BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Pros and cons of Fossil Fuels: AGW included-
Page 1 2 3 4 

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Pros and cons of Fossil Fuels: AGW included-
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
-Climate conferences cause envirodegradation-

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's widely criticized withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol ends a decade-long saga that began in earnest when former President George W. Bush walked away from the global climate change treaty in 2001.

The close links between the two economies, and the fact the United States has a population almost 10 times larger than that of Canada, meant that Ottawa ultimately felt it had to follow Washington's lead and ignore the diplomatic fallout.

"That's the reality. If the Americans move we'll move in lock-step with them because of the integrated nature of the economies," said Fen Hampson, director of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa.

Canada is the largest supplier of oil and gas to the United States and sends 75 percent of its exports south each month. Even though the right-of-center ruling Conservatives are closer ideologically to the Republicans than the Democrats, they rarely differ with the Americans on major economic issues.

Echoing complaints by Washington, Canada's Conservative government - a firm backer of the energy industry - insists that Kyoto is no use in the battle against global warming because it does not cover major emitters such as China and India.

"There's not going to be traction on climate change until the Chinese and the Americans and the Indians decide that they really want to do something," Hampson told Reuters.

"The (Canadian) government saw this dead cow wasn't moving so they pulled the plug on it," he said.

Canada, which made the announcement immediately after two weeks of talks that extended Kyoto, says it is ready to negotiate a new deal covering all major polluters. Whether other nations are interested in talking to Canada is another matter.

"At the multilateral level, who will ever think we're a trustworthy nation again? ... We will be seen as a country that deals in bad faith," said Elizabeth May, leader of Canada's Green Party, referring to Monday's announcement.

Even so, diplomats questioned whether Canada would suffer immediate fallout from its decision, given existing doubts about the usefulness of Kyoto and a crisis gripping the European Union, the treaty's biggest backer.

Paul Heinbecker, a top diplomat who helped negotiate Canada's accession to the protocol, told Reuters that Canada should have stayed in Kyoto and helped negotiate a new deal.

"How do we now tell other people that they have to live by the next one if we pull out of the first one?" he said.

Yet he too blamed Bush for Kyoto's main challenges.

"In my judgment the person who really torpedoed this whole enterprise was George Bush. Had the Americans participated ... by now there would be enormous pressure on the Chinese and the Indians to be accepting targets," he said.

Bush's move in 2001 caused big problems for Canada's then-Liberal government, which was stuck with the need to curb emissions while facing complaints from industry groups that the proposed cuts would give U.S. competitors an unfair advantage.

In 2002, Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said ratifying Kyoto would cut gross domestic product by up to 2.5 percent by 2010.

The Liberals, themselves split over Kyoto, produced a widely panned strategy in 2002.

"Part of the plan rested on having new North American standards for cars and with George Bush in the White House that wasn't going to happen," said John Bennett, executive director of the Sierra Club Canada.

The Liberals played for time and did not produce a credible plan until 2005. In early 2006 they lost power to the Conservatives, who made clear they would ignore the Kyoto commitments and eventually decided to pull Canada out.

The Canadian government's current plan, which would cut emissions by 17 percent of 2005 levels by 2020, is almost identical to the strategy of President Barack Obama.

Yet Ottawa's Kyoto move might hamper Obama's push to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, according to one critic.

"If this international process is going to take a very long time ... why would we be imposing these Obama regulations on the economy that would devastate it for no gain?" said Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for Senator James Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate's environment committee and a long-time climate skeptic.

Polls show Obama faces a tough fight to win another four-year term in the White House in a November 2012 election.

(With additional reporting by Timothy Gardner in Washington; Editing by Frank McGurty)
.. ..
.Play Video.
Bush visits Zambia orphans
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
As far as I know there is no viable technology to significantly reduce CO2 emissions from coal fired or gas fired plants, so big reductions in CO2 would mean shutting down about 80% of the electricity supply. Any attempts at significant CO2 abatement would cost billions and result in electricity prices skyrocketing. Expensive energy is one of the main factors hurting the world's economy.

How would you suggest significantly reducing CO2 emissions, and how would you get countries like Russia, China, and India to comply?



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Obama's Christmas gift to America

A very pleasant surprise; I didn't think he had it in him. This should significantly reduce pollution, and piss off a lot of rich folks. Good for him to finally do something presidential.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
yup- oilshocks for addicts?
TEHRAN/DUBAI (Reuters) - The U.S. Fifth Fleet said on Wednesday it would not allow any disruption of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, after Iran threatened to stop ships moving through the world's most important oil route.

"Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any disruption will not be tolerated," the Bahrain-based fleet said in an e-mail.

Iran, at loggerheads with the West over its nuclear program, said on Tuesday it would stop the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf if sanctions were imposed on its crude exports.

"Closing the Strait of Hormuz for Iran's armed forces is really easy ... or as Iranians say, it will be easier than drinking a glass of water," Iran's navy chief Habibollah Sayyari told Iran's English-language Press TV on Wednesday.

"But right now, we don't need to shut it ...," said Sayyari, who is leading 10 days of exercises in the Strait.

Analysts say that Iran could potentially cause havoc in the Strait of Hormuz, a strip of water separating Oman and Iran, which connects the biggest Gulf oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. At its narrowest point, it is 21 miles across.

But its navy would be no match for the firepower of the Fifth Fleet which consists of 20-plus ships supported by combat aircraft, with 15,000 people afloat and another 1,000 ashore.

A spokesperson for the Fifth Fleet said in response to queries from Reuters that, it "maintains a robust presence in the region to deter or counter destabilizing activities," without providing further details.

A British Foreign Office spokesman called the Iranian threat

"rhetoric," saying: "Iranian politicians regularly use this type of rhetoric to distract attention from the real issue, which is the nature of their nuclear program."

SANCTIONS

Tension has increased between Iran and the West after EU foreign ministers decided three weeks ago to tighten sanctions on the world's No. 5 crude exporter, but left open the idea of an embargo on Iranian oil.

The West accuses Iran of seeking a nuclear bomb; Tehran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

The Iranian threat pushed up international oil prices on Tuesday although they slipped back on Wednesday in thin trade.

"The threat by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz supported the oil market yesterday, but the effect is fading today as it will probably be empty threats as they cannot stop the flow for a longer period due to the amount of U.S. hardware in the area," said Thorbjoern bak Jensen, an oil analyst with Global Risk Management.

The Strait of Hormuz is "the world's most important oil chokepoint," according to the U.S. Department of Energy. About 40 percent of all traded oil leaves the Gulf region through the strategic waterway.

The State Department said there was an "element of bluster" in the threat, but underscored that the United States, whose warships patrol in the area, would support the free flow of oil.

France urged Iran on Wednesday to adhere to international law that allows all ships freedom of transit in the Strait.

Iran's international isolation over its defiant nuclear stance is hurting the country's oil-dependent economy, but Iranian officials have shown no sign of willingness to compromise.

Iran dismisses the impact of sanctions, saying trade and other measures imposed since the 1979 Islamic revolution toppled the U.S.-backed shah have made the country stronger.

During a public speech in Iran's western province of Ilam on Wednesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad implied Tehran had no intention of changing course.

"We will not yield to pressure to abandon our rights ... The Iranian nation will not withdraw from its right (to nuclear technology) even one iota because of the pressures," said Ahmadinejad, whose firm nuclear stance has stoked many ordinary Iranians' sense of national dignity.

Some Iranian oil officials have admitted that foreign sanctions were hurting the key energy sector that was in desperate need of foreign investment.

Though four rounds of the U.N. sanctions do not forbid the purchase of Iranian oil, many international oil firms and trading companies have stopped trading with Iran.

"SHOWING THEIR TEETH"

The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action if sanctions fail to rein in Iran's nuclear work.

An Iranian analyst who declined to be named said the leadership could not reach a compromise with the West over its nuclear activities as it "would harm its prestige among its core supporters."

As a result, he said, "Iranian officials are showing their teeth to prevent a military strike."

But he added that closing the Strait of Hormuz would harm Iran's economy, undermining the Iranian leadership ahead of a parliamentary election in March.

The election will be the first litmus test of the clerical establishment's popularity since the 2009 disputed presidential vote, that the opposition says was rigged to secure Ahmadinejad's re-election.

The vote was followed by eight months of anti-government street protests and created a deepening political rift among the hardline rulers.

With the opposition leaders under house arrest since February and the main reformist political parties banned since the vote, Iranian hardline rulers are concerned a low turnout would question the establishment's legitimacy.

Frustration is simmering among lower- and middle-class Iranians over Ahmadinejad's economic policies. Prices of most consumer goods have risen substantially and many Iranians struggle to make ends meet.

(Writing by Parisa Hafezi and Myra MacDonald; Editing by Alison Williams)
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Not much of the oil for the USA goes through this strait anymore.

This military posturing is mainly for the rest of the world.

It's not like Zero gets on the phone and tells the Navy to send a carrier into this body of water or that body of water.

The way it works is that the services and the Joint Chiefs prepare certain options and certain recommendations and the president may or may not sign off of them depending on their importance.

Point being that if the ship is in the SOH it’s because the Navy itself worked out a plan to do this - not because Zero thought it up on the golf course.

The implication is that battle group is going to fool around in the strait and directly oppose the Iranian exercises.

What it doesn't say is that the Stennis and it's escorts were transiting the strait - headed south. They are headed out of the Persian Gulf. They are getting out of the bathtub, out where they have some "sea room" to spread out and form their protected "bubble" maybe even declare a maritime exclusion zone around the battle group etc. Bottled up in the gulf, yes the Stennis would be hard pressed just defending the group. With room to maneuver she is a genuine threat that can take the offensive.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Not much of the oil for the USA goes through this strait anymore. About 10% goes to America.

However, any interruption will be an excuse for the speculators to increase "world oil prices", and an excuse for the petroleum retailers to increase your cost at the pumps, even when your country's oil supply isn't hindered. That's how the petroleum casino works. Heads they win, tails you loose.

This military posturing is mainly for the rest of the world.

It's not like Zero gets on the phone and tells the Navy to send a carrier into this body of water or that body of water.

The way it works is that the services and the Joint Chiefs prepare certain options and certain recommendations and the president may or may not sign off of them depending on their importance.

Point being that if the ships are there it’s because the Navy itself worked out a plan to do this - not because Zero thought it up on the golf course.

The implication is that battle group is going to fool around in the strait and directly oppose the Iranian exercises. What it doesn't say is that the battle group were transiting the strait - headed south. They are headed out of the Persian Gulf. They are getting out of the bathtub, out where they have some "sea room" to spread out and form their protected "bubble" maybe even declare a maritime exclusion zone around the battle group etc. Bottled up in the gulf, yes the Stennis would be hard pressed just defending the group. With room to maneuver she is a genuine threat that can take the offensive.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
"The deployment of U.S. military assets in the Persian Gulf region will continue as it has for decades," Little said in a written statement. "These are regularly scheduled movements in accordance with our longstanding commitments to the security and stability of the region and in support of ongoing operations."
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
poking the US in the eye.”

That’s because the bulk of US imports, which are about 9 million barrels of oil per day, come from places such as Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Africa, and Europe. Also, with a stockpile of more than 700 million barrels of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the US could draw down from it over 466 days at a rate of 1.5 million barrels of oil per day.

By comparison, the US imports about 1.8 million barrels of oil a day from the Middle East – about 1.1 million barrels from Saudi Arabia.
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
Not much of the oil for the USA goes through this strait anymore.

This military posturing is mainly for the rest of the world.

Point being that if the ship is in the SOH it’s because the Navy itself worked out a plan to do this - not because Zero thought it up on the golf course.


-Point being the reason the USN has a base in the gulf is because of geopolitical control of an oil bearing region; add those costs to fossil subsidies.
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
U. WASHINGTON (US) — Stop wrangling over global warming and instead reduce fossil-fuel use for the sake of the global economy.

That’s the message of a commentary in the journal Nature in which scientists say the economic pain of a flattening oil supply will trump the environment as a reason to curb the use of fossil fuels.

“Given our fossil-fuel dependent economies, this is more urgent and has a shorter time frame than global climate change,” says James W. Murray, professor of oceanography at the University of Washington.

http://www.worldweatherpost.co...g-gone/#.T0sKRXrJnz0

-from an earlier post on this thread:

The US embassy cables
WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia cannot pump enough oil to keep a lid on prices

US diplomat convinced by Saudi expert that reserves of world's biggest oil exporter have been overstated by nearly 40%
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
.....But here's the main takeaway: Demand for oil is pushing up against supply limits, and that's a permanent condition. From now on, demand is always going to be bumping up against supply limits because even if supply rises a bit in the future, demand is rising even faster. And when supply and demand are that tightly constrained, every small bump in demand or disruption in supply causes a big swing in prices. Last year it was the war in Libya that caused a price spike. This year it's Iran. But it's always going to be something. It doesn't take much anymore to produce a $30 swing in oil prices.
http://motherjones.com/kevin-d...2/02/gasoline-prices
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
WMD's eh?

The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. Those numbers will continue to soar when considering often overlooked costs such as long-term obligations to wounded veterans and projected war spending from 2012 through 2020. The estimates do not include at least $1 trillion more in interest payments coming due and many billions more in expenses that cannot be counted, according to the study.(www.costsofwar.org)
http://www.reuters.com/article...dUSTRE75S25320110629
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Gas prices would soar:

According to ABC News, about 20 percent of the oil traded worldwide passes through the Persian Gulf, bordered by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

If Israel were to bomb Iran, and there was to be a pro-longed battle, some analysts are projecting oil prices could hit $175 - $200 a barrel.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs...-iran-214350455.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7xb584oRO8
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Pandas and Pipelines- The new board game from Harper Brothers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...wddseM&feature=share

and more Canadiana//
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...=1&feature=endscreen
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
"Oil prices at current levels are so high that it's not consistent with a sustained economic recovery."

The U.S. SPR, the world's largest strategic reserve, can hold as much as 727 million barrels of light oil, equivalent to just over a month of U.S. daily consumption.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/exclu...urces-022953143.html
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
We should be using clean, abundant domestic natural gas for almost all of our fuel needs and only use oil for fuel where natural gas won't work, such as aircraft. Using dirty polluting fuels like coal is criminally irresponsible.

Power plants in America emitted 134,365 pounds of mercury pollution in 2009, according to the new Environment America report, 'Dirty Energy's Assault on Our Health: Mercury.' The report found that power plants in just four states - Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia - are responsible for over 35 percent of all mercury pollution from power plants in the United States. In the late 1990s the estimates for coal-fired plants stood closer to 50 tons or 100,000 pounds, so Americans have been living through a 30 percent increase in the past decade or so. Mercury plays no part in sustaining human life. It is a dangerous and volatile heavy metal that can devastate every aspect of human physiology and even collapse the sulfur bonds in insulin. Signs of mercury poisoning include dementia, skin disorders, heart disease, muscle weakness and has been linked to the onset of autism and diabetes in some cases.

The number of asthma cases in the U.S. has doubled since 1980, and now affects 1 in 10 children, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One of the major underlying causes -- emissions from coal-fired power plants, boilers and car tailpipes -- continues to flow mostly unabated, even as the Environmental Protection Agency struggles to regulate the fossil fuel industry and defend itself against right-wing critics who question the agency's agenda -- even its existence -- during this time of fiscal constraint.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Oh fer Christ's Sake!
You're still not going to drivel on with your anti coal Crusade are after being shown up to be such a Hypocrite on the subject earlier in this very thread.

Next thing you'll be back to your " clean, safe, wonderful nuke fuel" BS.

Coal like amny other things may not be perfect but for the moment, it beats the arse off a LOT of alternatives, Nuke being the first on the list.

I'm sure we all look forward to the day we can run the world on Sunshine and rainbows but until that day comes, we'll have to make the do with the best and truly safest methods we can that don't leave all sorts of problems for the future generations.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ttommy:
Oh fer Christ's Sake!

as requested:
http://restoringeden.org/getin.../protect/coal-energy



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Indeed it's a waste of beautiful clean natural gas using it to melt the tar out of the sands- Here is the perfect application for thermo nuclear technology-
Cheers!
Harald
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Public policies to combat exaggerated risks can dangerously delay or reverse the economic development necessary to improve not only human life but also human stewardship of the environment. The poor, who are most often citizens of developing nations, are often forced to suffer longer in poverty with its attendant high rates of malnutrition, disease, and mortality; as a consequence, they are often the most injured by such misguided, though well-intended, policies.
http://www.cornwallalliance.or...nmental-stewardship/
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4  
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Pros and cons of Fossil Fuels: AGW included-

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014