Kyoto Protocol

[iamcanadian]

RE: Kyoto

Some of the propaganda being repeated here I see...

Storage of nuclear waste was never a serious problem. It required the setting asside a very small parts of some more remote area to be used for this and be left beyond any other uses more or less permenently.

We have devestated millions of square miles of the planet drilling and strip mining for fossil fuels rendering vaste areas of the planet about as useful as land on the moon.

A great deal of less damage and loss of land use would have occured simply by setting asside very small isolated areas for permanent spend fuel storage. It's not like we would produce billions of tons of spend fuel to store, like we do using other forms of energy.

We have thrown vastly more quantities of volatile matrials into the environment in using and acquiring fossil fuels and all the waste products created by fossil fuel use that permanetly scar or sicken the planet more generally.

Whereas we would have contaminated small isolated areas that could be managed and controled, we have allowed the whole planet to be polluted generally from the tip of the poles to everywhere in between.

There is waste in all power generation, and in Nuclear Energy the waste is more concentrated, easier to manage and control and less harmful to the planet as a whole.

 

[peapod]

Re: Kyoto

uh huh...so they can stick the fuel rods in your back pocket than??

 

[iamcanadian]

RE: Kyoto

No they would build storage facilities next to the Reactors so that the area generating energy and creating the waste would be controled efficiently without moving it around eliminating the potential for contaminating other areas.

Much less of a problem than just one oil tanker disaster than whipes out thousand of miles of coast. Or wastes spewed in the burning oil fields in Iraq has been circling the planet since the time that the first Bush was president.

 

[MMMike]

Re: Kyoto

Nuclear Energy is and was always the cheapest and safest form of producing energy

As soon as you solve the problem of nuclear waste, let us know.

By the way, turning it into depleted uranium weapons to kill Iraqi children is not a solution.

this is like deja vu all over again. Technically it has been solved for years - it is child's play. Politically is where we are still hung up on, while we choke on emissions from other sources. I agree nuclear is a big part of the solution. The other part is more decentralized, green sources of power such as wind, solar, geothermal etc...

 

[#juan]

Re: Kyoto

I think nuclear waste can be isolated and controlled. I also agree that fossil fuels have a much greater negative impact. Oil refineries are in themslves an ecological hazard. Strip mining for coal in Alberta and B.C. has turned huge areas into moonscapes. Fossil fuels are almost completely to blame for the global warming in the first place. The destruction of the world's rainforests that absorb carbon from the air is another factor.

Canada is a huge, wealthy, country with a temperate, to cold climate. We use, among other materials, fossil fuels, to heat our homes, produce electricity, and to power various and sundry modes of transportation. We burn a lot of fossil fuel and as it stands right now, global warming will do us in long before the nuclear waste will be a problem.

Global warming is a global problem that all countries must address.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: Kyoto

Global warming is a global problem that all countries must address.

absolutely..........as in "global"...

It matters little who creates more problems etc.....as eventually all are affected. ......If the nations were identical in size and industrial out put/ green gas emissions.....etc then it would not be a factor. Some realism should come into play.

this is one issue the whole planet can wrap itself around as a common project....and goal.

( but it seems we gotta wait for some nations--one in particular - to get enlightened or MATURE a little before that happens. )

Politics and attitude are the biggest deterences from progress. They listen to no one ......not even scientific data. ( most of them can't understand science anyhow........as they are still caught in "belief " systems as opposed to rational scientific data.)

 

[#juan]

Re: Kyoto

Ocean

The U.S. would have joined, if they could have had a veto...

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: Kyoto

Ocean

The U.S. would have joined, if they could have had a veto...

exactly....... as then they could keep jerking the group around.

(sound a tad cynical??? Truthfully.......I am.. Have seen the US jerk nations, people around for far too long now...(yep.......getting a tad long in the tooth now :wink: .they have to be in "control" one way or another...... All about power/control )

 

[Karlin]

Re: RE: Kyoto

The general public of the plannet has been the victim of an energy scam that started some 50 years ago.
.

I took out the nuclear energy quote so I could focus on that part of your quote.

Actually, it started about 100 years ago. There was an arguement over whether agri-based oils or "crude oil" [fossil fuels] would be the source of fuels.

It come from the Agrarian VS Industrial society juncture. The people wanted agrarian, the Elites said Industrial. We got industrial, and all its horrible consequences.
This actually goes back to the Civil War - its was fought over Agrarian -the South - VS Industrial powers of the north.

Or so I read here:

http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn11-18.html

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html

http://www.ratical.com/corporations/index.html


[/url]http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/ ok, I didn't find the exact article, but I looked real hard. Its there somewhere, lol Karlin

 

[jimmoyer]

RE: Kyoto

The industrial revolution wasn't caused by elites but rather entrepreneurs who initiated the inventions, the ideas, the mass assembly factories.

A lot of things arise up. Look where all the best ideas come? Often little companies. Not big corporations. Not all powerful elites.

You beat the drum of this mantra of the elites until you no longer analyze where the real tectonic changes originate.

Check out Hegel's Dialectic, one of the guys Karl Marx read.

 

[iamcanadian]

RE: Kyoto

Karlin,

You jumped over my point and went on another tangent.

The scam was the one putting down Nuclear Power so that fossil fuels could take market share of energy sales.

Everything was economic. The public was easier to fleece with fossil fuels that with cheap nuclear.

Supply and demand. Nuclear was held back by bullshit propaganda to raise the price of other energy. I bet all those raising concern over building reactors in the 60s and 70's where being funded by oil companies.

 

[gd]

RE: Kyoto

I think its worth a try to reduce immisions.

Though I don't like it how Bliar, Tony Blair does a speach then goes ahead with the extention of Hethrow airstrip.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Kyoto

Karlin,

You jumped over my point and went on another tangent.

The scam was the one putting down Nuclear Power so that fossil fuels could take market share of energy sales.

Everything was economic. The public was easier to fleece with fossil fuels that with cheap nuclear.

Supply and demand. Nuclear was held back by bullshit propaganda to raise the price of other energy. I bet all those raising concern over building reactors in the 60s and 70's where being funded by oil companies.

Although after the 70's, Chernobyl (sp) and other incidents scared people. With good reason.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Kyoto

Although after the 70's, Chernobyl (sp) and other incidents scared people. With good reason.

CANDU reactors are the safest around though, Said. The chances of an accident at one leading to a Chernobyl-like, or even Three-Mile Island-like, disaster are miniscule. There is a bit of a push to adopt cheaper and less safe US-designed reactors, and we should steer clear of those.

That makes the remaining problem nuclear waste. Contrary to what people on here have said there is not an accepted solution to that politically nor in the scientific community.

 

[Said1]

Re: Kyoto

Although after the 70's, Chernobyl (sp) and other incidents scared people. With good reason.

CANDU reactors are the safest around though, Said. The chances of an accident at one leading to a Chernobyl-like, or even Three-Mile Island-like, disaster are miniscule. There is a bit of a push to adopt cheaper and less safe US-designed reactors, and we should steer clear of those.

That makes the remaining problem nuclear waste. Contrary to what people on here have said there is not an accepted solution to that politically nor in the scientific community.

My comments were inline with iamcanadian's with respect to common propaganda against nuclear energy. Although I am for development of this option, I'm also not convinced it's the safest as of yet either, but not totally terrified of exploring new technologies in the future.

 

[jimmoyer]

RE: Kyoto

The French, I think, are on the forefront of nuclear technology, having it supply 80 percent of its needs, selling some of its waste for ammunition makers of depleted uranium, and exporting its technology to any customer. But their reactors might be some of the safest ones, being newer and in their exports also being newer ?

 

[Colpy]

RE: Kyoto

I have to post here. This is not a topic that I can pretend to know anything much about, but I just watched Question Period on CTV, and I saw something amazing.

I watched Brad Lavigne, an NDP strategist, praise the Bush administration for holding the line on greenhouse gas emmissions, while Canada's emmissions went up by 24%.

That's an NDP strategist, not the "right wing" National Post.

HMMMMMMMM

Over to you, Rev.

 

[iamcanadian]

RE: Kyoto

The numbers of lives lost or health adversly effected by Chernobyl or ThreeMile island was nothing compared to the death and health losses from mining, refinning and using and transporting fossil fuels like gasoline and coal.

the difference is like one part per million. We would need one million reactors everywhere to begin approaching the health and safety risk we live with instead burning fossil fuels that must have killed million ove the last 50 year

I am certain that the per capita death count from energy production for nuclear power is not measurable along side the same for every other form of energy production.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

Have you seen me praising Martin's record on the environment? Nope.

No matter what Lavigne said, the reduction in ghg emissions from the US do not come from the environmental policies of the Bush administration, but from cities and states enacting programs and the mess that Bush has made of the US economy.

Imagine how much better the US would have done without Bush getting in the way. Imagine how much better Martin would have done if he could not have made the excuses about trade.

Now imagine how much worse we would have done if we had the science-denying Harperites clinging to obsolete technologies.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Kyoto

Have you seen me praising Martin's record on the environment? Nope.

No matter what Lavigne said, the reduction in ghg emissions from the US do not come from the environmental policies of the Bush administration, but from cities and states enacting programs and the mess that Bush has made of the US economy.

Imagine how much better the US would have done without Bush getting in the way. Imagine how much better Martin would have done if he could not have made the excuses about trade.

Now imagine how much worse we would have done if we had the science-denying Harperites clinging to obsolete technologies.

I have a couple of problems here, Rev.

It is my understanding that the US economy is booming.

Bush didn't get in the way much, if the US has done so much better than Canada.

I don't understand the trade reference.

And, you have to admit Martin's attack on the USA was incredibly hypocritical. I know you never defended him, but you have attacked the US on this issue.