don't think they're getting excited about the environment.
|Tim the plumber★★★★☆
|It is bad science used as an excuse for an agricultural subsidy. |
The fact that by increasing the cost of food to the whole world you starve the poorest 2 or 3 billion people does, not and never has, figured greatly in farmer's minds.
If they were to stop stripping out any capital at all from the poor people's economy the price would rise quickly. It would be about the same as now in a few years as the poor people got richer and were able to buy decent food. Just as the price of US grain increased in the 19th century as demand rose from the rest of the industrialised world as they got to a place where they could buy decent food.
monckton wrote: biofuels came along as the solution to peak oil....It was a scam by the small ethanol producers to get the gov't to force ethanol into 100% gasoline, thus exploding ethanol production & balloon profits. From the beginning the oil industry was also for ethanol in their oil products, because they knew 114 octane ethanol needed high compression ratio (15-16 to 1) ethanol engines to produce power (as in INDY cars). 114 octane ethanol, as used in 87 octane, low compression ratio (9-11 to 1) gasoline engines cannot produce power efficiently. 100% gasoline(E0) when mixed with 10% ethanol produces E10, which drops MPG by 8% to 5%. Thus, the oil companies immediately understood that MORE oil would be used to produce ethanol & burn in engines, than ethanol could ever save, as used in 87 octane, low compression ratio(9-11 to 1) gasoline engines.
Also, because ethanol does NOT burn efficiently in 87 octane gasoline engines, ethanol can't deliver its hoped for "clean burning low pollution".
It is for a good reason. It'd be easy enough to say that overpopulation is a problem. If resources are properly managed then the quality of life we have can deteriorate. One thing people don't seem to be mindful of is that as we improve technologically those advances should allow for both improving the quality of life as well as helping to protect or preserve our environment.
One example of this is that the pyramids in Egypt are 4,000 years old. If civilization is going to be around in the future then what we do today will help to shape the future.
James_ wrote:.... as we improve technologically those advances should allow for both improving the quality of life as well as helping to protect or preserve our environment.So goes the theory. Hybrid & diesel cars(lots of pollution tho) get 50-60MPG, & even standard cars, when feather footed can get 40-45MPG. Yet, lead footers & real-world road & traffic cut those MPG to 30% to 50%. & lead footers often drive vehicles that routinely get sub-20MPG & even 10MPG.
An example: 4 careful drivers, each drive 600 miles at 50MPG, use a total of 48gallons.
Now, 1 non-careful driver, drives 600 miles at 15MPG, uses 40gallons.
One driver can use nearly as much as 4 other drivers.
Therefore, whatever tech can give society, large blocks of society can throw away.... & they do.
Its too bad. Because some high performance cars, & not just the little sports cars, if driven carefully, can get 30MPG, even more.
Edited on 22-11-2017 20:33
|Into the Night★★★★★
James_ wrote:monckton wrote:
I see no good reason at all.
You need to get out in the country more. Leave the rat race behind you and go enjoy the beauty of Earth.
Who 'manages' them? You?? Me?? And on what basis??
Why should quality of life deteriorate? Why should it?
Did you know that technology is already doing that? We have more efficient cars, locomotives, aircraft, ways of producing oil products, etc.
Non-sequitur. What has 4000 year old tombs got to do with the future?
The Parrot Killer
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: What has 4000 year old tombs got to do with the future?Yer right. communist china (always small letters), who recently murdered, tortured & starved to death, 100 million of its own BROTHERS, SISTERS, CHILDREN & BABIES, & boasts of its 5000 year old history of murder, torture & starving, believe they are the murder, torture & starving future of the Earth.
|greenies are going about it the wrong way||19||05-10-2016 13:28|
|the CO2 and H2O back radiation greenhouse theory is wrong and violates the laws of phyics||6||26-09-2016 22:12|
|James Hansen is wrong. The atmosphere, not the CO2 in the atmosphere, increases temperature by 33 C||0||14-09-2016 23:08|
|What Went Wrong?||4||07-03-2016 16:13|
|Alarmists are wrong. The debate is over.||15||11-01-2016 18:20|