Global Change in the Carbon Age

[Jerome Marot]

Combine all the automobiles ,trucks, trains, boats, and planes on the planet and transportation exhaust is responsible for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

That figure is valid for the whole world, but the figure for the USA is 27%.

 

[James Lemon]

That figure is valid for the whole world, but the figure for the USA is 27%.

Jerome

According to the pie chart electricity consumption produces more emissions than transportation. I can't see electric automobiles making a positive contribution.

James

 

[Jerome Marot]

I can't see electric automobiles making a positive contribution.

I can. 27% of the greenhouse gas emission is a sizeable percentage, a saving in that will show. Then, of course, the USA should also derive less of its electricity from coal. That may make a larger contribution, which does not mean increasing the efficiency of cars is unneeded.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, James,

According to the pie chart electricity consumption produces more emissions than transportation. I can't see electric automobiles making a positive contribution.

That doesn't seem to follow.

I would think the question is: if we replaced x fossil-fuel burning vehicles with electric vehicles, and thus reduced the emissions from the vehicles themselves by a certain amount, and reduced the emissions from the refineries while producing their fuel by a certain amount, how does that reduction in emissions compare to the increased emissions from power plants in the course of generating the additional electrical energy used by the new vehicles.

Now I have no idea. But I don't think the fact that currently the amount of emissions from electrical power generation is greater than the emissions from existing vehicles gives us any idea of the answer.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[James Lemon]

Hi, James,



That doesn't seem to follow.

I would think the question is: if we replaced x fossil-fuel burning vehicles with electric vehicles, and thus reduced the emissions from the vehicles themselves by a certain amount, and reduced the emissions from the refineries while producing their fuel by a certain amount, how does that reduction in emissions compare to the increased emissions from power plants in the course of generating the additional electrical energy used by the new vehicles.

Now I have no idea. But I don't think the fact that currently the amount of emissions from electrical power generation is greater than the emissions from existing vehicles gives us any idea of the answer.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug

Building electric cars is more toxic to the environment than building a conventional car. It would depend on how the electricity is produced and in what country? Most of it is hype! Regardless of that, if green house gases are being released at unprecedented rates as Jerome has alluded to. Then I would conclude that this is only a Band- Aid solution. People who buy them should be made aware of what it is exactly that they are buying.

James

 

[Tom dinning]

Doug

Building electric cars is more toxic to the environment than building a conventional car. It would depend on how the electricity is produced and in what country? Most of it is hype! Regardless of that, if green house gases are being released at unprecedented rates as Jerome has alluded to. Then I would conclude that this is only a Band- Aid solution. People who buy them should be made aware of what it is exactly that they are buying.

James

You seem well informed, James. I wonder why those involved in the decision making don't listen to you.
Let's face it, the planet is in many ways, on the exponential path to destruction with regard to population, energy consumption, space, food, economic growth. As a species, we cannot possibly continue on this path indefinitely. Short term and long term is relative. Currently I'd suggest short term as the time between elections, wars, revolutions, natural disasters and tax returns. Long term seems more liberal on the surface but in the big picture it isn't. Is 100 years a long term outlook? I'll be dead by then and it won't matter. Al other organism don't even consider tomorrow as a possibility.
Nevertheless, we may well be band-aiding all aspects of our survival. The end product of any exponential equation will result in the extinction of humans. We are not immune from that although some of us might think we are.
Perhaps the genetic code will survive in one form or another. Who is to know. There is no external influence who can intervene in our destruction. Nature will take its own course. That which dominated the planet in the past have long since passed into the fossil records. We will do the same. This is just a passing phase in the history of the universe. The very suggestion that we are infallible is rediculous.
All the arguments in the world, informed or ill informed will not alter the course of natural forces.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Building electric cars is more toxic to the environment than building a conventional car. It would depend on how the electricity is produced and in what country? Most of it is hype! Regardless of that, if green house gases are being released at unprecedented rates as Jerome has alluded to. Then I would conclude that this is only a Band- Aid solution. People who buy them should be made aware of what it is exactly that they are buying.

So, what do you suggest we do?

 

[James Lemon]

You seem well informed, James. I wonder why those involved in the decision making don't listen to you.
Let's face it, the planet is in many ways, on the exponential path to destruction with regard to population, energy consumption, space, food, economic growth. As a species, we cannot possibly continue on this path indefinitely. Short term and long term is relative. Currently I'd suggest short term as the time between elections, wars, revolutions, natural disasters and tax returns. Long term seems more liberal on the surface but in the big picture it isn't. Is 100 years a long term outlook? I'll be dead by then and it won't matter. Al other organism don't even consider tomorrow as a possibility.
Nevertheless, we may well be band-aiding all aspects of our survival. The end product of any exponential equation will result in the extinction of humans. We are not immune from that although some of us might think we are.
Perhaps the genetic code will survive in one form or another. Who is to know. There is no external influence who can intervene in our destruction. Nature will take its own course. That which dominated the planet in the past have long since passed into the fossil records. We will do the same. This is just a passing phase in the history of the universe. The very suggestion that we are infallible is rediculous.
All the arguments in the world, informed or ill informed will not alter the course of natural forces.

Tom

Thank you for your well organized assessment! I am reasonably sure that many would agree with you. But in the meantime is it business as usual? What about sustainable development? Sounds like a great challenge and does offer some hope for folks. Is the glass half empty, half full, or is the glass just too big?

James

 

[James Lemon]

So, what do you suggest we do?

Jerome

I will respond.

James

 

[Tom dinning]

Tom

Thank you for your well organized assessment! I am reasonably sure that many would agree with you. But in the meantime is it business as usual? What about sustainable development? Sounds like a great challenge and does offer some hope for folks. Is the glass half empty, half full, or is the glass just too big?

James

Yup. Sustainable development is a great idea. Limit population growth to zero or even negative in some areas, reduce industrial growth, energy consumption, co2, No2, Ch4 emissions, allow diseases to take tier natural course and wipe out a portion of the population from time to time.
Try that on a political platform and see where you get.
Humans are still under the assumption that we are God Given. What a rediculous idea. We are here because we evolved thus far. We can reason. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to extend to the inevitability of over crowding, continued industrial expansion and the effects of shitting all in the one place.
There is no glass for us to consider. We are ****ed. It might take a few hundred years but we are ****ed. Like any monoculture we cannot survive on our own. We need food, oxygen, energy and space.
If we continue to develop in any way there won't be enough.
The big problem seems to be that we rationalism whatever we do by stating that life will be better. But for who and how many? The maths just doesn't figure if the population continues to grow at any rate.

I'm OK with all of this. I figure I have 10 years left. What happens after that is none of my business, nor is it under my control. I'll leave behind my pile of ****, the same as everyone else. It's a small pile. Smaller than some, bigger than others.

Unless you can cross the ethical gap and start reducing population growth or even current population, everything is unsustainable.

Bacteria have figured it out. Why can't we.

 

[James Lemon]

So, what do you suggest we do?

Jerome

The economic growth of China over the last 30 years is mind boggling. They are a heavy consumer of coal and now that they are the industrial workshop of the world they are literally polluting themselves to death. I would think by reducing their huge reliance on coal would be a #1 priority. however as it stands they will be reliant on coal for quite some time into the future.

Regions like India an South Asia will be increasing their consumption of coal in the immediate and foreseeable future. The U.S., China, and India produce about 70% of the worlds coal. China and India also import coal to meet demand. Burning of coal would appear to be a huge problem?

Livestock and their by products account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.Methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 on a 20 year time frame.Methane has a global warming potential 86 times that of CO2 on a 20 year time frame.

Essentiality if the world stopped burning coal and simply changed their diets that would pretty much solve the problem. Vertical growing has lots of potential.

James

 

[Tom dinning]

Jerome

The economic growth of China over the last 30 years is mind boggling. They are a heavy consumer of coal and now that they are the industrial workshop of the world they are literally polluting themselves to death. I would think by reducing their huge reliance on coal would be a #1 priority. however as it stands they will be reliant on coal for quite some time into the future.

Regions like India an South Asia will be increasing their consumption of coal in the immediate and foreseeable future. The U.S., China, and India produce about 70% of the worlds coal. China and India also import coal to meet demand. Burning of coal would appear to be a huge problem?

Livestock and their by products account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.Methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 on a 20 year time frame.Methane has a global warming potential 86 times that of CO2 on a 20 year time frame.

Essentiality if the world stopped burning coal and simply changed their diets that would pretty much solve the problem. Vertical growing has lots of potential.

James

Till ignoring population growth, James?
Never mind. We'll both be dead.
How long do you think it's going to be before the world puts out the coal and gas fires?
Who provides the food to areas of famine, flood and infertile soils?
Already we rely on distribution of food from one country to another. Don't you think it might be a great source of hostility when one country has more than the other and won't give it up?
Perhaps we could all shoot our pets. Now there's an idea.
Here I am recycling my garbage and the collectors just dump it in a big hole because it's cheaper to do that than to do something with it.
How much energy is consumed in the production of wine, beer and cheese? Why do we bake flour into bread?
We could all eat like cows. No, sorry, they'll be abolished. Same with sheep for wool production.
Let's not forget about steel production, or do we go back to bark huts?
Then there's all those plastics.
How do we get about? Cars become electric. Do aero planes also run on batteries? Or boats?
The problem about going forward is that we might need to go backwards first and I can see how agreeable the planet will be with that.
China did something about their population growth and the rest of the people on the planet went burzerk. The pope still hasn't gotten around to contraception yet.

Cmon james. You're a smart man. Come up with something that might be worthy of your insight.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Jerome

The economic growth of China over the last 30 years is mind boggling. They are a heavy consumer of coal and now that they are the industrial workshop of the world they are literally polluting themselves to death. I would think by reducing their huge reliance on coal would be a #1 priority. however as it stands they will be reliant on coal for quite some time into the future.

Then you should be pleased to read that China is reducing its consumption of coal and is massively investing in renewables:
http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/01/china’s-decline-coal-consumption-drives-global-slowdown-emissions
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/05/15/432141/everything-think-know-coal-china-wrong/

Regions like India an South Asia will be increasing their consumption of coal in the immediate and foreseeable future. The U.S., China, and India produce about 70% of the worlds coal. China and India also import coal to meet demand. Burning of coal would appear to be a huge problem?

India will indeed miss their commitment to reduce CO2 emissions. Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam are not doing much better.

https://www.ft.com/content/18268438-2e3e-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a
https://www.iea.org/publications/insights/insightpublications/reducing-emissions-in-fossil-fired-generation---indonesia-malaysia-and-viet-nam.html

Livestock and their by products account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.

Not really. Total emissions from global livestock: 7.1 Gigatonnes of Co2-equiv per year, representing 14.5 percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions. Cattle represent about 65% of the livestock sector’s emissions. I agree that eating less meat and less dairy products would be beneficial, though.

http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/

Methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 on a 20 year time frame.Methane has a global warming potential 86 times that of CO2 on a 20 year time frame.

Yes, but the methane is counted within the above figures, which are "Co2-equiv".

https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html

For the USA:

Essentiality if the world stopped burning coal and simply changed their diets that would pretty much solve the problem.

It seems to me that you are suggesting that China, India and the rest of Asia stop generating electricity so that North Americans can still enjoy driving low-milage cars. The simple truth is that all countries will have to curb their emissions.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Till ignoring population growth

Apparently, all we need is more TV series: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/09/girl-power/gorney-text

Here is what to do if you wish to curb population growth in a country: introduce electricity and television at the same time in much of the nation's interior, a double disruption of traditional family living patterns, and then flood the airwaves with a singular, vivid, aspirational image of the modern family: affluent, light skinned, and small. At least, that is what happened in Brazil. The new Brazilian fertility rate is below the level at which a population replaces itself. It is lower than the two-children-per-woman fertility rate in the United States. In the largest nation in Latin America—a 191-million-person country where the Roman Catholic Church dominates, abortion is illegal (except in rare cases), and no official government policy has ever promoted birth control—family size has dropped sharply over the past five decades.

 

[Tom dinning]

Apparently, all we need is more TV series: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/09/girl-power/gorney-text

Here is what to do if you wish to curb population growth in a country: introduce electricity and television at the same time in much of the nation's interior, a double disruption of traditional family living patterns, and then flood the airwaves with a singular, vivid, aspirational image of the modern family: affluent, light skinned, and small. At least, that is what happened in Brazil. The new Brazilian fertility rate is below the level at which a population replaces itself. It is lower than the two-children-per-woman fertility rate in the United States. In the largest nation in Latin America—a 191-million-person country where the Roman Catholic Church dominates, abortion is illegal (except in rare cases), and no official government policy has ever promoted birth control—family size has dropped sharply over the past five decades.

A blackout from time to time will counteract this. Perth had one a few years back. Shut down the city. Guess what's? Nine months later a spike in the birth rate.
Same thing happened in Darwin recently. Good thing it was too hot to ****, although the NCCTRC is on standby just in case the maternity ward overflows.

According to data, the growth has certainly slowed in some areas of the planet. That will help delay the inevitable. If we are going to make a difference the effort needs to be concerted, considered and expansive. If that clown the US calls president stops tweeting and does something that might help the planet instead of his ego, the place might extend its life by a few years. Then again, the weather might wash the place away and the rest of us can get on with business.

 

[James Lemon]

Till ignoring population growth, James?
Never mind. We'll both be dead.
How long do you think it's going to be before the world puts out the coal and gas fires?
Who provides the food to areas of famine, flood and infertile soils?
Already we rely on distribution of food from one country to another. Don't you think it might be a great source of hostility when one country has more than the other and won't give it up?
Perhaps we could all shoot our pets. Now there's an idea.
Here I am recycling my garbage and the collectors just dump it in a big hole because it's cheaper to do that than to do something with it.
How much energy is consumed in the production of wine, beer and cheese? Why do we bake flour into bread?
We could all eat like cows. No, sorry, they'll be abolished. Same with sheep for wool production.
Let's not forget about steel production, or do we go back to bark huts?
Then there's all those plastics.
How do we get about? Cars become electric. Do aero planes also run on batteries? Or boats?
The problem about going forward is that we might need to go backwards first and I can see how agreeable the planet will be with that.
China did something about their population growth and the rest of the people on the planet went burzerk. The pope still hasn't gotten around to contraception yet.

Cmon james. You're a smart man. Come up with something that might be worthy of your insight.

Tom

No ! I will respond to you.

 

[James Lemon]

Then you should be pleased to read that China is reducing its consumption of coal and is massively investing in renewables:
http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/01/china’s-decline-coal-consumption-drives-global-slowdown-emissions
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/05/15/432141/everything-think-know-coal-china-wrong/



India will indeed miss their commitment to reduce CO2 emissions. Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam are not doing much better.

https://www.ft.com/content/18268438-2e3e-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a
https://www.iea.org/publications/insights/insightpublications/reducing-emissions-in-fossil-fired-generation---indonesia-malaysia-and-viet-nam.html





Not really. Total emissions from global livestock: 7.1 Gigatonnes of Co2-equiv per year, representing 14.5 percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions. Cattle represent about 65% of the livestock sector’s emissions. I agree that eating less meat and less dairy products would be beneficial, though.

http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/



Yes, but the methane is counted within the above figures, which are "Co2-equiv".

https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html

For the USA:

It seems to me that you are suggesting that China, India and the rest of Asia stop generating electricity so that North Americans can still enjoy driving low-milage cars. The simple truth is that all countries will have to curb their emissions.

Jerome

I am suggesting that they use other cleaner burning hydrocarbons as much as possible instead of coal. China may be curbing their appetite for coal but it will take another 40 years. You don't think it is a good idea for them to be using liquid natural gas or oil instead of coal? The point is that coal consumption is going up in the immediate future not down.

 

[Jerome Marot]

A blackout from time to time will counteract this.

Brasil certainly has occasional blackouts yet the population is decreasing. So: no, Tom, it will not be sufficient to counteract the infinite power of the telenovelas.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Jerome

I am suggesting that they use other cleaner burning hydrocarbons as much as possible instead of coal. China may be curbing their appetite for coal but it will take another 40 years. You don't think it is a good idea for them to be using liquid natural gas or oil instead of coal? The point is that coal consumption is going up in the immediate future not down.

There is only so much natural gas and oil, so that would only be a short term solution. Besides, China certainly is switching from coal to oil, at least partially.

Pardon me for asking: do you work for the oil industry yourself?

 

[Tom dinning]

Jerome

I am suggesting that they use other cleaner burning hydrocarbons as much as possible instead of coal. China may be curbing their appetite for coal but it will take another 40 years. You don't think it is a good idea for them to be using liquid natural gas or oil instead of coal? The point is that coal consumption is going up in the immediate future not down.

Reasonable estimates based on current usage suggest 70 years of oil and 50 years of gas left.
That should see out my grandson.
Not sure what they'll burn after that.
Maybe nuclear will be the only option. Solar might be fine for some but we'll need a lot of space for that. Wind takes up a lot of space as well.
As long as countries push for industrial development and make silly things like fidget spinners and bed cushions I don't see a long term solution here either. Long term meaning at least another 1000 years. After all we need to give time for the return of Christ before Armageddon hits us. I hope he packs a lunch. There may not be enough food around.

 

[James Lemon]

Till ignoring population growth, James?
Never mind. We'll both be dead.
How long do you think it's going to be before the world puts out the coal and gas fires?
Who provides the food to areas of famine, flood and infertile soils?
Already we rely on distribution of food from one country to another. Don't you think it might be a great source of hostility when one country has more than the other and won't give it up?
Perhaps we could all shoot our pets. Now there's an idea.
Here I am recycling my garbage and the collectors just dump it in a big hole because it's cheaper to do that than to do something with it.
How much energy is consumed in the production of wine, beer and cheese? Why do we bake flour into bread?
We could all eat like cows. No, sorry, they'll be abolished. Same with sheep for wool production.
Let's not forget about steel production, or do we go back to bark huts?
Then there's all those plastics.
How do we get about? Cars become electric. Do aero planes also run on batteries? Or boats?
The problem about going forward is that we might need to go backwards first and I can see how agreeable the planet will be with that.
China did something about their population growth and the rest of the people on the planet went burzerk. The pope still hasn't gotten around to contraception yet.

Cmon james. You're a smart man. Come up with something that might be worthy of your insight.

Tom

I have not formed an opinion on the matter but I have heard of this argument before. Not everyone has a micro wave oven, custom kitchen, and a color television.

High income countries like the United States, Canada, western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia,
New Zealand and a few other parts of the world add up to about 1 billion of roughly 7 billion people on the planet. If you consider GDP per capita of high income, mid income, verses extreme poverty, who do you think pollutes more? Although China is the worlds biggest emitter of green house gases China emits about 6.2 tons of C02 per person while the United States emits 17.6 tons of C02 per person.

When oil reaches $150.00 per barrel you will see a damper on coal and the global economy will come to a screeching halt and thus more localized economies.

I don't have any pets and I refuse to stay in hotels that allow them. Why would you want to recycle worthless garbage? Oh yes I forgot that we need to separate the plastic. Do you think smart cars will need signal lights?

There is nothing innovative about solar energy and wind power its been around for decades.



James

 

[James Lemon]

There is only so much natural gas and oil, so that would only be a short term solution. Besides, China certainly is switching from coal to oil, at least partially.

Pardon me for asking: do you work for the oil industry yourself?

Jerome

I think there is more to it that, however, I do not work for the oil industry.


James

 

[Tom dinning]

Jerome

I think there is more to it that, however, I do not work for the oil industry.


James

There is more but not much. You might get a few more km out of the car if you convert to LPG.
Read my reply. The predictions are based on google standards, by which we now measure all research, so it seems.

 

[Tom dinning]

Tom

I have not formed an opinion on the matter but I have heard of this argument before. Not everyone has a micro wave oven, custom kitchen, and a color television.

High income countries like the United States, Canada, western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia,
New Zealand and a few other parts of the world add up to about 1 billion of roughly 7 billion people on the planet. If you consider GDP per capita of high income, mid income, verses extreme poverty, who do you think pollutes more? Although China is the worlds biggest emitter of green house gases China emits about 6.2 tons of C02 per person while the United States emits 17.6 tons of C02 per person.

When oil reaches $150.00 per barrel you will see a damper on coal and the global economy will come to a screeching halt and thus more localized economies.

I don't have any pets and I refuse to stay in hotels that allow them. Why would you want to recycle worthless garbage? Oh yes I forgot that we need to separate the plastic. Do you think smart cars will need signal lights?

There is nothing innovative about solar energy and wind power its been around for decades.



James

I was being sarky, James. Not that you didn't notice. Might I suggest, before you sort out your opinion, you consider all the consequences. Not much point in pulling the plug on the TV if the whole street goes out.

When Newcomen threw coal into the fire to run his steam engine in 1712 he and the rest of the world knew they were on a good thing. unfortunately they didn't know much about chemistry, geology, the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect.

Things got a bit out of hand. Industrialization brought about population growth, colonialisation and high finance.

We haven't yet tamed the genie. Not even close. We've reached a point where not only do we need to stop what is happening, but reverse many aspects of it. That requires a global shift in our thinking.
Unfortunately, the bloke with the flash car doesn't want to walk, the Indian in the forest still want to feed his kids, the greenie still wants elephants to roam freely and I still want it to rain on my petunias.

What would you do without, James?

 

[Jerome Marot]

JI think there is more to it that, however, I do not work for the oil industry.

I thought you said once in an earlier post that you were an engineer and worked on pumps for the oil industry, hence my question. But maybe it was another member.

What "more to that" is there, in your opinion? What do you mean?

 

[Jerome Marot]

Solar might be fine for some but we'll need a lot of space for that. Wind takes up a lot of space as well.

The shift to renewables is actually happening today for some developed countries. For example, Germany, which is densely populated (so: not much space), heavily industrialised (so: high energy consumption by inhabitant) and does not have lots of sun or lots of wind generates about 7% of its electricity by solar power and 14.4% by wind power. This is actually a bit lower than the EU average:

On that chart, Iceland sits at the top, but they literally sit on the tip of a volcano. Electricity generation in Norway is almost entirely from hydroelectric power plants. Norway ranks 15th in world oil production, just before Kazakhstan or Quatar.

 

[Michael Nagel]

Speaking of Germany, the statistics are online and frequently updated.

Here you have an overview including solar wind and conventional plus import/export balance (negative values indicate exportation).

A more detailed view breaks it down to more ways of generating electricity.

The capacity of solar energy is increasing in Germany.
As it is generated during daytime - work-time for most - the excess production could be used to recharge electric cars (or other vehicles) at the workplace.
Why at the workplace? The time would be sufficient and the electric grid has usually more reserves at the places where most people work while it is too close to the limit at many residential areas to cope with several cars charging in parallel.

Just a few thoughts...

 

[Asher Kelman]

The capacity of solar energy is increasing in Germany.
As it is generated during daytime - work-time for most - the excess production could be used to recharge electric cars (or other vehicles) at the workplace.
Why at the workplace? The time would be sufficient and the electric grid has usually more reserves at the places where most people work while it is too close to the limit at many residential areas to cope with several cars charging in parallel.

Just a few thoughts...

Very smart thoughts, Michael.

Leverage patterns that exist!

Asher

 

[James Lemon]

Reasonable estimates based on current usage suggest 70 years of oil and 50 years of gas left.
That should see out my grandson.
Not sure what they'll burn after that.
Maybe nuclear will be the only option. Solar might be fine for some but we'll need a lot of space for that. Wind takes up a lot of space as well.
As long as countries push for industrial development and make silly things like fidget spinners and bed cushions I don't see a long term solution here either. Long term meaning at least another 1000 years. After all we need to give time for the return of Christ before Armageddon hits us. I hope he packs a lunch. There may not be enough food around.

Tom

I think Thorium Nuclear power will be a sign of things to come. Maybe science will discover a way to reproduce a polluted water molecule or a spent gas molecule into a new fresh one?

Depending on where they're made, the panels need to produce emissions-free electricity for quite a long time to make up for the greenhouse gases generated by their manufacturing. Their components, which include several so-called conflict minerals, are often mined in countries with weak health and safety regulations. Doesn't sound like a great solution to me, if it were it would have been done years ago.

James

 

[James Lemon]

I thought you said once in an earlier post that you were an engineer and worked on pumps for the oil industry, hence my question. But maybe it was another member.

What "more to that" is there, in your opinion? What do you mean?

Jerome

I am not sure what you are referring to. I cant quite put my finger on it but it would appear to me that the atmosphere problem is not being addressed as well as it could be. We continue to waste good resources that could be used in a more efficient manner. You think its a good to make transitions such as building **** loads of solar panels using coal rather than more efficient hydrocarbons?

James