Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

When Will Global Warming Reach a Political Tipping Point?

Sierra Magazine. Posted January 11, 2008.


Will presidential candidates continue to blow off the environment as the world heats up?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Presidential candidates traditionally blow off the environment as an issue. But can they continue to dither as the world heats up?

"What should be the nation's top concern?" When pollsters pose such a question to voters, few, historically, have answered "the environment." Yet when asked specifically about how important global warming will be to their vote for U.S. president in 2008, more than half of respondents to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll last May answered "extremely" or "very." To learn how the quadrennial mash-up of politics and the environment will play out this election year, Sierra turned to four expert observers:

Matt Stoller is a Washington, D.C.-based political consultant and blogger who writes frequently for Open Left, MyDD, and the Huffington Post. He's worked for the campaigns of (successful) New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Jon Corzine (D) and (unsuccessful) Connecticut senatorial candidate Ned Lamont (D).

Michael Bocian is a vice president at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, a D.C.-based polling and strategic consulting firm. He heads the company's environmental and conservation practice.

David Orr teaches environmental studies at Oberlin College and is the author of five books, including Earth in Mind and Ecological Literacy.

Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1994 to '98 and architect of the Contract With America -- an effort criticized by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups. More recently, Gingrich has written (with Terry L. Maple) A Contract With the Earth, a plea for bipartisan environmentalism, and is chair of the nonpartisan organization American Solutions for Winning the Future.

Sierra senior editor Paul Rauber orchestrated the conversation by e-mail last October.

Q: How will global warming figure in the 2008 presidential election?

Newt Gingrich: Whoever wins will have a sound and realistic approach to climate change. Democrats have an advantage in developing solutions because their primary voters care more about the issue and because they are more comfortable dealing with environmental issues, which have been largely a liberal area of dialogue for the past generation. Republicans have to play catch-up in developing answers other than no.

Our research at American Solutions indicates that, by a very substantial margin, Americans prefer entrepreneurship to bureaucracy and innovation to litigation. The Republican nominee should be able to develop strong solutions to climate change that emphasize science, technology, innovation, and incentives. These will prove surprisingly popular compared with the tax increase-government control-bureaucracy and litigation model that has dominated for the past 30 years.

Michael Bocian: Mr. Gingrich is correct that the public clamors for innovation. Our polling shows that Americans feel our country is failing to lead on energy and global-warming solutions, yet they believe we have the technological know-how to lead, and we must harness it. Mr. Gingrich is also correct on the importance of incentives. But any purely voluntary solution fails to address the seriousness of the problem. Americans believe we need strong standards if we are to succeed. Setting strong standards and enforcing them require real accountability.

David Orr: The Republican Party has not done its homework on the biggest issue of our time and has persistently chosen ideology over science, even going along with the Bush administration's crude attempts to quash the evidence. The time to avert the worst is very short. To do so, we will have to create something akin to the government-business-public partnership in WWII. This will necessarily include lots of things Mr. Gingrich has opposed in the past: government regulation, taxation to change market incentives, and lots of R&D on renewables and efficiency. It will also require attention and money -- so no more wars fought for phony reasons.

Matt Stoller: Global warming may not figure directly in the 2008 race. Consider that Al Gore received only a small bump in approval ratings for his Nobel prize and continues to have high disapproval ratings. He is the political figure most closely associated with climate change, yet according to some polls, almost half of Democrats don't want him to run for president. I'm using Gore as a proxy, but there are other obvious signposts. There was no climate-change backlash from Katrina in 2005, and no candidates are making the issue the centerpiece of their campaign. Even with wildfires in the West and drought in the Southeast, I'm seeing most action take place at the local level disconnected from the federal government.

Global warming is one in a bucket of issues, along with Iraq, civil liberties, executive overreach, economic inequality, global financial instability, and corporate corruption. They are all of deep concern to a newly energized progressive movement and must be solved together. Climate change isn't a major political issue yet, but it will hit the national radar in a few years, ferociously.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: political, global warming, election08, climate change

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
THOSE interviewees don't know what they are talking about.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 11, 2008 12:29 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The next president will have to take drastic action to prevent our extinction or the
collapse of civilization due to global warming . Great damage has been done, but
we still have 8 years before natural positive feedbacks lead to our extinction. Sea
level will continue to rise even if we disappear right now, but that is "minor"
compared to poison gas bubbling out of the ocean and killing almost everything.
See the chart on page 274 of "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015
to BEGIN REDUCING our total CO2 output and we have until 2050 to actually
reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The curve has to start down by 2015, not we
have to think about it by then. The peak of our CO2 production has to happen in
the next 8 years. Sorry, but we can't wait for research, no matter how interesting.
We have to implement what we know right now. The only technology we have
right now to replace coal fired power plants is nuclear power plants. I like solar,
wind, hydro, and geothermal, but all of them together cannot replace the base load
capacity of coal. Sorry, but nuclear is the only option. If we don't follow the
schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive feedbacks which will take the
control of the climate out of our hands. Civilization may fall anyway well before
2050, but we can avoid going extinct by 2100. We have to hold the CO2 level to
400 parts per million to have a 75% chance of avoiding the positive feedbacks.
The natural positive feedbacks are explained in Six Degrees.

Nuclear power is NOT dangerous. Coal is the most dangerous and radioactive
source of electricity. Nuclear power can save us from extinction. The
comparison has to be with extinction. Do you understand what the word "extinct"
means? If we keep burning FOSSIL fuels containing CARBON, EVERY
PERSON will be DEAD. THERE WILL BE ZERO SURVIVORS.
EXTINCTION means NO MORE HOMO SAPIENS, EVER. NOT EVEN the
worst possible nuclear war, a "general exchange" between the United States and
the old Soviet Union could achieve the extinction of Homo Sapiens. That would
mean exploding 40,000 H bombs all at once in the old days or maybe only 20,000
H bombs now.

The simultaneous deaths of 6,400,000,000 people would not even be noticeable in
the geologic record. Human population would rebound too fast for the dip to be
noticeable in the rocks. But extinction would clearly be noticed by some future
space alien or future intelligent earth species geologist. He would find no more
humans after the extinction event.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A TRUTHFUL book on nuclear power
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 11, 2008 12:33 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please read this book: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
English edition, 2001, 345 pp. (soft cover), 38 Euros
TNR Editions, 266 avenue Daumesnil, 75012 Paris, France;
ISBN 2-914190-02-6
order from: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm
Read a review of this book by the American Health Physics Society at:
http://www.comby.org/media/
articles/articles.in.english/
HealthPhysics-NUC-July2002.htm

www.ecolo.org
Association of Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy [EFN]

Fossil fuels such as coal oil, and gas, massively pollute the Earth's atmosphere
(CO, CO2, SOX, NOX...), provoking acid rains and changing the global climate
by increasing the greenhouse effect, while nuclear energy does not participate in
these pollutions and presents well-founded environmental benefits.

Renewable energies (solar, wind) not being able to deliver the amount of energy
required by populations in developing and developed countries, nuclear energy is
in fact the only clean and safe energy available to protect the planet during the XXI
st century.

This book answers essential questions about nuclear safety, the Chernobyl
accident, the public health problems our society has to face, viable solutions for
nuclear waste, the benefits of clean nuclear energy for the environment, and
important information about the future of our planet.

Book Review by the American Health Physics Society:

"Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
English edition, 2001, 345 pp. (soft cover), 38 Euros
TNR Editions, 266 avenue Daumesnil, 75012 Paris, France;
ISBN 2-914190-02-6

Reproduced from the journal "Health Physics" with permission from the Health
Physics Society.
Subject book: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
AT A TIME when most of the media and politicians seem to be brainwashed by
antinuclear cults, it is refreshing to encounter a book that presents the issues
regarding nuclear energy in a clear and dispassionate manner. In plain non-
technical language, the author, a French environmentalist trained as a nuclear
engineer, presents a primer, in large letters, of the essential facts regarding all the
major areas of controversy about nuclear power.

The first half of the book, titled "The Atomic Paradox," describes in layman's
language the risks of nuclear power, its environmental impact, quality and safety
standards, waste management, why a power reactor is not a bomb, energy
alternatives, nuclear weapons, and other major global and environmental problems.
In each case the major conclusions are framed for greater emphasis. Although
examples are taken from the French nuclear power program, the conclusions are
equally valid elsewhere.

The second half of the book is titled "Information on Nuclear Energy and the
Environment" and briefly provides a historical survey, an explanation of the
different types of radiation, radioactivity, dose effects of radiation, Chernobyl,
medical uses of radiation, accident precautions, as well as a glossary of terms and
abbreviations and a bibliography (…)

Its simple language makes the book suitable as a primer for high-school classes,
teacher training courses, or environmental discussion groups.

Despite the slightly provocative title, it is a well-balanced if unapologetic
exposition of the competitive advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy as a
power source. It should appeal to all readers with an interest in the subject who
have not already closed their minds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Note to Chicken Little. Posted by: Edward George
» Comby book a Shill and Sham Posted by: herbal
Recycling nuclear fuel
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 11, 2008 12:39 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything, including yourself, is made of atoms. All atoms have nuclei. You
have many atomic nuclei inside yourself since you are made of atoms. The
simplest nucleus is one proton. That would be a hydrogen atom. An oxygen
atom has 8 protons and either 8, 9 or 10 neutrons in its nucleus. All other nuclei
also have neutrons. Uranium has 92 protons and either 143 or 146 neutrons. If it
has 143 neutrons it is U235. If it has 146 neutrons, it is U238. Nuclear fuel is
only 2% to 8% U235, the kind that fissions/divides, providing energy. The rest is
U238 that doesn't fission. A nuclear reaction happens when a neutron is captured
by a nucleus. If a U235 nucleus captures a neutron, the nucleus and the atom split
approximately in half and 3 more neutrons are released because the 2 smaller
nuclei don't need so many neutrons. If a U238 nucleus captures a neutron, it
ejects an electron and the neutron becomes a proton. The U238 thus becomes
Plutonium 239. Plutonium is fissionable, which means that plutonium is a good
fuel. If you add Thorium to the fuel, you can make more fissionable uranium. If
a Thorium atom nucleus captures a neutron, it ejects an electron and the neutron
becomes a proton. The Thorium atom thus becomes U233. U233 is fissionable.

Depending on the design of the reactor and the mix of the fuel, the fuel % in the
reactor can either grow or shrink. It is kind of like the fuel gauge can go either up
or down, but it is more like the reactor can run hotter or cooler over time. The
temperature is kept constant by adjusting the control rods. A breeder reactor is a
reactor designed to make the fissionable part of the fuel load grow rapidly.
Normally, fuel is left in the reactor for about 10 years, or 10% of the fuel is
replaced each year. The reprocessing step sorts out the fuel and puts the
percentage of fissionable fuel back to the starting percentage. In the process,
plutonium may be removed and either wasted or used as fuel. If we add thorium
to the fuel, we can make more uranium than we put in. Since the earth contains
more than twice as much thorium as uranium, it would be wise to make thorium
into uranium. By reprocessing nuclear fuel, we get an enormous, many centuries
long fuel supply. The products of fission are also removed when fuel is
reprocessed. These are just other ordinary atoms that are no longer useful as fuel.
The quantity is very small. We should reprocess fuel to keep the fuel load at the
correct percentage of fissionable fuel for the particular reactor design. Instead, we
go through the expensive process of making more "virgin" fuel for each new fuel
load. This greatly increases the price you pay for electricity. We are not
reprocessing nuclear fuel for political reasons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Posted by: Beck
Nuclear batteries for heart pacemakers
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 11, 2008 12:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and people steal it.
The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a
small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the
business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the
advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled
both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear
"waste." It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States.
It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the
difficult process of enriching uranium, unless you have a Canadian "Candu"
reactor that runs on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the US
stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at that time, given that
private corporations did the reprocessing. My solution would be to reprocess the
fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a
GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion would
disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any unauthorized place.
Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Short term, they love climate change
Posted by: Moore Hognutz on Jan 11, 2008 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, home of the University of North Carolina, a notoriously enlightened community, full of tree huggers, doomsayers, and other types of evildoers. And you know what? Half of them drive SUVs. In the midst of a desperately bad drought, they're digging swimming pools. They love climate change, going outside in January without putting on a coat is their idea of a Good Thing

Fighting climate change gonna be a tough sell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gingrich's plan
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Jan 11, 2008 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Newt Gingrich's position here represents the next step in putting off meaningful environmental reform. He is smart enough to know that eventually even the most diehard Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity listener will really get it.

Gingrich sees that it is time to move on to the next phase. Ridicule of Global Warming theory is more and more obviously psychotic rambling. George W. Bush has milked "scientific dispute" as far as it will go, and this position will increasingly marginalize its proponents.

So now Gingrich proposes more massive giveaways to the same companies that are largely responsible for the problem in the first place. In the American political system, this could put off the final reckoning for another ten years, enough time for polluting corporations to rack up a couple of trillions more, continuing to slough off responsibility for the environmental degradation they cause. His proposal also does not address the need to dramatically lower consumption.

What Gingrich won't admit is that there will be great pain involved with our response to Global Warming. If we accept that pain now, we may be able to minimize the damage. His way, the disruption, when the totality of it is apparent, will be cataclysmic. I have to wonder what kind of bunkers he thinks he and his wealthy constituency will be able to buy to protect themselves from it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well, you ALMOST got it right. Posted by: aka_bozo
Will the Sierra Club continue to blow off global warming with the amount of flying they do?
Posted by: Beck on Jan 11, 2008 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Will presidential candidates continue to blow off the environment as the world heats up?" I'm a member of Sierra Club and we need to clean up our own house along with that of candidates. Every issue of Sierra magazine lists dozens of trips. Dozens? I just started counting them and stopped when I passed 180. A blurb at the beginning of the travel section says that 4,000 members take 300 trips annually, and that they're showing us "the places that need protection." This is old, old thinking, thinking that doesn't factor in the very research that shows up on other pages of Sierra magazine. In fact, it's like two different magazines. Articles and editorials on global warming are mixed in with commercial ads for adventure travel. A short article on air travel that states that the same fuel consumption by planes as opposed to cars "produces about twice the global-warming pollution" is in the same magazine that promotes air travel.

The list of trips begins on page 54 and continues to page 99. Trips to the Arctic are plugged this way: "See it for yourself. You've read about the battle over the the Arctic, now get a firsthand look at this rapidly changing ecosystem and learn what you can do to help save it." How much carbon is a single traveler responsible for on a single trip there? Almost 20 trips to the far north in Alaska and Canada are offered. And how about this? We DON'T see it for ourselves, but learn what we can do to help save it anyway?

There are 7 trips offered to Hawaii. 27 to Europe. 17 to Central and South America. Asia, Africa, the Pacific. It's hard to take concern for the climate seriously when that concern evaporates as long as we get to fulfill ourselves at the same time we're polluting. I don't understand why this continues, why members don't protest it more, and why the right doesn't seize on this for its obvious blindness and/or hypocrisy. But all that aside, for anyone who wants global warming to halt, it's self-defeating to spend part of one's life polluting while attempting to get politicians to pledge to fix the problem that's being caused.

To me, the worst effect of Sierra Club's devotion to a fulfilling, jet-set lifestyle is the tacit permission these trips imply. When people read this issue, see the many articles on global warming, then see the many trips listed and ads from commercial companies for exotic travel, the implication is that flying is pretty much okay, or will be soon, once we shape up our corporations and big government, and that of course, once aviation companies learn of alternative, nonpolluting ways to fuel jetliners, we'll all be able to fly as much as we like, which is ALOT. Of course, aviation companies will be just about as interested in being forced to replace their fleets as they have been in addressing the problem on their own to begin with. They'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming, and will certainly be allowed to grandfather their current fleets. In the meantime, apparently, Sierra Club will continue its 300 annual trips, with all members certain that they themselves aren't really harming all that much, that they're learning so much and experiencing different culures, and that our own pollution is just different and more wholesome than evil corporate pollution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the Sierra Club Posted by: aka_bozo
The answer
Posted by: Axiom69 on Jan 11, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Will presidential candidates continue to blow off the environment as the world heats up?"

Yes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ron Paul has a STRONG plan to end global warming.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 11, 2008 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
His efforts to LEGALIZE Industrial Hemp despite opposition from both parties in Congress ought to be commended because allowing Industrial HEMP into the market would go a long ways to curbing global warming. From there, fuel efficiency and making wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and other alternative renewable sources will be more feasable and affordable. End the phoney "War on Drugs" or be FUCKED !

P.S.: Kucinich did join Paul on co-sponsor the pro-hemp farming bill. Will your representative do the same?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» HEMP YES!!!!!!!!! Posted by: garry minor
The next prez will do next to nothing
Posted by: PaulK on Jan 11, 2008 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Doing anything real about global warming is bad for established businesses.

The next president, Democrat or Republican, will respond to the high cost of gasoline. She/he will invest heavily in finding cheaper ways to get more gasoline from our plentiful coal reserves, from oil shale sands, from food crop land and forest land, and from the newly cleared polar ocean. These actions will mostly accelerate global warming, although some of them, including building nukes and growing ethanol, may break even or at least come close.

Solar and wind research money may be popular but it will, as always, only go to established corporations and to established universities. People who can't afford political kickbacks or who can't play the stupid game don't deserve research money. Arguments that foreign companies will whip us someday didn't make sense to GM, Ford or Chrysler in their day, and they still don't make sense now.

I'm pretty sure that New York City and the Smithsonian Museums will not flood within the next four years (rogue hurricanes excepted), and that's all a president has to care about to get re-elected once. After that, let em flood! That's what Camp David in the hills is for.

Now, seriously, the American public is moved by people's willingness to suffer for their beliefs. If global warming concerns or frightens you, then vigil in front of a congressional office, pray aloud in your church, install a solar water heater, walk across Vermont, whatever moves you to show your neighbors that you're concerned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let me refer all Nuclear Enthusiasts TO: Richard Smalley
Posted by: Squarehead on Jan 11, 2008 10:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Terawatt Challenge
To provide the technology for accomplishing our energy goals, what we need to do is to find the “new oil”—a basis for energy prosperity in the 21st century that is as enabling as oil and gas have been for the past century. The sheer magnitude of the energy industry makes this an extremely difficult task. Studying the problem in depth, we come to appreciate the fundamental nature of the scientific breakthroughs necessary to activate these new energy sources.
In 2004, we consumed on average the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day to run the world. Or, if we convert that into watts, what ran the world was about 14.5 terawatts. The vast majority of this energy was from oil, gas, and coal. Fission and biomass were significant players. Most of this biomass was the energy source for the bottom half of the global economic ladder, three billion people or so. A great deal of that was unsustainably burned vegetation, cow dung, and other materials that are used where modern energy is not available or affordable. Quite a bit of the 14.5 terawatts was hydropower, but we have already tapped most of
the available hydropower. An incredibly small amount of that energy, about 0.5%, was solar, wind, and geothermal, with geothermal composing the largest part.
To solve the energy challenge, we will have to find a way to produce, every day, not just what we are producing right now, but at least twice that much. We will need to increase our energy output by a minimum factor of two, the generally agreed upon number, certainly by the middle of the century, but preferably well before that—despite the fact that oil and gas will have long since peaked. Considering that many people on the planet are not using much energy at all and that new energy sources have yet to be developed, billions of people would still be living without modern energy. To give all 10 billion people on the planet the level of energy prosperity we in the developed world are used to, a couple of kilowatt-hours per person, we would need to generate 60 terawatts around the planet—the equivalent of 900 million barrels of oil per day.
Where could that amount of energy ever come from? The goal of finding it seems impossible. Nevertheless, we need to acquire the ability to produce energy at this magnitude in a sustainable, continual way and do it at a low-enough cost—a couple of pennies per kilowatt-hour—to enable global prosperity.
Searching for the enormous amounts of energy that could accomplish this goal, we find, remarkably, that our biggest resources are in the areas where we generate hardly any energy at all right now—solar, wind, and geothermal.

Reversing Current Energy Trends
By 2050, if we have solved the problem, the world’s energy breakdown will probably look like a reverse of what it is today. Oil, hydroelectric, coal, and gas (in that order) would supply the least amount of energy, with fusion/fission and biomass processes being somewhat larger players, and solar/wind/geothermal resources providing the majority of the world’s energy. This new breakdown represents a revolution in the largest enterprise of humankind, an energy industry that currently runs about $3 trillion per year.
Getting there will be incredibly difficult.
If we knew today how to transform the makeup of our energy mix by exploiting fission/fusion, solar, or wind, it would take an inordinate amount of time. If I could go out tomorrow and turn on the switch of a new power plant that would produce a thousand megawatts of power from some new, clean, carbon-free energy
source, I would have to turn on a new plant every day for 27 years before I generated even 10 terawatts of new power

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Part 2, to AsteroidMiner et al. [Richard E Smalley, 2005
Posted by: Squarehead on Jan 11, 2008 10:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finding Alternatives to Oil
Where are we going to find new energy? The list of possible sources will not produce enough of an energy impact. True, early on we could achieve some progress with conservation and efficiency. In the developed world, with its top billion people, it is possible that we could effect substantial energy savings. In the undeveloped world, however, conservation is
meaningless, because so little energy is used. Even with high efficiency, then, we are still going to need vast new energy sources. Hydroelectric, as I mentioned, is mostly tapped out. Biomass could be very significant were we not confronted with a global food and water crisis. Essentially, we are trying to move from a situation where we pull our energy out of the ground in oil and gas to one where we must grow energy crops every year at a very high rate in order to produce just one terawatt. This would require a revolution in agriculture at a time when we are struggling just to sustain our current production levels for food.
There has been a lot of talk about the hydrogen economy, which I believe is, despite its virtues, likely to remain a distraction from the real, practical solutions to our energy needs. Hydrogen is not a basic energy source. Rather, hydrogen is a way of storing energy and moving it from here to there. Unfortunately, it does not do either of these tasks very well. For these tasks, electricity is a much better answer. Electrical power transmission is a superb way to move energy from one place to another, and at least on a small scale, electrical power can be stored. The biggest resources right now are in fossil fuels—oil, gas, and coal. We certainly have enough coal for another five decades or so, if we expand production. But we cannot simply burn all that coal and assume that the CO2 problem is going to go away, or that we can ignore it, or get around it. The only way now imagined to deal with the enormity of this issue is sequestration, finding places where CO2 can be securely stored. Given that the average lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is greater than 100 years, we would need to store it so that much less than 1% escapes from the ground every year. We could certainly build such storage facilities in special locations for small amounts of CO2, but to solve the problem for the planet, we would need to build them all over the world and be able to verify that they will safely store tens of gigatons of carbon per year, and do this year after year. There is no known way to do this. Putting CO2 in the ground does
not generate any money; instead, it is more like taking money and throwing it down a hole. I have yet to hear a compelling business case for sequestration.

Solar Solutions
I do not believe that our energy problems can be solved through the burning of fossil fuels. Yet, these fuels currently represent our primary energy resources, the only ones we know how to use to our economic advantage. The energy sources that could genuinely respond to our future needs are all basically from nuclear sources, either human-made
nuclear fission or nuclear fusion reactors, or the nuclear reactions resulting from the spontaneous decay of uranium and thorium in the rocks of the earth (geo-thermal energy). Then there is that great big hydrogen fusion reactor up in the sky, the sun. That is where the truly big resources can be found.
Yet, the mention of “solar energy” in any kind of conversation about world energy will sometimes elicit a wry smile from certain people—for example, from some people in my home town of Houston, where the favorite unit of energy is the barrel of oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'll tell you when...
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Jan 11, 2008 10:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
December 21st 20012..!


So now you know..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Part 3 To the Nuclear Enthusiasts, [Richard E Smalley, 2005
Posted by: Squarehead on Jan 11, 2008 10:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By saying “solar energy,” we show that we know nothing about how big the energy industry is, or what the “real” energy people are doing. Solar is not now a major player in worldwide energy. To those people with wry smiles, however, I would like to point out that if they like nuclear reactors as a big-time, big-boy energy solution, they should be impressed by a nuclear reactor that has been going strong for billions of years. Without doing anything, we enjoy the effect of 165,000 terawatts of power hitting the earth’s disk every moment of every day. This vast nuclear reactor has gone through over 4 billion years of shake-down trials, and it is probably going to continue providing stable performance for at least another couple of billion years. We are bathed in energy. The truth is that there is plenty of energy hitting the surface of the earth. Nate Lewis of the California Institute of Technology likes to demonstrate that we could cleanly meet the world’s entire energy needs, two kilowatts per person for 10 billion people, by applying the following elegant solution (shown in Figure 3). On a global map, identify six rectangular spaces located in areas of high solar radiation, create 10% efficiency, then collect that power, which would be about 20 terawatts of electrical power, the equivalent of 60 terawatts total energy power at a 30% energy conversion. That would totally solve humanity’s energy problem and allow us to concentrate on other problems
for the rest of this century. Although there is plenty of solar energy, we do not have the technology to develop it at a few pennies per kilowatt-hour. Right now we could do it at about 20–50 cents a kilowatt-hour (averaged
over a day/night cycle), but that would be far too expensive. If you believe with me that we absolutely need to provide the planet’s 10 billion people with the potential to pursue a fulfilling lifestyle, where they have a roof over their heads, enough food to eat, sufficient mobility, communications, and the capability to build homes and develop cities, then you will agree that we have to revolutionize the world’s energy system. We need cheap, clean energy in vast amounts.

The Distributed Energy Grid
The hardest problem will be finding viable replacements for the energy sources we have been relying on for decades, oil in particular. Oil is not only a great primary energy source, it is also the best form in which to transport energy over continental distances and across oceans. Most of the oil we import comes across the sea in what has become a very efficient process—putting the oil in tankers. When we buy a gallon of gas, the actual dollar cost for that transportation is less than 10%. In contrast, it is much less efficient to transport natural gas in this way. Natural gas has to be cooled to liquefy it to form LNG before it goes into the tank. That in itself takes a lot of energy. The LNG tanker is more expensive, resulting in much higher transportation costs, and it takes more energy to re-gasify and compress the gas for storage, pipeline transportation, and use when it reaches its destination. We are going to find out exactly how high these costs will be as time goes on, since most of our natural gas will eventually have to be imported. Transporting liquid hydrogen would be vastly more expensive.

“Energy as Energy”
How, then, around the year 2050, are we going to transport energy over vast distances while minimizing the costs and getting the amount of power we need? The best answer would be to transport energy as energy, not as mass. Instead of storing energy in some chemical form, keep it as pure energy. There are essentially only two ways to do that. We could
microwave energy up to a satellite and bounce it back down, or we could run it along wires on the earth’s surface. We will do both, but mostly we will use wires.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Excellent post Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: Excellent post Posted by: Squarehead
I'll try it again..!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Jan 11, 2008 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry typo..


December 21st 2012..!


That's when our Sun aligns directly with the super massive Black Hole at the center of our Galaxy..this will cause as it has in the past our Earth to tilt further on it's axis and most likely if not even before then cause the Yellowstone Caldera to erupt burying much of the center of America in 50-100 foot of ash..or more..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'll try it again..! Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» RE: I'll try it again..! Posted by: nochicagoboys
Human Global Warming
Posted by: gellero on Jan 11, 2008 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is enough hyperpbole, distortion of FACTS, government grants for 'the industry' to make any intelligent voter suspicious of the 'Global Warming Crisis'

GLOBAL WARMING FACTS =

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» CLASSIC IGNORANCE Posted by: gellero
» RE: CLASSIC IGNORANCE Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: CLASSIC IGNORANCE [part 2] Posted by: Squarehead
» OK Posted by: gellero
» More to read.... Posted by: gellero
» RE: OK Posted by: Squarehead
» Sorry Squarehead...... Posted by: gellero
» RE: Sorry Squarehead...... Posted by: Squarehead
» The Data Posted by: gellero
» Ah.....Grasshopper Posted by: gellero
Our species is inherently delusional
Posted by: Reverend Rat on Jan 11, 2008 11:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have already passed the tipping point.

Every continent on earth suffered massive flooding last year. All unseasonal, rare, unexpected or unprecedented. The only thing that can be predicted with accuracy is the rate at which climatologists' revise their timeline for disaster.

Second week of the new year and we have had hurricane force winds across all of the pacific coast, tornados in the pacific northwest, and snow in Bagdad.

We are, as a species, adverse to accepting the magnitude of what is happening right now - and continue to project it to be a problem in the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Snow in Baghdad Posted by: gellero
» RE: Snow in Baghdad Posted by: Reverend Rat
» Prove it!! Posted by: gellero
» RE: Prove it!! Posted by: Reverend Rat
TREC-UK
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jan 11, 2008 12:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
TREC-UK

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lester Brown - Plan B
Posted by: obmit83 on Jan 11, 2008 1:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PlanB_contents.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey Asteriodminer
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Jan 11, 2008 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until you are willing to personally mine uranium, and live with the tailings and radioactive waste created by the nuclear power you love so much IN YOUR HOME, could you please stop pontificating about why we "need" this highly destructive form of energy? The vast majority of posters here are sick of your shilling for the nuclear industry and we don't believe a word you say. Go somewhere else!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hey Asteriodminer Posted by: Squarehead
750 million Indians in cars.
Posted by: aka_bozo on Jan 11, 2008 2:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting that India just announced their new $2,000 car, which will allow the teaming masses of Indians to trade up from their mopeds to something with more status.

So, while Europeans and Americans are worried about the affect of Hummers on the environment, we'll soon have 750 million Indians spewing even MORE gasses into the air.

Not to even mention what happens when 1.5b Chinese start trading up from their small cars to the Chinese F150’s.

Queue manly music, with manly Chinese males in manly hardhats strutting around a manly construction site, with a REALLY manly voice (almost) yelling: The new “Blazing Dragon” has MORE cargo capacity than any Chinese pickup on the market today!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 750 million Indians in cars. Posted by: richholland
Great !!!
Posted by: aka_bozo on Jan 11, 2008 2:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't live in the center of the USA. And, most of them will vote Republican anyway. Can we make it happen any sooner?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Opps. Posted by: aka_bozo
False Nuclear Solution in Comby Shill Book
Posted by: herbal on Jan 11, 2008 3:12 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There will not be a general public outrage on global warming until the corruption of war is past. Uranium 238 munitions are being spread all over the midEast and Bosnia and finds its way into recyled metals. War resolution needs to be the first test of Presidential candidates. What are Kyoto protocols compared with repudiation of the Geneva Accords that have been in place for generations????

There is absolutely no long term comparison between Nuclear and any other polluting source of energy. Why? The new Nuclear proponents are only short term thinkers. Can commenter 'Asteroid' (who is recycling his comment suspiciously regularly) and Nuke shill Comby take responsibility for the 146,000 year half life of the most virulently carcinogenic, Plutonium? Can the US government, the longest living Republic government in history (only 230 years) that has now come to an end, make any guarantees for waste care and safety? They are absurd to ignore the fact that all waste and toxins of radionucleides are absolutely and unavoidably cumulative. They will raise the background radiation levels worldwide. Review the research of epidemiologist, Rosalie Bertells, MD, on effects of low level radiation. Death.

The solution mainly is a social one. Mankind must take responsibility for not confusing wants with needs. Energy use must first be reduced. There simply is no excuse for promoting Nuke.

Newt needs to get busy endorsing one of the candid, anti-war candidates, Ron Paul for his party; or if he can stand to cross over it is Edwards, Kucinich or Gravel. What your excuse Newt Knute?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» US Republic Posted by: gellero
» RE: US Republic Posted by: herbal
Environmentalism: Foiled by Vanity
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Jan 11, 2008 3:42 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I got a sobering lesson vis-a-vis the seriousness the issue of environmental damage by humans is given following a post I made here several months ago. In the post, I published my email (and real name) soliciting people 'actually serious' about doing something to affect change to send me a message. One (of five) email symbolized the state of the left perfectly: the corresponded, a woman, admonished me for bad spelling (and various other typos) in my blog post and then went on to quiz me to see if I'd read the 'right books'. I replied, in effect saying I didn't see what my bad spelling and other verbal atrocities had to do with global warming, apologizing for what, I believe, is a genuine, if minor, "cognitive deficit" that I have vis-a-vis writing, and, finally, in effect accusing her of persecuting me. She did not reply.

Whatever we tell ourselves, its apparent that, for now at any rate, stopping the destruction we are doing ranks vastly lower (in practice) in the Grand Hierarchy than, as it were, looking good in the sight of God.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Foiled by Vanity Posted by: Squarehead
America is the epitome of the Christian West ...
Posted by: Cathyc on Jan 11, 2008 4:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... that's why we're fucked!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You can still leave. Posted by: aka_bozo
New Book About Global Warming
Posted by: zettybobo on Jan 11, 2008 6:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People interested in the article might also be interested in the following book.

EARTH UNDER FIRE: HOW GLOBAL WARMING IS CHANGING THE WORLD

Written and photographed by GARY BRAASCH

"The best book on global warming I've read this year."
-- Mark Hertsgaard, author of Earth Odyssey (14 December 2007)

Recommended by climate scientists on RealClimate.org (21 December 2007)

Endorsed by Bill McKibben, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Scientific American

Published October 2007 by University of California Press

Preview and link to order at http://www.earthunderfire.com

Based on an eight year project (documented at http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org), this book surveys the science behind climate change and introduces native people, lifelong observers, scientists, and others who are experiencing changes right now. Alongside Braasch's compelling words and images, essays by eminent scientists discuss the impacts of climate change on the oceans, biodiversity, fresh water, mountain cultures, plants and animals, and our health. EARTH UNDER FIRE: HOW GLOBAL WARMING IS CHANGING THE WORLD also offers an upbeat and intelligent account of how we can lessen the effects.

"Earth Under Fire is that rare book, a vivid and consequential work that needs to be held, studied, and pondered. No one who reads this can ignore our collective destiny."
--Paul Hawken, author of Blessed Unrest and The Ecology of Commerce

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chill Out, People, It's Cooling, Not Warming
Posted by: dayahka on Jan 11, 2008 8:05 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again we find the fraudsters parroting falsehoods and unscientific claims: There is no evidence of "global" warming, there is evidence of "global cooling," and there is evidence that any global cooling is not anthropogenic but solar. So, can we please, please stop this constant, hysterical alarmism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global Warming?
Posted by: Razmataz10 on Jan 11, 2008 9:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No doubt that global warming is very debated. I, however, have never heard that man is causing global cooling. For this - all I can say is that I hope that the people that believe this is natural are not wrong. But if man is causing at least part of the problem then why not do all we can. One thing not in dispute is that we cannot continue to use non-renewable sources on energy forever.
Are you familiar with the ground floor movement to take solar to the masses by a company called Citizenre? They are trying market solar with an approach similar to satellite TV, cellular telephones, and alarm systems. That is to provide the customer a complete solar system with no upfront charges and make money from a service contract. In this case the service contract would be a rent agreement. They intend to put a complete solar system on clients home. When the system produces electricity, it will lower the bill from the current utility provider. In most cases the savings from the lower bill will more than cover the rent fee that the company intends to charge. The company currently has no product available but intends to deploy in the middle of 2008. They are currently taking reservations and have over 26,000 takers so far. I have written several articles on this company in my blog and even have a couple of videos that I have recorded at www.solarjoules.com. Feel free to take a look. I welcome comments. As in any start up business, a chance exists that they may never get off the ground and fulfill any preorders, but if this is the case - the potential client has not lost anything. If you cannot afford the upfront cost of solar today, this may turn out to be a great alternative. This solution would mean that we could produce at least a little less pollution and would be a great step "just in case". And hey, the fact that you will save money on your electricity bill over time is a pretty good reason to look into it as well.
If anyone would like company information you can go to www.jointhesolution.com/razmataz.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When?
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Jan 12, 2008 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To answer the question posed by the title of the interview: when humans evolve mentally, emotionally, and spiritually to the point where we act as though 1) life is more important than money, business, or material goods aside from basic necessities like food, 2) all life (i.e., all species, the land, air, and water) gets equal consideration when humans make decisions about issues like pollution, land use, and birth control (in other words, China's got its priorities right about birth control, even though for the wrong reasons), and 3) humans stop destroying land and killing other species for mere conveniences, like artificial communication and transportation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Europe & the U.S. could meet 100% of their electricity needs from available renewable sources
Posted by: SbgBJ on Jan 12, 2008 1:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd like to make strong plea for you to learn about the German physicist Gregor Czisch’s recent dissertation, which has made the entire scientific and energy-producing world sit up and take notice.
SEE:
http://www.alternet.org/story/69888/

Its main claim: Given the political will, Europe could meet 100 percent of its electricity needs from currently available renewable energy sources within just a few years, at no cost difference to today’s fossil fuel-based system. The scenario includes the construction of a high-voltage direct current European super grid linking all countries in Europe, and the continent externally to Africa and the Middle East.

Czisch also stresses that the United States could set up such a grid even more quickly and easily than Europe.

To quote a UPI article:

"We have the technical abilities to build such a super grid within three to five years," Czisch, an energy systems modeling expert at the University of Kassel, told United Press International in a telephone interview. "We just need to commit to this big long-term strategy."

Czisch and several others call for a direct current, as opposed to today’s alternating current grid. A new high-tech grid would make sure that the fluctuating electricity generation from renewables is smoothly dispersed.

A new network of direct current power lines would be able to transport large volumes of electricity generated in one region to consumers in another, by allowing electricity to quickly flow in either direction. Resource shortages in one area could thus be absorbed by surpluses elsewhere, true to the motto: If wind isn’t blowing in the North Sea, it does in the Baltic Sea or in North Africa.
Czisch based his scenario on an intricate calculation based on detailed climate, political, economic, logistic and demographic data from all over the world. It would rely on some 70 percent wind energy, backed up by storage hydropower and biomass. "Some of the best wind capacities lie in deserted areas, such as in Siberia, Kazakhstan and the Sahara," Czisch told UPI. "And then you have the coastal region of Morocco, which has excellent wind capacities."

Photovoltaics don’t play a major role in Czisch’s scenario because they are simply too expensive and because there are other, better sources available, including solar-thermal energy from southern Spain and the Sahara, for example.

Including the cost for constructing the new power lines, Czisch estimates that under his scheme the electricity consumed in Europe would cost about 4.6 euro cents per kilowatt-hour -- about the same as the European average -- for a super grid that would meet the demands of an area spanning 50 countries and 1.1 billion people.

Other experts are optimistic that the vision can become reality.

“Gregor Czisch is the first man who checked if it is possible to produce 100 percent renewable energy electricity, and this makes it very interesting because he doesn’t just look at it from the technical side, but also from the economical side,” Peter Bielenberg, a German energy entrepreneur, recently told German broadcaster Deutsche Welle.

Czisch said he has some hopes the United States, a country with huge hydropower potential, plus wind and solar-thermal power resources, can one day take the lead, because there, the problem of coordinating such a system would be much smaller.”

Just think – a super-grid from e.g. northern Canada to the Yucatan Peninsula – America could accomplish it, too, and finally show the beneficent leadership the rest of the world is missing and sorely needs from us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not convinced about anthropogenic, catastrophic global warming
Posted by: chief of okeefe on Jan 12, 2008 4:59 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It may be warming, but the eco-nuts may be cooking the evidence.

Human activities may have some influence, maybe not. Junkscience.com makes a compelling argument to NOT. I am looking for a rational argument on the other side, instead of arrogant orders to stop thinking and believe as I am told.

As for the notion of immediate catastrophic warming, that may be true or false, but it is definitely not provable. I think it is a religious belief.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Your Comment Is Irrelevant Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
Nobody is paying me to post here.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 12, 2008 6:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Background radiation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

Background radiation is the ionizing radiation from several natural radiation
sources: sources in the Earth and from those sources that are incorporated in our
food and water, which are incorporated in our body, and in building materials and
other products that incorporate those radioactive sources; radiation sources from
space (in the form of cosmic rays); and sources in the atmosphere which primarily
come from both the radon gas that is released from the earth's surface and
subsequently decays to radioactive atoms that become attached to airborne dust
and particulates, and the production of radioactive atoms from the bombardment
of atoms in the upper atmosphere by high-energy cosmic rays. Since 1945 it also
comes from low levels of global radioactive contamination due to nuclear testing.

............shortened.............

Natural background radiation

Natural background radiation comes from three primary sources: cosmic radiation,
terrestrial sources, and radon. The worldwide average background dose for a
human being is about 2.4 mSv per year. This exposure is mostly from cosmic
radiation and natural isotopes in the Earth.

Cosmic radiation

The Earth, and all living things on it, are constantly bombarded by radiation from
outside our solar system of positively charged ions from protons to iron nuclei.
This radiation interacts in the atmosphere to create secondary radiation that rains
down, including X-rays, muons, protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and
neutrons. The dose from cosmic radiation is largely from muons, neutrons, and
electrons.

The dose rate from cosmic radiation varies in different parts of the world based
largely on the geomagnetic field and altitude.

Terrestrial sources

Radioactive material is found throughout nature. It occurs naturally in the soil,
rocks, water, air, and vegetation. The major radionuclides of concern for terrestrial
radiation are potassium, uranium and thorium. Each of these sources has been
decreasing in activity since the birth of the Earth so that our present dose from
potassium-40 is about 1⁄2 what it would have been at the dawn of life on Earth.
Some of the elements that make up the human body have radioactive isotopes,
such as potassium-40, so there is also a very small amount of internal radiation.

Radon

Radon gas seeps out of uranium-containing soils found across most of the world
and may concentrate in well-sealed homes. It is often the single largest contributor
to an individual's background radiation dose and is certainly the most variable in
the United States. Many areas of the world, including Cornwall and Aberdeenshire
in the United Kingdom have high enough natural radiation levels that nuclear
licensed sites cannot be built there—the sites would already exceed legal radiation
limits before they opened, and the natural topsoil and rock would all have to be
disposed of as low-level nuclear waste.

............shortened.............

The exposure for an average person is about 360 millirems/year, 80 percent of
which comes from natural sources of radiation. The remaining 20 percent results
from exposure to artificial radiation sources, such as medical X-rays and a small
fraction from nuclear weapons tests.

............shortened.............

Reference:
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Depleted Uranium is not a cause of cancer.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 12, 2008 7:13 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of the real causes of cancer in soldiers in the Iraq war:
1. Thick black smoke pouring nonstop out of the smokestacks
that line the Iraq/Kuwait border
2. The polluted air they lived in, the brown water they had to
use, the dust they breathed
3. Oil refineries, a cement factory, a chlorine factory and a
sulfuric acid factory, all spewing unfiltered and uncontrolled
substances into the air
4. "One day, we were walking toward the port and they had
sulfuric acid exploding out of the stacks. We were covered with it,
everything was burning on us, and we had to turn around and get
to the medics,"
Missed factors:
1. BENZENE from the crude oil. Benzene is the single most
likely cause of cancer until proven otherwise.
2. I don't know what is in the smoke from crude oil fires, but I
suspect that there could be additional toxic substances caused by
partial burning.

Clearly if the soldiers were sprayed with sulfuric acid, the
environment there is so polluted and so hostile that it isn't a fit
place for people. The problem is the lack of environmental
regulation of local industry and burning oil wells. Depleted
Uranium [DU] was available by mail order in 1981. DU is safe
to handle but not to ingest.
The soldiers and civilians who work for the army do not
conspire to injure soldiers. The soldiers and civilians who work
for the army do everything they can to make war as survivable as
possible for our soldiers. Our soldiers are often the children of
Department of the Army civilians. We use depleted uranium
ammunition because depleted uranium ammunition greatly
enhances our soldiers' chances of winning the war and surviving.
There is nothing else that works as well as DU ammunition in
tank vs tank battles. Depleted uranium has never been near a
reactor. Depleted uranium is the U238 that was separated out in
the enrichment process. Our army thinks DU weapons are green
because they prevent the repair of enemy tanks. Tank duels used
to be repeated daily for weeks as the same 2 tanks could duel
every day and get repaired every night.

DU is a chemical poison if you ingest it, but natural background
radiation is far greater than soldiers get from handling DU rounds.
Natural background radiation has always been there. More
information on background radiation is available at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
and:
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html

Soldiers should be advised to wear their gas masks and possibly
MOPP4 chemical protection suits when encountering dangerous
chemical environments of all types. The super-dusty
environment of the middle east was new to the army as of
Operation Desert Shield. We are still learning how to deal with
powder fine dusts. Since their gas mask filters were not designed
for industrial hazards, the filters may have to be replaced often
and may not be optimal for industrial hazards. People should not
allow crude oil to remain on their skin. Benzene from the crude
oil will soak through the skin and cause cancer. Soldiers should
go around rather than through puddles of crude oil. The army has
water purification equipment that should be used to prevent
having to drink polluted water.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If I had any spent nuclear fuel, I would process my food with it.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 12, 2008 7:21 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PLEASE GAMMA-RAY MY RASPBERRIES and lettuce and spinach

Gamma rays would kill the germs in spinach and lettuce as well as the mold in
raspberries.. The down side is that the corporations would use the gamma rays
as a panacea and leave the bird poop and deer manure on the spinach, unless
strictly regulated. Gamma rays are like the microwaves in your microwave oven
but shorter in wavelength. X-rays are in between light and gamma rays.
Nuclear "waste" is a good cheap source of gamma rays. X-rays would work, but
are needlessly expensive, requiring new tubes often and a lot of electricity.
Corporations would not replace the X-ray tubes often enough because they are
expensive.

I am so tired of all the "fresh" red raspberries in the grocery store being dark from
mold. Red raspberries are supposed to be light, bright red, not quite pink.
Neither the shoppers nor the grocers know what raspberries are supposed to look
like and taste like. They buy the moldy ones, thinking that darker means riper.
The dark ones lack the tartness and taste that raspberries are supposed to have.
Raspberries are very high priced because they spoil very quickly if not frozen.
So Please, seal the raspberries in air tight transparent containers and gamma ray
them within 1/2 hour of picking them. I picked and ate wild raspberries as a
child.

Likewise for strawberries.

A really bad taste thing happens to milk. A lot of the store-bought milk tastes of
the detergent the farmers use to wash the bulk tank. The detergent is very harsh
and intentionally toxic to kill germs. Detergent is a pseudo-estrogen. The fact
that the detergent is pseudo-estrogen means that it is a gender bender. It makes
boys into girls. All of the milk that comes in plastic bottles tastes like plastic. I
will not drink it. I have the advantage of knowing what milk is supposed to taste
like, having tasted milk that was still warm from the cow.

Your meat is also spiced with manure. The meat packers will slow down the
process line enough to keep the manure off of the meat when they are required to
hire legal workers. Instead, they steam treat the meat to kill the germs in the
manure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what is REALLY going on
Posted by: richholland on Jan 12, 2008 10:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I returned today from my Visarun to the poor country of LAOS.
Yearly average income $350.
since last year many many Hummers, Toyotas, Suzukis.
Youngsters on motorbikes. LAOS gets help fm the Worldbank
Why the huge promotion of vehicles in Asia?
What is really going on??
Is global warming used for politacal purpose??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Global Warming Debate
Posted by: Consumers for Christ on Jan 13, 2008 3:01 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are trying to set up a Global Warming debate forum. The issues are definitely not settled. We want to keep it all on one place, as there are a large number of arguments all over the net.

Check it out, and join if you would like to:
The Global Warming Debate

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global Warming mis-named.
Posted by: driftwolf on Jan 13, 2008 4:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, the press is generally scientifically illiterate, so the concept of "Catastrophic Global Climate Change" is probably a little harder to understand. Unfortunately, it means the nay-sayers can point to items such it being colder than ever in some parts of the world as proof that "global warming" is false.

That's because it's climate CHANGE, not just global warming. Many regions will become warmer. However, some areas will experience much more severe weather patterns, from much hotter to much colder. Storms will become more severe. Flooding will become more prevalent. So many things that the term "Global Warming" doesn't cover.

If the press could just stop trying to make complicated things simple, we might have fewer people using these simplistic models to deny that anything is happening. Unfortunately, these delays mean that less can be done to mitigate what's coming. Because it's coming. We're far beyond where we can stop it. Now we just have to figure out how to survive it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Global Warming mis-named. Posted by: Reverend Rat
Investment and Purchasing
Posted by: mfidelman on Jan 14, 2008 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm really surprised that nobody has yet mentioned the real levers that government has to wield - investment and purchasing.

Joe Biden is the only candidate I've heard point out that government purchasing standards make a HUGE difference - for example in creating the initial market for recycled paper. Increasing the fuel efficiency standards for Federal vehicle fleets would be a fairly simple step that a new administration could take that would have a huge effect.

The other area that government can do a lot in is investment, particularly in r&d. If we really want to radically change our energy infrastructure - an Apollo scale investment in technology would go a huge way toward pushing industry in the right direction. Or a a DARPA-like investment program in energy technology equivalent to that which led to the Internet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bikesnbach
Posted by: bikesnbach on Jan 14, 2008 1:23 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
National Security, the threat of Global Warming, and Renewable Energy are all tied together.
Presently, an attack on Iran, a serious revolution in Nigeria, a nutty move by Hugo Chavez, or a number of other things will push the price of oil up to 200-300 dollars per barrel and change our way of life. We can either fund a 4 million man army and try to take over the world's oil supply or we can become energy self sufficient.
If we become energy self sufficient, the cost of energy will double or triple and our lifestyles will change drastically. If we're going to go to the trouble of being energy self sufficient, we might as well spend a little extra on renewable, low carbon footprint energy.
Understand that if we push for energy self sufficiency and drop or demmand for foreign oil, the price of crude oil will go way down again.
surly old man
Denver

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New Book on Global Warming
Posted by: zettybobo on Jan 14, 2008 5:22 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
EARTH UNDER FIRE: HOW GLOBAL WARMING IS CHANGING THE WORLD

Written and photographed by GARY BRAASCH

"The best book on global warming I've read this year."
-- Mark Hertsgaard, author of Earth Odyssey (14 December 2007)

Recommended by climate scientists on RealClimate.org (21 December 2007)

Endorsed by Bill McKibben, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Scientific American

Published October 2007 by University of California Press

Preview and link to order at http://www.earthunderfire.com

Based on an eight year project (documented at http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org), this book surveys the science behind climate change and introduces native people, lifelong observers, scientists, and others who are experiencing changes right now. Alongside Braasch's compelling words and images, essays by eminent scientists discuss the impacts of climate change on the oceans, biodiversity, fresh water, mountain cultures, plants and animals, and our health. EARTH UNDER FIRE: HOW GLOBAL WARMING IS CHANGING THE WORLD also offers an upbeat and intelligent account of how we can lessen the effects.

"Earth Under Fire is that rare book, a vivid and consequential work that needs to be held, studied, and pondered. No one who reads this can ignore our collective destiny."
--Paul Hawken, author of Blessed Unrest and The Ecology of Commerce

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Moveon.org has a petition to sign on this topic.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 15, 2008 2:15 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Subject: Blackout on global warming

Click here to tell top TV reporters:
"The American public deserves to know where all the candidates
stand on the climate crisis and the solutions they propose to
address it. Asking those questions is your responsibility."


Sign the petition

In the last year, the major TV networks asked the presidential
candidates 2,679 questions. Pop quiz: How many were about
global warming?

A) 514—after all, it's one of the top issues facing the country
B) 165—as many as were asked about illegal immigration
C) 3—the same number asked about UFOs

If you guessed 3, you're right: Reporters asked as many questions
about UFOs as they did about the climate crisis—the biggest
threat to our planet.

Can you sign our petition urging top TV reporters to ask the
presidential candidates about global warming? Click here to add
your name:

http://pol.moveon.org/climatequestions/


The petition to the reporters says: "The American public deserves
to know where all the candidates stand on the climate crisis and
the solutions they propose to address it. Asking those questions is
your responsibility."

Please forward this email to your friends, family, and co-workers.

The media help decide what's an "issue" in the '08 election. Unless
climate change is on the '08 election agenda, it won't be on the
next president's agenda. And the UN's top climate expert warned:
"If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the
next two or three years will determine our future."2

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time.
And polls show that voters care about it.3 But somehow, the TV
networks never got the memo. NBC's top political reporter, Tim
Russert, didn't ask a single question about global warming last
year. Same for Sunday political show hosts on CBS and ABC.
CNN asked just 1. Incredibly, Republican-leaning Fox bested
them all with a grand total of 2.

Our friends at the League of Conservation Voters will deliver
your signature and comment directly to the TV networks at a press
conference in front of their Washington, D.C., headquarters. And
they'll use our petition signatures to prove there's public demand
for TV anchors to ask about climate change.

Sign this petition to urge TV anchors to ask about climate change.
Clicking here will add your name:

http://pol.moveon.org/climatequestions


Thank you for all you do.

–Noah, Wes, Ilyse, Justin, and the MoveOn.org Political Action
Team
Tuesday, January 15th, 2008


Sources:
1. "What Are They Waiting For?", League of Conservation Voters
http://www.whataretheywaitingfor.com/facts.html

2. "Desperate times, desperate scientists," Salon News, December
12, 2007
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/12/12/ipcc_report/

3. "Poll: Finding Their Voice as Agents of Change," Democracy
Corps, October 30, 2007
http://www.moveon.org/


Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political
Action is entirely funded by our 3.2 million members. We have no
corporate contributors, no foundation grants, no money from
unions. Our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long
way. If you'd like to support our work, you can give now at:

http://political.moveon.org/donate/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]