This is critta's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following critta's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
critta
Recent Activity
Where do you get $33 a barrel from Harvey? Everything I've read puts it at more than double that. Remember this is tar sands and not oil reserves, requiring enormous inputs to process. For all our sakes and for the planet's future I hope these forecasts are wrong. We have to leave this toxic stuff in the ground
In the words of a famous rugby league commentator "shut the gate, the horse has bolted".
Good news for rich corporations, bad news for local environoments and global climatic stability. you have got to be joking HarveyD. The Canadian national government and tar sands oil development are an abomination.
My personal interest in EVs here in Victoria, Australia went down when I found out that with our wonderful brown coal power generation, an EV is responsible for more GHG emissions than a Ferrari. I guess I could solve the problem by paying the premium for green power.
Interesting comments on peak oil. Why do you think people are drilling in 5km of ocean and another 3km of rock for relatively small amounts of oil? This would not be happening if the easy to obtain, cheaply produced oil was still available.There have been no super-giant fields discovered in decades. The oil may be there but the overriding question is whether it is economical to produce.Once the energy retrurned on energy invested ratio gets too low, as in most (unsubsidised)biofuels, you can forget about it. Global oil producation plateaued about five years ago in the face of increasing demand. US demand may be going down but China and India's is ever-increasing. As for climate change, there are so many factual errors above I wouldn't know where to start. All I can say is form your views based on the specialists, like National Academies of Sciences, not random comments on this forum.
They are frightening maths SJC and even more scary when you add in India. You and every other poster assume that the energy is available, in one form or another, for everyone in the world to live as westerners do now. This is clearly not the case. The Pentagon has commissioned research that predicts resource wars as we reach peak oil in the near future. China, India and Brazil will not eaily give up the right to a western lifestyle just so we can live in the wasteful manner we are accustomed to. The picture on coal is not nearly so rosy as some posters seem to think. Miners are laready digging up lower grade coal because the high grade stuff is gone. Just because a resource exists doesn't mean it is economical to produce. Here in Australia a coal mine expansion is being challenged in the courts because it will compromise our greenhouse gas targets. Both here and in the US, new coal fired power plants are unable to find finance because banks see them as too risky.
Sorry Reel, Apparently every major Academy of Science in the world is 'eccentric' for accepting the science behind human-induced climate change but you are not. Rejection of climate change science is based in right-wing political ideology not science.Why do you think it is strongest in the US where this ideology has its home?
Well said, Harvey D. I'm from Australia but we have no reason to gloat as we have the worst rate of species extinction in the world and plenty of our own social ills. Cap and trade is an elegant system but it has to be well designed and regulated otherwise it will be rorted (eg. Europe). I think people don't like it because they don't understand it. All it does is level the playing field so that polluters have to pay a penalty for greenhouse gases that the whole world has to deal with. It provides an incentive for everyone to clean up their act. Far better than picking winners with individual technologies. As for the climte change deniers, reasoned debate and explanation never worked in the past so no point in wasting you time.
Why bother posting Goracle when your posts are always the same and you obviously have no interest in green cars? What makes you think anyone is interested?
MahonJ and Kelly, the 3008 is already on sale in Australia, but evidently not in the US. It is being sold with petrol and diesel options. The hybrid must be coming later. It is definitely in the compact SUV class. Too small for my family, not that I would buy an SUV anyway due to the inherent inefficiencies associated with the shape and extra weight.
I have no idea what you're talking about a.b but then I suspect you don't either. Planning for carbon neutrality is a good thing even if there are some 'stretch' goals involved. You can't hit a target if you don't know what that target is.
Oil is irreplaceable as a transport fuel. Energy used for uranium mining and transport and the massive construction requirements of nuclear power plants must come from somewhere. A simple transfer from fossil fuels to nuclear and renewables is not possible. Are you going to build nuclear powered trucks and freight trains? We have to reduce the overall amount of energy used in the economy, something no one wants to hear. As for peak coal, the cornucopians always miss the point that the easiest and most profitable reserves are mined first. New technology helps but sooner or later you get to the point when the energy required to extract the coal is so great that it's no longer profitable. At the rate we are burning through coal reserves it's not surprising we're getting to that point sooner rather than later.
They will have no problems selling forty in Australia. Government departments and corporate fleets looking for green marketing will pick them up in no time. Car share schemes are starting to take off here in inner city Melbourne. i-MIEV's would be ideal in apartment complexes where a car share system is set up. Easy to install charging, cheap to run and useful for short trips to shops, concerts etc. The sprawling suburbs in US and Aus desperately need a reasonably priced EV or PHEV with a decent range. It will be interesting to see how the Volt sells in both countries. Unfortunately we are so dependent on coal-fired electricity in Australia that there may be minimal savings in pollution.
You run the same line on every post about CO2 emissions reduction Sulleny, as if you think if you say it enough it might come true. Meanwhile, the science for human induced climate change is irrefutable and action becomes more and more difficult. The objections to climate change action come from fossil fuel lobby groups, short-sighted politicians and ideologues not from bona fide scientists with expertise in the field. many are starting to say that it's already too late. At least the UK is doing something, even if it's sometimes underwhelming
The lobbyists have learnt well from the campaign to disparage the science around the link between smoking and lung cancer. You don't have to disprove the science of human induced climate change just create the impression there are doubts around it and the public lose confidence. Scientists generally aren't good publicists and can't compete with the suave presentation of the fossil fuel lobbyists. Unfortunately action on climate change requires government regulation and that also taps into the rich vein of paranoia about big government, taxes etc. Smart regulation could allow for transition to a low carbon economy at minimal cost while creating a whole new employment sector. Even the sceptics grudgingly admit that clean, breathable air is a positive result of moving away from burning fossil fuels.
China is also spending up big in Africa, especially Sudan because they need to secure oil supplies. It's a great opportunity when you have no qualms about human rights abuses. Even the EIA now recognises that peak oil is coming soon. It's heartening to see that EV technology is developing fast. All we need to do after that is ensure the electricity is coming from non-polluting sources. Easier said than done.
The fact that the basic facts of the post are being argued with shows that the sceptics don't care about the science. High school chemistry tells us that CO2 is absorbed by water to form a weak acid, carbonic acid. More CO2 inthe atmosphere equals lower ph. Measurement and observation tell us that it's happening Are you planning to go and live in the Maldives Esabre? I think not. I live in Australia and we are being hit hard by climate change, living in a fool's paradise doesn't help anyone
I know facts don't count for much here but the rebranding of 'global warming' to 'climate change' was actually initiated by a spin doctor working for George Dubya Bush. Climate change was seen as less scary and confronting for the public.I expect to see you correct this in future Goracle. Interestingly, the same spin doctor was initially a climate change sceptic but is now campaigning for action on climate change in the US. I'm with Tim Flannery in that I wish the sceptics were right and climate change science was just a massive conspiracy but part of being a grown-up is that you have to face difficult truths and deal with them.
Exciting move by Touota. I disagree that the limited range would be a big problem. Most car trips are short and urban. Since when did taxis become the biggest merket for PHEVs? As for Stan and co.,I already realise you know better than the world's climate scientists, politicians etc. The opinions of a few right wing crackpots and retired grumpy old scientists hold far more weight.
I am so sick of people trying to make out scientific research as if it is some kind of gravy train. Some research may be well funded but it doesn't go into the scientist's pockets. Surely well-funded research is a good thing as it improves the quality of the work. There aren't many scientists driiving around in Ferraris. The so-called climategate is ridiculously blown out of proportion but there will always be people that want to argue that black is white. I don't care unless they become President or Prime Minister. Climate change denial is a head in the sand sideshow. It's time to move on.
Copy and paste don't make an original post Goracle. Let us know when you have something original or susbstantive to say.