« Problem Solving -- The Driver's License Matter | Main | Oil Bucks »

November 17, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200e54f9b17378834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ten Years and Counting:

Comments

Meanwhile Congress dithers about the farm bill (cloture vote failed, so there it goes). A huge program for insurance for farmers in drought-prone areas doesn't seem too bright in light of the increasing prospect of droughts in such areas. Better to spend it on diversifying crops and bettering nutrition.

More on the climate report here.

I think you intend "extinction" of species (3rd sentence). Let's see how candidates address this important report.

Thanks. Corrected.

I think this is an issue that will have become much more salient by summer 2008. Public opinion is going to outrun the politicians' ability to respond. The GOP base had better lose its "if Al Gore is for it, it has to be a fraud" attitude or they will leave their candidate no room to maneuver. That, in turn, might take Schwarzenegger out of the campaign. He will be busy trying to close our budget gap, but this is his issue for the GOP, and if it really looks like all the power is going to be with the Dems, he may cut a quiet deal. Or team up with Gore, like Bill and Bush Sr.

Schwarzenegger is a script reader. His words are protective of the environment only until you read what his policies are the day after. Cut the forest and cancel environmental protections. Faced with a private donation of miles of beachside cliff land, he refused to permit the gift to become part of state parks. Worse, he has BushCo writers and strategists; CA had a strong public meetings law, but when the legislature votes to strengthen it, Schwarzenegger vetoes it. His travel has private sponsors and the jets are gas-hogs. The day after announcing a greenhouse gas reduction law he agreed to sign, he announced his intention to use the shell game economic theory which lets polluters continue their destruction by buying 'credits' for polluting less elsewhere; talk about zero sum; any further public office for Schwarzenegger is a zero result for the folks he ostensibly represents. He represents that branch of his party that wants a figure to utter vacuous and deceptive part truths, a modern Reagan.
RealClimate had a nice series on the north pole ice recession setting a record; see August 10, 2007 article and associated writings by scientists there. RealClimate's main page remains the reference site on climate. I think the Republican strategy is to make money now, and let the Democrats lose rapport with business by Democrats controlling pollution after the Democrats are in charge. You know the Republicans are getting results when the Federalist society applauds the anticonstitutional remarks of Bush and two Scotus justices. Control the remedies courts are willing to offer; that is the wishlist of the FedSoc.

I think that the scarcity of water problem will start to galvanize people and cause them to get very upset, but I still don't see any profound changes in America.

I see mostly comestic changes with windmills, a lot of publized efforts that are mostly show, and research efforts with some undefined payback at least 10 years out.

The one exception might be a comeback for the nuclear power plant industry which President Carter hamstrung so long ago.

France is 75% to 80% reliant on huclear power, now.

It can be fun to generate electric energy without the absurd pollution generations must face when the delicate tool which is radiation is diverted from applications such as medical imaging, for example, and instead used to line the pockets of the entrenched energy oligarchy. Attenuating the demibrave profile which is the nuclear industry's in our time will remove a dangerous toy which global politicians like to brandish, as well; there is at most one decade to deal with this brinkpersonship. It is time to ratchet back to a saner international environment, as well. That is what IPPC is impelling the great denialists to do; deniers like Bush, and the subtle demurrers India was contributing this past week, saying the polluting countries should add foreign aid to compensate the third world, during the India bartering sessions in Valencia. Folks forget the politics of India from fairly recent decades ago; their leadership recently decided to cancel Bush's atomic secrets tech transfer policy unilaterally because of its patent attempt to reshape that country's internal decisionmaking. Climate and radiation are vital issues. BushCo's idea of clarity is to deny climate is changing, but to pray for rain because Atlanta's water supply is parching. Land use and management, and population curbs wait in the wings; but act 2 is about to begin.

A nice nuclear safety site. I am glad mimikatz wrote about the IPPC today.

The IPCC mentions nuclear power as a mitigation technology. Even if you don't like nuclear technology, you're going to hear people other than Jodi - people with good intentions - raise the subject for discussion. We should look at it anew without prejudice. Just because Jodi is trying to antagonize you, you don't have to take the hook with the bait.

I was reading the fact article in the Jan/Feb '08 issue of Analog - it should hit the newsstands in a couple of weeks; I get it by mail - which is on controlled fusion. They're making progress in their experiments, but it may not be fast enough to help.
Whatever happend to the CANDU reactor design, which didn't need enriched uranium and could actually use depleted?

OT,
Nexthurranicks in Boston to hear/meet Marcy:
Pred, Katherineinma, gmoke, selise, humble self and assorted signif. others and friends for "No news is bad news".

Wonderful, town lit up for the occasion. Literally, as the lights were on at the BC Staidium even though it was an away game day and at Fenway in whose shadow we met.

Looking forward to reading EW about the conference if she chooses. Shorter me about her panel she was terrific and the MSM types while trying to be respectful were in so many words dissing the blogosphere and justifying their m.o. with a few words of apology from the NYT people.

CANDU reactors are still being built, the most recent locations being in Romania (2007), China (2003), and South Korea (1999). The reactor type built in these countries is known as PHWR CANDU-6, although AECL is currently marketing the ACR-1000.

South Korea's power infrastructure is 37% nuclear, Romania 9.9%, China 1.2%. France supplies 77.1% of its electricity via nuclear power, Sweden 43%.

According to the IEA (2005 statistics), the world's electricity generation profile breaks down as follows:

coal - 39.8%
natural gas - 19.6%
hydro - 16.1%
nuclear - 15.7%
oil - 6.7%
other - 2.1%

I suggest Japan as a representative of the world. Currently (CIA World Factbook 2001) Japan gets 60% of its electricity requirements from fossil fuel, 29.8% from nuclear, 8.4% from hydro, and 1.8% from other sources.

In the USA, the numbers are 71.4% fossil, 20.7% nuclear, 5.6% hydro, 2.3% other.

As an aside, Norway gets 99.3% of its electricity production via hydro, Sweden 50.8%.

I asked this in very late in an older thread, but still am curious. What is this Jodi thing? It seems like a "smart" key word based spam bot that mines a Republican talking point database to post ASAP on every new topic here.

Just curious...

Brian in Seattle

to repeat myself from Nov 17, 21:59: "I think that the scarcity of water problem will start to galvanize people and cause them to get very upset, but I still don't see any profound changes in America.

I see mostly comestic changes with windmills, a lot of publized efforts that are mostly show, and research efforts with some undefined payback at least 10 years out.

The one exception might be a comeback for the nuclear power plant industry which President Carter hamstrung so long ago.

France is 75% to 80% reliant on huclear power, now."

Now if you wish to think that is a bot, just curious Brian, ok, but hey fellow, tell me where I can get a couple like that, for it would save me a lot of effort.

: )

Wow, what a rich thread! You could make a whole blog out of this!

A few comments:

Does anyone think that the interests George Bush and Dick Cheney represent are all that upset with $100/bbl oil? Not that it's not inevitable, but it's certainly not a policy failure from their POV.

Why is nuclear successful in France (and Belgium) but not here? Answer: trust in centralized government. They got it, we don't.

Does anyone think that the American people are going to respond to even the most serious predicted effects of global warming? For crying out loud, look at how we've responded to the ongoing, multi-year, catastrophic disaster that is New Orleans. Ooh, bodies floating in water, scary for a day. But is Hannah Montana actually a virgin?

Oh wait, the Governor of Georgia is leading the state in prayer. That'll make a difference! How much attention is his budget getting, anyway?

Yes very sad, sad indeed. I often don't understand why humans don't wake up and smell the coffee, or learn from our mistakes that we make century after century. The world will wait until something bad starts to really show up and then start with the large bandaid...sigh...a bandaid this large won't fit very well. We do as mentioned above need to start now. I know that there is work being done in utilizing the technology of solar power for our utilities but it is in the works as in IR&D for two large companies. Bravo to Norway for the hydro power.

Jodi...ahem we can send you to Chernobal and you can see how wonderful nuclear power can be.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad