Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
    •  
      CommentAuthormoali
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2007
     (341.1)
    So everyone in charge is f*cking up the world, and those that could sort it out are busy getting funding to make better viagra, cluster bombs or just to molest mice as regularly as they please.

    And think-tanks..like futurists they guess and they get paid to guess...the b*stards...anyway this experiment is to see if a creative group of individuals from different corners of the globe (that would be you suckers) could solve the major problems or atleast make some useful progress....its either this or organising your porn collections....

    1 - Global warming: too much farting has led to this (I think) hence we need a solution. The current idea I heard was sucking up the gases from the lower atmosphere and burying them deep down in the Earth but that sounds dodgy and doesn't get rid of the gas....

    Personally I was thinking that there must be some way to release the dangerous farts from our atmosphere into space..some sort of fancy hyper-chimney?....but that's why I'm broke...

    any better ideas?
    •  
      CommentAuthorhyim
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2007 edited
     (341.2)
    David Keith: A surprising idea for "solving" climate change
    Environmental scientist David Keith talks about a cheap, effective, shocking solution to climate change: What if we injected a huge cloud of ash into the atmosphere, to deflect sunlight and heat? As an emergency measure to...
    • CommentAuthorDuck
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2007
     (341.3)
    chimney is a lovely idea!
    we can pop it thru the hole in the atmosphere!
    using rescources there.
    xxx
  1.  (341.4)
    Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Science in the Capitol' trilogy is a good SF look at possible tech and social fixes for climate change.
    •  
      CommentAuthorARES
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2007
     (341.5)
    I think the solution to global warming is the same solution for most, if not all, of life's other problems: people need to Stop Doing Stupid Shit. At the very least it would help.

    Too broad? Perhaps. But I'll bet it would work, probably just as likely as it is that nobody buys into it.
    • CommentAuthorMusiM
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2007
     (341.6)
    Two articles:
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock

    and

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

    I just hope if the world ends the after math is more interesting to live through than watching politicians preen.

    Personally I stick to Murphy's Law on all accounts. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Sure you could blame the whole human race getting set on fire to technology, but I doubt we'd have survived this long without it. Same with trade, aka business.

    Looking at America, just because, if there is 1 car per adult here, then that's a lot of freaking cars to convert to some type of engine that farts air freshner. There's no feasible way to make or enforce that kind of immediate change. Not without some type of socialist government or dictatorship. And the simple fact is I really don't like the whole other people make me do something good. But that's just me and I do live in a country founded by pirates! ARR!!! Okay maybe they weren't pirates, but they were close enough (**cou-terrorists-gh**). Seriously tarred and feathered? What sick fuck thought that up?
  2.  (341.7)
    I fart oxygen. Just feed me lots of vegetables, and we'll be okay.
    Check this out and try and promote it if you're looking for a way to help. It's be best carbon budgeting scheme I'm aware of, and a friend of mine is putting his life energy and resources into making it work: TEQs
  3.  (341.8)
    Nanotechnology. A mechanical way of doing what plants do to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

    Then use nuclear energy.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAlan Tyson
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2007
     (341.9)
    I agree with Pete that nanotech will solve a lot of our problems, but there needs to be fixes now so that the nanotech has a chance to get rid of this crap in a reasonable amount of time.

    Firstly, SOMEBODY, I don't really care who, needs to strong-arm the Chinese, the Russians, and us wee little Americans off the path they've put themselves on - whether it's through sanctions, trade embargoes, or even stronger forms of economic warfare, somehow it needs to get done. Even if the rest of the world's population sits up straight and does the right thing, if even one of those nations doesn't, that's still a huge chunk of the planet's population releasing toxic, heat-holding farts, as we've come to call them.

    Secondly, we need to get our asses back to space. There's He3 on the moon, and that means fusion, and that means a hell of a lot cleaner energy than what we're using right now, and similarly it's much cheaper in the long run and has a much, much higher yield. The electric car? No problem. Actually, I really hope some space agency other than NASA starts some shit and, I dunno, goes to Mars or the Belt or something, so that America has no choice but to bring NASA up to the point it should have been ten years ago. In catching up, America will put itself into a wartime economy, which is good for us in almost all respects, including that unlike most wartime economy situations, oh, thousands of people aren't dying. And no, I haven't forgotten Colombia, or Challenger, or Apollo 1 - I know people die in space exploration. If it takes an independent, commercial endeavor to get us back up there, I'm OK with that, too. Go Heinlein Foundation.

    So, assuming we've done those two things, we've managed to slow the damage being caused by the three biggest culprits of Chinamart, the USSRussia, and, well, us guys. And then, we've got alternative energy going for us, and our economy is geared toward an expensive, long-term, mostly bloodless affair. Once we've done these things, by the time nanotech finally gets its costume and makeup on and comes on stage, the climate change problem will be much easier to handle than if we just wait around for it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorm1k3y
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2007
     (341.10)
    welcome to the 21st Century... everything that lead to us getting to this point of global civilsation also seems about to end it.
    industrial revolution begats climate change. colonisation, well getting all those cheap resources kinda frakked up all the natives.. each on their own unique way.

    there's so much work to be done on this planet.. and it's mostly just replacing the tech that got us this far. replacing and/or re-contextualizing it.

    take the Car, great symbol of the 20th Century. = freedom - go anywhere Mr Consumer.
    brings smog/pollution, the 'burbs, road rage and just general laziness. especially in the burbs. noone walks.

    alternatives? increased telecommuting. not everyone working from home every day, but sometimes. reduces traffic congestion, reduces road rage, reduces pollution.
    see also - urbanising the suburbs. just plan stop any more sprawling. build up, not out. increase concentration of people in the area, making everything more accessible in walking distance.

    two simple ideas that don't involve waiting for a space race or 'scientists' to create nanotech etc.

    i believe the Industrial Age was that of the One Big Solution. in the coming Post-Industrial Age we need to make it that of the Many Small Solutions.
  4.  (341.11)
    @Pete Martin "Then use nuclear energy."

    Why replace one form of pollutant with another? "In the coming Post-Industrial Age we need to make it that of the Many Small Solutions." I think this is pretty spot on, and nuclear energy is most definitely not many small solutions.
    If you don't agree, don't debate it here... read this, and then make a constructive pro-nuclear argument if you still want to.
    •  
      CommentAuthorhyim
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2007
     (341.12)
    @paul
    not to mention nuclear energy implies a government regulatory body overseeing the treatment and so-called disposal of nuclear waste. That's committing to a police state for more than 5 000 years.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2007
     (341.13)
    Let's see. Random notes:

    - Russia's way behind China and the US in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

    - In fact the third largest emitter in the world is Indonesia - because they're burning huge areas of rain forest.

    One of the big wins to come out of Bali was an agreement that the successor to Kyoto would include credits for developing countries to preserve their forests.

    - If we try to replace the current electricity from coal and natural gas with nuclear power we'll run out of Uranium in something like 50 or 60 years.

    - The problem with injecting ash into the atmosphere is two-fold.

    First, we have to keep doing it effectively forever - particles only stay in the atmosphere for a couple of years, carbon dioxide lasts hundreds of years. If we keep adding carbon dioxide we'll have to keep adding ever-increasing amounts of ash to counteract it. If we stop for any reason we'll see much of the effects of the warming from all the additional carbon dioxide we've added since we started adding ash occurring in a couple of years rather than over decades.

    Second, ash doesn't just block heat it also blocks light, reducing the amount available for plants. The Asian Brown Cloud a mix of particulates and other emissions over India and south east Asia is already believed to cut agricultual output in those countries by 10% by reducing the available light.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJoe Paoli
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2007 edited
     (341.14)
    @Hylm, quoting David Keith
    Environmental scientist David Keith talks about a cheap, effective, shocking solution to climate change: What if we injected a huge cloud of ash into the atmosphere, to deflect sunlight and heat? As an emergency measure to...

    This 'solution' amuses me. Didn't we used to be afraid of nuclear winter? That's what this is without the bombs.

    There's also the one about pumping our excess CO2 into the depths of the ocean and letting the pressure keep it there. That one just seems to me to be a disasterous idea. Yeah, let's create MORE giant oxygen-free dead zones in the ocean. Great plan. And what happens when some seafloor event causes a giant CO2 fart? Wasn't there a village somewhere in the world that was asphyxiated by a lake's underwater volcano's slow build up and sudden methane release?

    I'm hardly an optimist when it comes to human nature, but just as I think the biggest motivation against reducing our oil dependency, pollution, and CO2 output is the profit motive and consumer desire for our lifestyle, I also think that any solution absolutely must fit within that framework as well. Asimov said it best when he said that the revelation that cigarettes cause cancer didn't motivate smokers to quit so much as it fueled the desire for a cancer-free cigarette.

    A - perhaps the only - smart thing I've ever heard of George W saying was that low gas prices don't encourage people to use less gas or diversity in the fuel market, high gas prices do. Right now we are in the best possible environment for companies and individuals to innovate with biomass, wind and solar, and replacing the automobile's fossil fuel system. Every time I hear about a company like Nanosolar or Changing World Technologies I think that it's possible that a huge societal paradigm shift is on its way.

    Hell, my local library is in the middle of a renovation that includes a green roof. Why? Sure because it's right for the planet and gives them happy PR, but also because it saves them money.

    That's how we fix the world.
  5.  (341.15)
    "Sure because it's right for the planet and gives them happy PR, but also because it saves them money."

    Yes, this is exactly what people don't seem to get. Carbon Budgeting and generating your own power saves vast amounts money in the long run. It's not a matter of 'well, is the climate *really* changing, why do we have to change? Regardless of the climate, most changes that genuinely reduce global warming are positive and will create a better more stable future. Why the hell not?
    If every home were its own energy source, we'd only need a very minimal energy grid powered by numerous small unobtrusive renewable factories.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJoe Paoli
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2007 edited
     (341.16)
    @Paul Duffield
    Yes, this is exactly what people don't seem to get. Carbon Budgeting and generating your own power saves vast amounts money in the long run. It's not a matter of 'well, is the climate *really* changing, why do we have to change? Regardless of the climate, most changes that genuinely reduce global warming are positive and will create a better more stable future. Why the hell not?
    If every home were its own energy source, we'd only need a very minimal energy grid powered by numerous small unobtrusive renewable factories.
    For most people to bite though, it also has to be affordable in the short run. Whether through grants, tax breaks, economics, or banks offering loans for home power systems based on projected energy bill savings or what have you. I mean, Geothermal's cool and all, but how many decades will it take for a system that costs six figures to pay for itself? Obviously some solutions that are good for the planet aren't good for everyone.

    Though a good story I heard about helping these systems along was of a solar company in New Jersey offering large scale expensive systems to farmers. They come in to evaluate the property, and assuming it can generate subsistence power or close to it based on whatever factors, they offer to install a solar power plant on the property for free. Then they bill the farm 90% of their per-month power cost (and I assume they adjust that rate for the summer and winter months) until the system's paid off (and I assume there's some profit built in there for the company as well). At the end of the billing cycle, the farm has its own solar power system.

    Now when your monthly power bill is four or five figures, this is a pretty big win for everyone; the farm, the company, and the planet. And all you need for that economic model to work is an outfit or non-profit with enough bucks and expertise to buy, install, and maintain zero emission power plants. Surely a VC with a few mil in the bank would fund that initiative. Hell, George Clooney or Will Smith, or any of those actors who want to change the world could afford to fund one of those at no change to their lifestyle and change the world one medium-level power consumer at a time.
    • CommentAuthorMusiM
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2007
     (341.17)
    What's interesting is everyone I know in real life (not on the internet or on tv) that has a college degree in a science believes global warming is a naturally occuring cycle of the earth if anything. Everyone I know that believes in global warming the way the media presents it is pretty much everyone else. Just an interesting tidbit I noticed.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2007
     (341.18)
    "Whether through grants, tax breaks, economics, or banks offering loans for home power systems based on projected energy bill savings or what have you."

    Some utilities are now installing solar panels and charging people a small fixed fee as part of their electricity bill, spreading the cost over many years.

    The nice thing about end-point solar (i.e. stuff that's installed on homes and offices) is that utilities compare the cost of solar power or wind (around 20 cents and 10 cents per KWH respectively) with the wholesale cost of coal-fired power (usually under 5 cents and sometimes as low as 2 cents). That's not very attractive.

    But the consumer pays 20 cents or more for power to the utility once stuff like distribution and transmission losses added in. That makes solar a lot more attractive to the end user than to the utility.
  6.  (341.19)
    @MusiM "What's interesting is everyone I know in real life (not on the internet or on tv) that has a college degree in a science believes global warming is a naturally occurring cycle of the earth if anything."

    Yes, that's mightily interesting. I wouldn't extrapolate anything from it except "my college-educated friends are good at ignoring top-level peer reviewed science".
    • CommentAuthorStefanJ
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2007
     (341.20)
    Or maybe all his friends with college degrees work for Exxon?

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.