The Stern Report (aka Global Warming)

[tigger]

Once again the doom-mongers are in the news. Sir Nicholas Stern was commissioned by the government to produce a report stating the effects on the world of global warming if we all sit back on our (obese) bottoms and do nothing.

The results are due to be published shortly, but in a nutshell it is apparent that there could be mass devastation of our planet with millions homeless, droughts and floods, no food etc. A very black picture indeed.

The keyword here, I believe, is "could". The truth is that nobody really knows what will happen in years to come, whether we take action now, or just plod along in our own little ways.

All sorts of suggestions have been made by David Milliband; sustantial increase in road-tax, pay-per-mile motoring, tax on cheap flights, tax on inefficient washing machines and light bulbs.

The truth is that our planet's climate does experience swings from time to time, for example around 100 years ago people used to skate regularly on the Thames as it was frozen solid (colder). In the Middle Ages, there were grapevines as far north as Liverpool (warmer) so is there any need for our goverment to be running around like headless chickens now.

If we did make all these proposed changes to our lifestyles, what would be the point unless the whole world (including the U.S. and China by far the biggest contributors to carbon emissions) does the same?

The government's answer to global warming? Raise and invent new taxes. They have run out of other ways to tax us so they will be on to a winner with this one. The possibilities are endless.

 

[noodlz]

It's a good thing there's at least going to be some sort of debate about it.

I agree that taxing people to try to effect change in their lifestyles isn't the best solution and cynically I think maybe they see this as another revenue stream.

With the rest of the world burning the midnight oil in the meantime, if taxing and other methods affect our behaviour significantly, which I doubt, it might delay the problems slightly, but not prevent the inevitable.

Whether the final outcome is as catastrophic or not, one thing is for sure, we will need, within a few generations, if that, alternative fuel sources. We had an age of coal, now we've got an age of oil and gas...it may be unimaginable to some now that they can more or less be replaced in the future, but I'm sure when coal was so important, they also never thought it could be replaced.

Unless we want to radically change our lifestyles, and that means most of the world, as I see it, we don't have many choices.

Non-carbon fuels such as solar, wind and water power have the benefits of not being adverse to the environment and are hugely untapped resources as yet. I would also think that nuclear fusion and fission need to be looked at seriously, with all the pros and cons dispassionately weighed up.

The point is all this taxing isn't going to address the future problems unless R&D is meaninfully invested in. Its a great opportunity for a small country like ours to take the lead and make a difference for the whole world...and make itself very wealthy in the meantime. We've still got brilliant scientists, engineers, etc. either in this country or we can attract the best from abroad if we really had the will.

This is one of the most important issues of our age for a government to make a significant difference. It would probably need government backing to achieve something really worthwhile, but to work sensibly with the appropriate private/public partnerships, things could be achieved.

President Bush, in his State of the Union address in 2003, said as the third goal of his Presidency:

"In this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about not through endless lawsuits or command-and-control regulations, but through technology and innovation. Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. (Applause.)

A single chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car -- producing only water, not exhaust fumes. With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free. (Applause.)

Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy. (Applause.) "

Respect to him, if he can make it work.

I must confess, I do have serious reservations if any government would have the wherewithall to complete such a difficult task, given the numerous other areas, such as healthcare, where most have failed to be effective, efficient and economically sustainable.

 

[markie]

Get rid of cows, the amount of farting the do they are killing the o-zone layer. and some on here are doing their very best as well.

 

[JohnD]

Odd that the quote does not say how the hydrogen will be generated (it is most commonly made by electrolysis of water, which uses electricity, which is mostly generated by burning gas, otherwise by nuclear power (a small amount by hydro-electric schemes or burning coal).

Looks to me like a bit of fog to encourage the Americans (in particular) to believe that they can carry on using lots of big cars that guzzle fuel, and the planet will somehow be saved anyway.

 

[noodlz]

Cheers Markie...you're not wrong

 

[noodlz]

Sadly, JohnD, you may well be right...I don't know much about the technology and no doubt there'll be enough politicians twisting this issue for their own ends.

Something has to be done, though.....genuinely, with a result.

 

[oilman]

....................

Unless we want to radically change our lifestyles, and that means most of the world, as I see it, we don't have many choices.

Don't worry, you won't have a choice anyway. Lifestyles will change, a lot.

Non-carbon fuels such as solar, wind and water power have the benefits of not being adverse to the environment and are hugely untapped resources as yet.

And up to now, they produce precious little power for the energy required to make them. Wind turbines have an energy payback period of decades, likewise solar, so don't hold your breath.

Its a great opportunity for a small country like ours to take the lead and make a difference for the whole world...and make itself very wealthy in the meantime. We've still got brilliant scientists, engineers, etc. either in this country or we can attract the best from abroad if we really had the will.

Problem is, what you need here is a fuel source, and oil is the only one. There is no similar substitute.

This is one of the most important issues of our age for a government to make a significant difference. It would probably need government backing to achieve something really worthwhile, but to work sensibly with the appropriate private/public partnerships, things could be achieved.

Well the donkeys that "govern" this country at the moment are Incompetent. When they came into power they lied and said they would ensure public transport would be developed to ensure efficient use of transport. Now we have Daffy Millipede telling us we need a tax to encourage reduced use of road fuels.

But just hang on,.............who is presiding over a road building program as big as the one the tories were running? Who is widening the M1 and M25? I wonder if you can guess.

They're at it again, looking for anything that gives Tony more breathing space from whatever nasty is about to be revealed, that might pull the rug from under him.

As for global warming, who cares? People will say a lot but do a little, it'll always be somone else's responsibility.

 

[noodlz]

I agree with most of what you say, Oilman, but regarding this government you appear even more cynical than me

Not just a question of global warming, we need the fuel....carbon fuels are not an endless resource. So you appear to be saying that non-nuclear non-carbon fuels are not viable at the moment...do you think this will always be the case, regardless of r&d?

If so, uncomfortable as it may be to some, we need to start developing nuclear...and soon.

There will always be pathetic politicians and apathetic citizens, but there will be at least one country that will take the lead in some way eventually...why not this...we've done it before....the NHS, although now badly mismanaged, was a great achievement.

Will we be buying nuclear technology from somewhere like Finland twenty years down the line?

 

[JohnD]

Problem is, what you need here is a fuel source, and oil is the only one. There is no similar substitute.

I don't think either of those claims is right.

Burning fossil fuels means burning solar energy that was fixed by plants a long time ago. Burning biomass (such as dried straw and rushes, or softwood pellets) is burning solar energy that was fixed in the last year or so. It's not sustainable long-term to burn up more fuel than is being created. So fossil fuels are not sustainable, but biomass fuels are; and do not contribute to global warming because they release no more carbon than was absorbed in creating them a few months ago.

Similar substitute: If diesel Land-Rovers can be fuelled on Tesco's cooking oil, then there clearly is a very similar substitute. It is not a fossil fuel, it is a biological fuel that stored solar energy in its creation during the summer. Alcohol is another liquid fuel that is readily available and manufactured using current-year crops, so no fossil fuels required.

 

[joe-90]

Uranium fuel isn't an endless source of power - it will run out as oil is doing.

The bottom, line is that we are on our way back to the Stone Age.

Hydrogen and bio fuels both take more energy in production than they give back - so why not just use the oil? Just as a battery takes more power to charge than it gives back.


Remember the old Arab saying:

My father rode a camel.

I drive a car.

My son will fly a jet plane.

His son will ride a camel.

 

[noodlz]

Very interesting JohnD.

Excuse my ignorance, but does this mean that a field of rape or whatever could potentially be used as a fuel without affecting the ozone in doing so?

Which way do you reckon we should go with r&d if they really decided to get their fingers out...solar, wind, water or nuclear? Or are all necessary?

 

[JohnD]

Hydrogen and bio fuels both take more energy in production than they give back - so why not just use the oil? Just as a battery takes more power to charge than it gives back.

Please explain why you think bio fuels cost more energy than they give, for example:

- vegetable oil used to fuel a diesel car
- wood chips used to fuel a steam boiler
- dried straw or reeds used to heat a house

 

[oilman]

Similar substitute: If diesel Land-Rovers can be fuelled on Tesco's cooking oil, then there clearly is a very similar substitute. It is not a fossil fuel, it is a biological fuel that stored solar energy in its creation during the summer. Alcohol is another liquid fuel that is readily available and manufactured using current-year crops, so no fossil fuels required.

Fine, but it is not similar. The storage density is not the same.

It will take around 10 acres to fuel 1 car for 1 year. When you have used up all the land trying to fuel cars, you'll be dead from starvation. So no worries.

Another example of the government's duplicitous actions.

Animal waste incinerators used to be fuelled partly by the fats that were rendered from the carcases. The wise government decided this was to be classed as waste, so now has to be disposed of in some licenced, energy expensive way. The fat no longer available, has to be replaced by fossil fuel. Oh, how wonderfuel. This was presided over by that seductive caravan puller, Margaret Buckett

 

[JohnD]

...does this mean that a field of rape or whatever could potentially be used as a fuel without affecting the ozone in doing so?...

For example: Plants use the energy of the sun, plus carbon dioxide which they take from the air (plus water and some minerals from the soil) to create vegetation, including wood, straw, sugar and oil. When you burn these products they give off no more carbon than was absorbed from the air to build them. With short-term crops there will be a delay of (usually) less than a year between growth and use. Only the backlog or stored, reserve and in-process materials will be an actual deduction of carbon from the atmosphere.

With longer term products, like building timber or very old trees, there may be a delay of scores or hundreds or years between absorption of carbon from the atmosphere, and its release by burning, decay or consumption.

 

[joe-90]

Hydrogen and bio fuels both take more energy in production than they give back - so why not just use the oil? Just as a battery takes more power to charge than it gives back.

Please explain why you think bio fuels cost more energy than they give, for example:

- vegetable oil used to fuel a diesel car
- wood chips used to fuel a steam boiler
- dried straw or reeds used to heat a house

We farm intensively - which means fertiliser. Fertiliser is manufactured from natural gas. Why not just use the gas?
No need to utilise fields that could be used for food production.
No need to plow and sow said field (using oil).
No need to harvest (using oil)
No need to process (using oil)
No need to transport (using oil).

Sorry John - but it's just laughable.