Help.

[Chake99]

Yes. It's really me.

Anyways I'm currently taking civics in school like all Ontario students have to, and for every class I'm mandated to come up with something I've done as a responsible citizen.

So far I've:
--Written an email to Bush about Guantanomo
--Written and email to Paul Martin about Sudan
--Sworn to carry groceries from the convenience store in a knapsack as opposed to plastic bags
--Written an email to my conference about buy nothing day.

However for those who don remember me a problem that I'm running into is that half the online campaigns I find I don't really believe in; I'm for the most part a centrist and a small "l" liberal; for example I believe:

--Globalization is good, though corporations are screwing it up as they are inherently self-serving
--Global warming is happening, though there is not a thing we can do about it

So basically:
Any ideas to what I could do?

And I sort of know my MP (Liberal, Tony Ianno, rewarded with obscure cabinet post for being a Martin supporter), if I talked to him; what should I be complaining about?

(yes I know this is a self-centered post.)

 

[MMMike]

I don't think it is as much what you 'complain' about as the fact that you take an interest in what happens around you and make your voice heard to your elected officials.

You can go further and volunteer for your MP/MPP if you like what they stand for. Don't know if you are old enough, but you can also work on a campaign, either in a partisan capacity (scrutineer, campaign volunterr) or help run your local polling station - there are lots of positions, they can really let you see the mechanics of elections.

Another form of 'democracy' can be found in the choices you make as a consumer... Know where you shop and where the merchandise comes from. Essentially you vote with your dollar.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Any ideas to what I could do?

The first thing you can do is learn what you can do to limit global warming. Saying that there is nothing that we can do about it is just the lazy way out.

If you talk to Ianno, get him to discuss why the Liberal's Kyoto policies are so weak. Explain to him (likely using small words because they seem to have trouble comprehending) that the same technologies that will allow us to meet our Kyoto goals will reduce smog and clean up our water while producing wealth. If he mentions costs, do some research on how new technologies have always driven wealth and how fossil fuel technology in inherently wasteful, then show him that not implementing these new techologies is actually costing us money.

 

[Chake99]

Rev, I'm not saying it because its a lazy answer, it seems the only one that makes sense:

The truth is that we are going to keep burning fossil fuels until they are all gone.

All Kyoto is doing is slowing down the amount of time that the pollution occurrs over; it's the same net pollution either way, except Kyoto costs loads of money and will eliminate jobs.

It is not like we are going to find some miraculous source of new energy in the time-frame Kyoto would provide:
--hydro is cheap but has huge set up costs
--wind is inneficient
--nuclear; don't make me laugh, they're so scared of meltdowns they only run 20% of the time
--solar: suffers same faults as wind.
--hydrogen fuel cells; even more ludicrous, the only place to get hydrogen from in any quantity is water and water is already burned hydrogen. To convert water into hydrogen and back into water to get energy one would have to break the laws of thermodynamics
--fission: they actually have managed to do nuclear fission; the only problem is that it creates a huge net loss of energy.

Besides global warming was happening before the industrial revolution, (not that I deny we have an effect) so even if we reduced our emmisions to zero, there still would be global warming (albeit at a reduced rate).

Kyoto itself plans to reduce the temperature increase by something like 2 degrees over a hundred years, that is an extremely expensive 0.02 degrees per year.

The only thing that would have a large affect would be to cut off all emissions entirely; and it is not going to happen. Period.

</rant>

Understand my position?

I don't think it is as much what you 'complain' about as the fact that you take an interest in what happens around you and make your voice heard to your elected officials.

The voice has to be crying for "change!" of some "positive" sort (as defined by the teacher ) or else there are little marks in it.

 

[MMMike]

The truth is that we are going to keep burning fossil fuels until they are all gone.

All Kyoto is doing is slowing down the amount of time that the pollution occurrs over; it's the same net pollution either way, except Kyoto costs loads of money and will eliminate jobs.

Interesting way to look at it...not sure I agree. Burning of fossil fuels has tremendous costs: environmental (habitat destruction, global warming), health (smog, respiratory problems), and monetary (military costs of assuring foreign, politically unstable areas of production). We can find better, more efficient and safe ways of running our way of life - we need to start implementing solutions. Once we start making these investments, you'll see technology accelerate by leaps and bounds.

Regarding solar and wind, these are important parts of the solution - there is no single solution. Implement two-way smart meters, real time and actual cost billing.... don't need batteries anymore.

 

[Chake99]

I know there is room for improvement, and all of the suggestions you made seem to make sense.

We should indeed try and clean up our air and make it a better world, and make most of the investments you mentioned, and explore alternate fuel sources, however anything radical or done purely for the sake of the greenhouse effect is a waste of money.

The truth is, the world will be forced to switch off fossil fuels when they run out, and that is has been projected everwhere from 2004 (in 1990's) to 2035. So I definately believe it will be in my life-time. I highly doubt there is going to be any major change before that; something as big as our fossil fuel usage has to be changed by necessity.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I understand your position, Chake. I also undertand that it is flawed.

Wind is no longer inefficient. If it were, nobody would be using it. Solar technlogy is advancing all of the time. So are tidal generators. Other nations are using them to great advantage. In-ground heat pumps are another example of energy conservation, both for heating and cooling. Hydro has proven to be efficient and cost-effective in 4 Canadian provinces, although Newfoundland/Labrador has to give their profits from that to Quebec.

Hydrogen, when combined with hydroelectricity, holds massive promise. It's non-polluting and can power not only Canada, but the world. The opportunity to for BC, Manitoba, Quebec, and Newfoundland/Labrador to become as rich as or richer than Alberta is very real as a result.

The technology is improving on these technologies all of the time and the costs are coming down. In the meantime they are, and will continue, producing jobs that drive our economy.

There is one maxim about energy that you need to keep in mind. All of the earth's energy comes from the sun, everything else is just a storage system.

We also cannot afford to burn fossil fuels until they are all gone. Forget about Kyoto and air quality for a second and just consider one thing. ALL OF OUR PLASTICS ARE DERIVED FROM OIL. Burning oil is just stupid. It's the equivalent of burning the lumber you were going to build a house with.

Take an honest, open-minded look at the economic benefits not just of Kyoto, but of practical environmentalism in general. We're screwing ourselves right now.

 

[no1important]

They have electric and Hybird vehicles now, but I wonder if they could design a suitable vehicle powered by solar panels?

 

[Chake99]

I understand your position, Chake. I also undertand that it is flawed.

Awww. At least admit its rational/logical

Wind is no longer inefficient. If it were, nobody would be using it. Solar technlogy is advancing all of the time. So are tidal generators. Other nations are using them to great advantage. In-ground heat pumps are another example of energy conservation, both for heating and cooling. Hydro has proven to be efficient and cost-effective in 4 Canadian provinces, although Newfoundland/Labrador has to give their profits from that to Quebec.

Hydrogen, when combined with hydroelectricity, holds massive promise. It's non-polluting and can power not only Canada, but the world. The opportunity to for BC, Manitoba, Quebec, and Newfoundland/Labrador to become as rich as or richer than Alberta is very real as a result.

The technology is improving on these technologies all of the time and the costs are coming down. In the meantime they are, and will continue, producing jobs that drive our economy.

There is one maxim about energy that you need to keep in mind. All of the earth's energy comes from the sun, everything else is just a storage system.

We also cannot afford to burn fossil fuels until they are all gone. Forget about Kyoto and air quality for a second and just consider one thing. ALL OF OUR PLASTICS ARE DERIVED FROM OIL. Burning oil is just stupid. It's the equivalent of burning the lumber you were going to build a house with.

Take an honest, open-minded look at the economic benefits not just of Kyoto, but of practical environmentalism in general. We're screwing ourselves right now.

But the truth is, most of the methods you mentioned have no where near cost effectiveness of fossil fuels.

Yes hydrogen could be used as an efficient storage source; except for the fact that it is the bulkiest element in the universe for its weight, and the energy required to turn it to liquid form requires 1/3 of its inherent energy value; effective storage methods have been in the works for decades with no results.

Technically though, not all of our energy comes from the sun as there are geothermal sources too...

And I do know we are screwing ourselves, but Kyoto is not going to stop us from screwing ourselves, and it will cost a whole lost of money and jobs in the mean time.

I exaggerated however when I said we'd burn all of the fossil fuels; we're going to burn them until sustainable sources are the cheapest out there.

And until then we should try and do the best we can, though it should not be a matter that we hang ourselves on.

 

[Karlin]

Re: reduce the rate we burn FFs

Chake is on the path to enlightenment!

But the years and years of propaganda about fossil fuels may have influenced him too much. Many other good people have fallen for it too, don't be discouraged. You are way ahead...
BUT -
you said:

The truth is that we are going to keep burning fossil fuels until they are all gone.
All Kyoto is doing is slowing down the amount of time that the pollution occurrs over;

Ya, but thats the point, it really is.
The amount of greenhouse gasses the atmosphere can handle has a "tipping point". We passed that point somehwere in the 1980's or earlier.
If humans would just slow down the rate at which we are going to "burn all the fossil fuels that are available/exist anyways", global warming and extreme weather events will be reduced too.

I am amazed at the resistance I get to saying "we need to reduce the rate at which we are burning fossil fuels"....
... from pollution that harms our health to global warming, the problems of FFs are less when burned slowly.

How many ways can I repeat myself?
Sorry, I am passionate about this one!!
Karlin.

 

[Chake99]

Who's Blake?

I know that slowing down the burnination of all fossil fuels is better than burning them all at once, but I fail to see how it would improve the situation so much that it warrants unprecedented action.

I'm for conservation of FF, but at a certain point it becomes too much; I'm pretty sure Kyoto is over that line but that is besides the point:

What I said originally is that regardless of whatever nearly any individual does global warming will continue. And I stand by that statement.

edit: Any more suggestions to my original question? (As I doubt you people will convince me on Global Warming.)

 

[Reverend Blair]

Awww. At least admit its rational/logical

But it isn't really. It seems rational and logical because of this:

But the truth is, most of the methods you mentioned have no where near cost effectiveness of fossil fuels.

That statement is false at it's very heart though. Fossil fuels are more expensive because of costs that are never added into the price. Envirnomental and health problems are expensive. Political instability is brutally expensive. Allowing a very few privately-owned multi-nationals to control the world economy has insane price tags attached.

None of those costs are ever figured into the price of a barrel of oil.

Yes hydrogen could be used as an efficient storage source; except for the fact that it is the bulkiest element in the universe for its weight, and the energy required to turn it to liquid form requires 1/3 of its inherent energy value;

Hydrogen created and made liquid in hydro-driven plants solves those problems though...the required energy and the raw materials are just floating by anyway. Several small-footprint, even micro-footprint, hydro-run plants can provide energy and jobs.

effective storage methods have been in the works for decades with no results.

There are effective, and safe, storage methods right now though. They are being further developed, but they work as well as the ones we use for gasoline.

And I do know we are screwing ourselves, but Kyoto is not going to stop us from screwing ourselves, and it will cost a whole lost of money and jobs in the mean time.

Like I said before, this isn't true. Did automobiles increase or decrease both wealth and employment? They increased it massively. Did computers create jobs? Yes. Did the invention of the pointed stick leave cavemen better off? You betcha. Did the power loom increase jobs or decrease them? Well, Ned Ludd was kind of pissed off, but his movement failed because all of his supporters got gigs running power looms.

New technology does that. It causes upheaval, but in the long-term (usually not that long) it increases wealth.

 

[Chake99]

That statement is false at it's very heart though. Fossil fuels are more expensive because of costs that are never added into the price. Envirnomental and health problems are expensive. Political instability is brutally expensive. Allowing a very few privately-owned multi-nationals to control the world economy has insane price tags attached.

None of those costs are ever figured into the price of a barrel of oil.

Hmm... externalities...

Not sure if I agree with you totally but you may have a point.

Hydrogen created and made liquid in hydro-driven plants solves those problems though...the required energy and the raw materials are just floating by anyway. Several small-footprint, even micro-footprint, hydro-run plants can provide energy and jobs.

What is your source? They need a reality check. The truth is what your suggesting would be for the same cost approximately 33% less efficient than a traditional hydro-electric plant due to the energy factor of freezing the hydrogen.

There are effective, and safe, storage methods right now though. They are being further developed, but they work as well as the ones we use for gasoline.

Hydrogen in some ways is safer than gasoline; it doesn't stick around to catch fire so I agree with that statement. But effective? Hydrogen is the least dense element in the universe, and none of the methods they've found make the it marketable in a way competitive with other fuels.

Like I said before, this isn't true. Did automobiles increase or decrease both wealth and employment? They increased it massively. Did computers create jobs? Yes. Did the invention of the pointed stick leave cavemen better off? You betcha. Did the power loom increase jobs or decrease them? Well, Ned Ludd was kind of pissed off, but his movement failed because all of his supporters got gigs running power looms.

This argument is based off a totally false premise. A closer analogy to what is being done would be the horse-drawn carriage being outlawed before the automobile was invented; it does not leave us better off. Instead, everyone ends up having to ride inferior dog-sleds.

My analogy is an exaggeration, but I think I get the point across.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Hmm... externalities...

Not sure if I agree with you totally but you may have a point.

Check out the figures for what we spend on pollution-related index. Health Canada has a web-site. There have been a couple cases in the news about huge expenses incurred for cleaning up old gas station sites too, but if you can look up the refurbishment costs of the oldest Ford plant from a year or two ago, it will give you an idea. They put a lot of public relations spin on how green they were, but what it came down to was the bottom line.

What is your source? They need a reality check.

I've heard it Quirks and Quarks, seen it on Discovery, and it was mentioned on the Kyoto committee in Parliament by some young science guy.

The truth is what your suggesting would be for the same cost approximately 33% less efficient than a traditional hydro-electric plant due to the energy factor of freezing the hydrogen.

Yes, but the electricity is being produced right there in a stand alone plant anyway. The initial capital investment is higher, though not by 33%, but the operating costs are not because they aren't paying for the power.

Hydrogen in some ways is safer than gasoline; it doesn't stick around to catch fire so I agree with that statement. But effective?

There are already hydrogen conversion kits available for automobiles. Arnie has had his Hummer converted. The infrastructure isn't in place yet, but gas stations came after the Model A, not before it.

The equipment is being developed too. A couple years ago I was on a photo-shoot for a company that had developed a delivery system that looked very much like a self-serve gas pump. It was a working prototype.

This argument is based off a totally false premise. A closer analogy to what is being done would be the horse-drawn carriage being outlawed before the automobile was invented; it does not leave us better off. Instead, everyone ends up having to ride inferior dog-sleds.

No it isn't a false premise. The technology already exists in large part and nobody is saying that fossil fuels will be outlawed by 2015. Ten years is the life expectancy of a modern automobile. We've alredy got hybrids, electric cars and hydrogen conversion systems. GM has been running an ad telling us that their hydrogen cars are coming for the last couple of years. We've been developing solar power since the 1970s. We have an incredible amount of building technology that hardy gets used.

What jobs will be lost by converting? Not the autoworkers. They don't care whether they put fuel cells or V-8s in cars. Not mechanics, they don't care what they fix. Not the construction industry, there will be more work not less. Not the building materials industry either. Even the rig pigs will be fairly safe because we use more and more plastics every year, although the tarsands might be in trouble if the US figures out they are becoming a technological backwater.

So who will lose their jobs?

 

[Karlin]

for every class I'm mandated to come up with something I've done as a responsible citizen.

Well ok, we got away from your request in our passion for getting you straight about reducing fossil fuel useage, which you say won't happen. Fairdinkum.

You could try to re-balance the mass media's slant, their propagandist messages of corporatism. Read the book Corporate Pathology, form your opinions on it, try to figure a way to get that message - your opinion - to the masses.

Just writing a paper on how social engineering and propaganda go together , it will open people's eyes if done well. If you see corporate culture is imposed on us all with media's help, that the General Electric American Dream was foisted on society in N.A. , how The Greatest Generation [80yr olds, Boomer's parents]] was duped, how they swallowed it whole.

And how it all centres around oil....
If you can write that so it is easy to understand, it will be your civic contribution to society.

See? we want to help you out....
Karlin

 

[Chake99]

I never said I was against cutting my own emmissions, I said I had a problem with insisting on Kyoto when I am unsure if it is the best course...

And Rev, the hydrogen conversion kit you mentioned is a solar powered car that uses hydrogen as a battery:

is our solar powered Hydrogen Generator...

 

[Reverend Blair]

You should have clicked on the link, Chake.

The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit converts your existing vehicle to run on Hydrogen.
Complete kits will soon be available for various late-model cars & trucks as well as individual system components for those who choose to assemble their own kits.
Included in the kits (and also available separately) is our solar powered Hydrogen Generator that manufactures the Hydrogen fuel for your vehicle at virtually zero cost.
Simply put, you never have to buy Gasoline again.
Since there are no major changes made to your engine, you can still run your vehicle on Gasoline at any time.
We now have over 50,000 trouble-free miles on our prototype vehicles. We are currently fleet-testing our systems and are in final preparation for sales to the general public.

The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit is an intermediate approach that simply converts your existing vehicle to burn Hydrogen or Gasoline. The stock Gasoline fuel injection system remains intact and is not modified in any way. It is shut down while the Hydrogen fuel system is activated.
The Hydrogen gas is precisely metered into the air intake of the engine while the exhaust gasses are continuously analyzed for correct burn ratio.
This allows you to switch between running on Gasoline or Hydrogen at any time. The engine itself is only slightly modified, the conversion makes substantial changes to the computer & electrical system, ignition and cooling systems. Since they never have to be removed, Hydrogen fuel storage (Hydride tanks) can be installed in virtually any available space within the vehicle.

Of course BMW was touring a hydrogen-burning, internal combustion powered, sports car around the car show circuit a few years ago.

I hope that you do your homework when write these papers. I'd give you an 'F' for effort on this one.

 

[Chake99]

I did read it Rev, the quote I gave was from it, here is it extended:

Complete kits will soon be available for various late-model cars & trucks as well as individual system components for those who choose to assemble their own kits.
Included in the kits (and also available separately) is our solar powered Hydrogen Generator that manufactures the Hydrogen fuel for your vehicle at virtually zero cost.

Basically it sounds to me like that Hydrogen is stored and then burned through the engine on the flick of the switch, while the hydrogen itself is generated by electrolysis using the power of the sun:

It is just as effective as buying a solar panel and battery for your car and having a switch to go between them,

Its a good idea, but it is not something revolutionary that can replace all cars; a car running solely on this would be a slightly more efficient way to have an electrical car on batteries charged by solar panels, but with a shorter roaming range.

Of course BMW was touring a hydrogen-burning, internal combustion powered, sports car around the car show circuit a few years ago.

The main way to get the hydrogen, electrolysis, requires eletricity and thus pollutes nearly as much as normal cars (though there are sustainable sources of energy there are also coal plants which are worse than oil.)

The second way is by reforming hydro-carbons, which does not only cost energy in itself, but the process also loses some of the energy inherent in fossil fuels.

And an internal combustion engine though faster than fuel cells is extremely innefficient, its only because of the energy-density of fossil fuels that we usually don't realize this; a hydrogen car with a combustion, would burn through its fuel extremely quickly.

Even fuel cell cars with their highly efficient (though slow) engines can't compare their range to that of conventional vehicles.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Hydrogen is produced from water using electricity, Chake. It is then burned in your conventional internal combustion engine. That is not the same as:

And Rev, the hydrogen conversion kit you mentioned is a solar powered car that uses hydrogen as a battery

It doesn't matter though because there's nothing wrong with electric cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells either.

You are looking for excuses to continue using, old, inefficient, wasteful technology. If I told you that you could build a house out of straw, save money, be more comfortable, and then save on your energy costs, I have no doubt that you'd insist that it was wrong to do so because stick-frame houses use fibre glass insulation.

 

[Chake99]

Hydrogen is produced from water using electricity, Chake. It is then burned in your conventional internal combustion engine. That is not the same as:

I know that Rev, I'm not an idiot. The process is called electrolyisis which I referenced in my post; and it takes electrical energy.

The reason I said what I did is that the energy is exerted to convert water into hydrogen, and then gained by converting it back into water by fuel cells does not give you any net energy. However, the hydrogen itself is used as a storage mechanism for the energy.

Hydrogen cars are not here yet, at least in such a way to compete with conventional cars. Rev, your not going to convince me otherwise; you haven't told me anything I don't know and I have done a number of science projects on this topic.