Re: Sorry, there was no "pause" in global warming ...
Except for 31,000 scientists ?
This means that more than 10 million US scientists in atmospheric, environmental, earth sciences, computer, mathematical sciences, physics, aerospace sciences, chemistry, biology, agriculture, medicine, Engineering and general science did NOT sign the petition.
Many posters in this thread have indicated that "something must be done", to combat/control global warming. But there have been no examples….
I can give you examples from my country.
One way is to go the nuclear . The idea is to not only built new nuclear power stations, but also to replace existing coal fired power stations with nuclear stations at the end of their life-spans. This is not an ideal way, but it is a lot better as far as greenhouse gases are concerned.
quote:Russia's atomic energy agency said Monday it will provide up to eight nuclear reactors to South Africa by 2023 in a $50-billion strategic partnership between the two countries. One reactor costs around $5 billion, according to the Itar-Tass news agency.
Tina Joemat-Pettersson, minister of energy and Sergey Kirienko, the Director General of the State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM signed the agreement on the sidelines of the 58th session of the International Atomic Energy Agency General Conference in Vienna.
The agreement will underpin the country’s nuclear power plant construction programme with new nuclear power plants featuring Russian VVER reactors with total installed capacity of up to 9,6 GW (up to 8 nuclear power plant units).
The agreement will cover joint nuclear power plant construction and also research and education collaboration.
Climate change is addressed in the last paragraph.
quote: He also mentioned that one of the things South Africa has to do is reduce dependence on coal to reduce carbon footprint to meet targets regarding climate change.
SA also has the huge problem that easily accessible and obtainable coal resources and reserves are running out rapidly. The result is that alternatives for coal have to be found urgently anyway.
Alternative energy would be the ideal, but the technologies involved in using alternative energies as a baseline (instead of coal and nuclear) are just not available yet.
While existing, proven technologies are utilised, a lot of research on alternative energies are being conducted. One of the major organisations involved is Sanedi. Solar farms, wind farms, etc. have been opened with the accompanying research in improving the technologies.
One of the units at the second largest coal fired power station in the country has already been converted to be fired by Underground Coal Gasification (UCG). Sasol has been running a pilot project utilising UCG on one of their major plants (converting UCG into chemicals). The major greenhouse gases get captured instead of being released into the atmosphere. Futhermore, a lot of research and exploration is being done on shale gas and CBM.
What suggestions do you have? Fossil fuels seem to be the target.
Actually, coal and oil would be targets for the simple reason that they are the main culprits. Coal is a lot more detrimental to the atmosphere than the gases extracted from the earth. Simple chemistry.
What steps should be taken to cut back their use? Do any of your proposals NOT involve politics?
Well, in my country large swaths of the population not having electricity would be very detrimental to the chances of the ruling party getting voted back into power (excuse the pun)…
But again I agree with you, I'm all for nuclear power!
Don't get me wrong. I'm not all for nuclear power. What I'm saying is that nuclear power is one of the solutions to a few problems we have:
1. We're running out of easily accessible coal therefore we have to get a technological proven alternative to coal. 2. Nuclear power will also help in the alleviation of our carbon footprint.
Unfortunately there ain't something like a free lunch. Nuclear power has got it's problems and should be tightly regulated.
The better solution would be green energies. But the reliable technologies are not there, yet.
If these things are done with private funding and investments, I love seeing it! But it shouldn't be done with public money IMO.
Unfortunately private companies tend to be in the game for short term profits. They don't normally care much about the rest. If they don't make money, they just close up.
As it involves trying to provide answers to public problems, public money should definitely be involved. Providing all this new infrastructure would cost a huge amount of money. More than private companies can give all on their own. Therefore the government should be the main driver behind it.
As for your last paragraph, you seem to be very negative about governments. I don't think everything governments do can be classified as bad. Some governments actually do some good things, too.
Sometimes governments have to take leadership in dragging reluctant, kicking and screaming populations into the future. As is the case on the climate change issue.
The science has been settled. Something has to be done about our carbon footprint. Who better than governments to start the process?
I think that it is the other way round. All the latest natural sciences involve speciality. "Rocket science". Not many people can understand the specialisation.
As a sedimentologist who specialised in coal, I don't have the foggiest idea of what burning of coal can do to the athmosphere or the health of people, apart from knowing that the smoke coming off burning coal can't be good for the people living around that burning coal fire. People actually die when they inhale the fumes coming off coal fires.
Coughing, can't take deep breaths, getting cancer, etc. Burning coal can't be good for the lungs.
Burning coal for energy is on the way out. And good riddence.