PDA

View Full Version : And yet they are exempt from the restrictions of the Kyoto Accords


Frogger
08-08-2007, 05:14 PM
While liberals decry the fact that the United States has not acceeded to the Kyoto Accords, something that would cripple the American economy, they ignore the fact that China is one of the world's greatest polluters and is exempt from the Accords restrictions as are most countries of Southeast Asia.





Al Gore's head in wrong kind of clouds
By Judi McLeod
Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Bubba's buddy Al Gore's got his head in the wrong kind of clouds.

While Gore works to rid the world of Thomas Edison's incandescent light bulb, while leaving his well-lighted Tennessee mansion looking like the proverbial you-know-what, a giant toxic cloud in Asia may bring floods and droughts to some two billion people.

There are storm clouds gathering around Gore's contention that greenhouse gases are the main culprits in destroying earth, as we know it.

While Gore has Democrat friends like Senator Barbara Boxer leading delegations of 10 senators on a late-July trip to Greenland "for a first-hand look at the devastating effects of global warming", it's unclear whether the Inconvenient Truth celebrity even has an inkling about the massive Asian cloud.

"Words like "awesome", "majestic" and "incredible" don't go far enough to describe what we saw as our boat rode alongside icebergs as large as coliseums. These icebergs--average age 9,000 years--have broken off an ice stream and are now melting at an astonishing rate. The entire Greenland ice sheet is 1,200 miles long by 500 miles wide and, unless we act now, this melting will lead to a catastrophic rise in sea levels," Boxer wrote in a recent press release.

Experts say some of the rivers of polluted air coming from the Asian cloud are "wider than the Amazon" and "deeper than the Grand Canyon".

"Scientists have already observed that two thirds of the 46.000 glaciers in the Himalayas are shrinking leading to increasingly severe floods downstream and eventually, to widespread drought. Greenhouse gases were previously thought to be the main cause of the problem, which threatens the sources of Asian's nine main rivers--including the Indus, the Ganges and the Yangtze. (Timesonline, August 3, 2007).

"A research team from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California says that the Asian Brown Cloud--made up of gases and suspended particles known as aerosols--is just as much to blame."

Barbara Boxer and the team of politicians she recently led on a fact finding global warming mission to Greenland, need to do their homework in Geography.

"They call it the Asian Brown Cloud. Anyone who has flown over South Asia has seen it--a vast blanket of smog that covers much of the region.

"(Scientists) say that it is causing Himalayan glaciers to melt, with potentially devastating consequences for more than two billion people in India, China, Bangladesh and other downstream countries.

"In a study published yesterday by Nature, the British journal, they say that black soot particles in the cloud are absorbing the Sun's heat and pushing up temperatures at the same altitude as most Himalayan glaciers.

"My one hope is that this finding will intensify the focus of Asian scientists and policy makers on the glacier issue," Veerabhdran Ramanathan, who led the research, told The Times. "These glaciers are the source for major river systems, so at least two billion people are directly involved in this."

The cloud is an enormous plume of smoke from factories, power plants and wood or dung fires that stretches across the Indian subcontinent, into SouthEast Africa.

The professor said that some aerosols in the cloud reflected sunlight, cooling the earth beneath in a process known as "global dimming" that is also worrying climate change experts.

Others absorbed heat radiation from the Sun because of their dark color.

As long as the toxic cloud with its black soot particles are absorbing the Sun's heat and pushing up temperatures at the same altitude as most Himalayan glaciers, Gore and company should stop measuring cow burps and blaming John Travolta's fleet of jets.

When Professor Ramanathan put his data into a computer model for climate change, it estimated that Himalayan temperatures had risen 0.25C (0.45F) a decade since 1950--twice the average rate of global warming. "If we continue to use outdated technology to achieve industrialization, this is going to get worse," Ramanathan said. "But there is some good news." Unlike greenhouse gases, which can stay in the atmosphere for 200 years, aerosols drop to the ground after two to three weeks.

"Asian countries can therefore tackle the problem relatively quickly if they find alternatives to fuels such as coal, diesel, wood and dung, which account for the majority of aerosols in the air."

"The main cause of climate change is the build-up of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels," said Achim Steiner, the United Nations under-secretary-general and the executive director of UNEP. "But brown clouds, whose environmental and economic impacts are beginning to be unraveled by scientists, are complicating and aggravating their effects."

Meanwhile, Al Gore has his head up in the clouds, but still doesn't acknowledge Asia's destructive brown one.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover080807.htm


China exporting pollution
Made-in-China massive air pollution ignored by global warming gurus Al Gore & Maurice Strong
By Judi McLeod
Friday, July 27, 2007

You’ll never hear this from global warming guru Al Gore and Canadian sidekick Maurice Strong: Massive dust plumes from China fouling air breathed in North America, are causing dramatic changes in climate.

China, in the proverbial doghouse for exporting tainted food for humans and pets, is also sending pollution of nightmare proportions through the air that we breathe.

“An outpouring of dust layered with man-made sulfates, smog, industrial fumes, carbon grit and nitrates is crossing the Pacific Ocean on prevailing winds from booming Asian economies in plumes so vast they alter the climate.” (The Wall Street Journal, July 20, 2007).

These are not occasional little puffs of air headed your way from the Orient. These are rivers of polluted air, some of them wider than the Amazon and deeper than the Grand Canyon.

Though the dust plumes sound like something out of a Hollywood thriller, they’re part of life on this planet.

“There are times when it covers the entire Pacific Ocean basin like a ribbon bent back and forth,” said atmospheric physicist V. Ramanathan of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif.

The infamous smog over L.A. is, in part made in China.

“On some days, almost a third of the air over Los Angeles and San Francisco can be traced directly to Asia. With it comes up to three-quarters of the black carbon particulate pollution that reaches the West Coast,” Dr. Ramanathan and his colleagues recently reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Polluted air choking the residents of cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco leaves a gigantic carbon footprint about which we haven’t been hearing from global warming champions Gore and Strong.

This transcontinental pollution is part of a growing global traffic in dust and aerosol particles made worse by drought and deforestation, said Steven Cliff, who studies the problem at the University of California at Davis.

The dust plumes are straight out of a pollution nightmare. They carry aerosols—airborne microscopic particles, which are produced naturally every time a breeze catches sea salt from ocean spray, or a volcano erupts, or a forest burns, or a windstorm kicks up dust, for example. They also are released in exhaust fumes, factory vapors and coal-fired power plant emissions.

The influence of these plumes on climate is complex because they can have both a cooling and a warming effect, the scientists said. Scientists are convinced these plumes contain so many cooling sulfate particles that they may be masking half of the effect of global warming.

Asia is the world’s largest source of aerosols, man-made and natural. Every spring and summer, storms whip up silt from the Gobi desert of Mongolia and the hardpan of the Taklamakan desert of western China, where, for centuries, dust has shaped a way of life. From the dunes of Dunhuang, where vendors hawk gauze face masks alongside braided leather camel whips, to the oasis of Kashgar at the feet of the Tain Shan Mountains, 1,500 miles to the west, there is no escaping it.

Once aloft, the plumes can circle the world in three weeks. “In a very real and immediate sense, you can look at a dust event you are breathing in China and look at this same dust as it tracks across the Pacific and reaches the United States,” says climate analyst Jeff Stith at the National enter for Atmospheric Research in Colorado. “It is a remarkable mix of natural and man-made particles.”

The team detected a new high-altitude plume every three or four days. Each one was up to 300 miles wide and six miles deep, a vaporous layer cake of pollutants. The higher the plumes, the longer they lasted, the faster they traveled and the more pronounced their effect, the researchers said.

One of their spin-offs is the spawning of fiercer thunderstorms. The plumes may also block more than 10 percent of the sunlight over the Pacific.

The only unsolved mystery about the giant dust plumes is why Al Gore and Maurice Strong aren’t talking about them in their double mission to save Mother Earth from global warming.

Strong, who is China’s top advisor on the environment, must know about them.

But both Gore and Strong are too busy spending time talking about the need for corporations in the West to buy carbon credits.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.”

Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself—the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C.” of which he is both chairman and founding partner.

Meanwhile, when it comes to carbon footprints, China leaves one of North America’s biggest.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover072707.htm

Phyrex
08-09-2007, 06:22 AM
Yep.

moderate
08-09-2007, 08:51 AM
Read this article at breakfast. Its seems to fit in here.

http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1250

Shilohproject
08-09-2007, 11:55 AM
We should still do our part. This sounds too much like the childhood cry: "Me? What about you?!" All parties should be good stewards of the environment, as our kids are going to inherit it. To say we don't need to be concerned because they aren't, is to put ourselves into a club that we shouldn't want to be in.

DarkFantasy96
08-09-2007, 12:02 PM
Very nice post, Shiloh. Just because someone else isn't doing the right thing doesn't mean you shouldn't have to.

Frogger
08-09-2007, 02:31 PM
The Kyoto Accords are not the way to go, Shiloh. All they would succeed in doing is crippling the Amercan economy.

When you consider units of production we are not a major pollutor. What we should do is make better scrubbers, produce cleaner burning fuels, make cars that get better gas mileage, bring back tax credits for such things as solar panels and windmills, and research alternate energy sources.

What we should not do is sign the Kyoto Accords.

Shilohproject
08-09-2007, 02:44 PM
I'm not arguing for the Kyoto Accords in particular, but rather a general sense of responsiveness. My fear, though, is that the suggestions you offer from the business end will not happen until governmant requires them. And you can bet that someone will complain that it's crippling business, to much interference from DC, or (in the case of wind power) ruining the view, etc.

Frogger
08-09-2007, 02:58 PM
So far the only ones complaining about windmills ruining their view are the Kennedys. They are all for alternate energy until it inconveniences them.

Shilohproject
08-09-2007, 03:04 PM
So far the only ones complaining about windmills ruining their view are the Kennedys. Are you kidding here, or should I look some up for you? (I recently investigated this a little for a Houston energy software firm. You'd be suprised at the communities that complain about asthetics.)

Shilohproject
08-09-2007, 03:33 PM
Here's a few interesting ones I found, home and abroad.

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_objectid=14583020&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=bellamy-leads-wind-power-protest-name_page.html


http://www.windstop.org/towerphotos.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/3500265.stm

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42549/story.htm

http://www.caledonianrecord.com/pages/top_news/story/6963766dd

moderate
08-09-2007, 03:56 PM
Are you kidding here, or should I look some up for you? (I recently investigated this a little for a Houston energy software firm. You'd be suprised at the communities that complain about asthetics.)


Agreed. It's just like new prisons, landfills, power generating plants, refineries, etc. Everyone wants them, just not in their neighborhood.

OldPhart
08-09-2007, 05:36 PM
They should build them darn windmills underground, so's we don't have to see um!
;)

Frogger
08-09-2007, 06:25 PM
Shiloh,

The thing about the Kennedys is their hypocricy. They tout windmills unless they can see them. Then they are a no no.

Darth Be'lal
08-09-2007, 07:56 PM
Shiloh,

The thing about the Kennedys is their hypocricy. They tout windmills unless they can see them. Then they are a no no.

EXACTLY. The real down to earth truth is that the U.S. is growing and we need more infrastructure. Problem is that people don't want that new infrasturcture built. Be it your examples, windmills, but there are also against nuclear power plants, trash to energy plants, coal fired plants, gas pipelines, new oil wells dug.

We should still do our part. This sounds too much like the childhood cry: "Me? What about you?!" All parties should be good stewards of the environment, as our kids are going to inherit it. To say we don't need to be concerned because they aren't, is to put ourselves into a club that we shouldn't want to be in.

Considering that mankind adds only one quarter of one percent of all greenhouse gasses emitted into the air, just how do you propose "doing our part" is going to affect earth's climate at all?

What makes me lose patience is that the idea of environmentalism went from doing things cleaner and more effeciently to not doing anything at all as far as meeting our energy needs is concerned, and I'm losing patience with it, dammit.

DarkFantasy96
08-09-2007, 09:15 PM
Considering that mankind adds only one quarter of one percent of all greenhouse gasses emitted into the air, just how do you propose "doing our part" is going to affect earth's climate at all?

If you believe that global warming is the only problem facing the environment, you are wrong. It's not even the only bad effect of air pollution (if caused by pollution).

But hey, maybe we should pave over everything to make way for parking lots, litter everywhere, and release so much pollution into the air that everyone dies of lung cancer.... Since it won't affect earth's climate at all....

Shilohproject
08-09-2007, 09:57 PM
What makes me lose patience is that the idea of environmentalism went from doing things cleaner and more effeciently to not doing anything at all as far as meeting our energy needs is concerned, and I'm losing patience with it, dammit.That is still the goal.

Darth Be'lal
08-09-2007, 09:57 PM
If you believe that global warming is the only problem facing the environment, you are wrong. It's not even the only bad effect of air pollution (if caused by pollution).

But hey, maybe we should pave over everything to make way for parking lots, litter everywhere, and release so much pollution into the air that everyone dies of lung cancer.... Since it won't affect earth's climate at all....

That wasn't my proposal at all and you know it.

I'm well aware of environmental problems, but the answers to said problems isn't raising of taxes on gasoline, dammit.

The only thing I asked was if man caused CO2 only adds a fraction of a percent of the greenhouse gasses to the atmoshpere, what is the affect of that in regards to earth's climate.

Dammit.

DarkFantasy96
08-09-2007, 10:09 PM
That wasn't my proposal at all and you know it.

I'm well aware of environmental problems, but the answers to said problems isn't raising of taxes on gasoline, dammit.

The only thing I asked was if man caused CO2 only adds a fraction of a percent of the greenhouse gasses to the atmoshpere, what is the affect of that in regards to earth's climate.

Dammit.
Call me confused, but I was under the impression that we were speaking in more general terms, and that by "do our part" Shiloh meant anything that helps the environment, like recycling and stricter laws about emissions from cars and factories. We don't have the sort of air pollution problems that Mexico, for example, does -- because we made laws requiring car companies to make cars that run cleaner.

I didn't think we were specifically speaking about CO2.

Shilohproject
08-10-2007, 05:15 PM
The only thing I asked was if man caused CO2 only adds a fraction of a percent of the greenhouse gasses to the atmoshpere, what is the affect of that in regards to earth's climate.
Maybe something about a camel, his back, and that last straw?

Frogger
08-10-2007, 06:01 PM
Rather than signing on to the Kyoto Accords there are some positive things we can do.

1. Develope alternative energy sources. Not just one alternative energy source like nuclear but many smaller source interlocked into an energy grid; solar in Arizona, tital on Long Island, hydroelectric in Colorado, wind in Chicago, geothermal, wave, nuclear, clean coal, petroleum in other places.

2. Give tax credits to companies and individuals who install energy saving devices.

3. Improve smokestack scrubbers.

4. Develope cars that get better gas mileage.

7. Give tax credits to homebuilders who increase the R factor of insulation.

There are lots of little things that can be done rather than signing on to the disasterous Kyoto Accords.

DarkFantasy96
08-10-2007, 11:20 PM
All great suggestions, Frogger! :)

BorgHunter
08-11-2007, 07:36 PM
The Kyoto Accords are retarded; the U.S. should never pass that.

We need more nuclear, wind, solar, etc. power plants, and we need biodiesel cars. All these can be encouraged through shrewd manipulation of taxes. I'm not a fan of social engineering through government, but the environment is an important exception.

Darth Be'lal
08-11-2007, 08:03 PM
Some replies.........

1. Develope alternative energy sources. Not just one alternative energy source like nuclear but many smaller source interlocked into an energy grid; solar in Arizona, tital on Long Island, hydroelectric in Colorado, wind in Chicago, geothermal, wave, nuclear, clean coal, petroleum in other places.

You hit the nail on the head with the word "develope." The U.S. is hamstrung by militant environmental regulation, the Not In My Backyard syndrome, lawsuits any time ANY sort of power plant is proposed to be placed anywhere. The U.S. can't "develop" the energy infrastructure it needs to meet demands.

You're right that nuclear power would be a great source of energy.

Clean coal technology is ready to go as is "scrubber" systems to reduce acid emmissions.

I'll add trash to energy plants. We have two in Southeastern Ct and they work just fine without stinking up the place.

Problem is that every time someone gets serious about developing new infrastructure, someone throws a hissy fit, lawsuits get filed, protests erupt, and nothing gets done. Which infuriates me.

4. Develope cars that get better gas mileage.

It's kinda like saying develope more effecient sails for boats. We've pushed the internal combustion engine technology about as far as it can be pushed. It's hundred year old technology and we've worked vigilantly to make the I.C.E. engine as fuel effecient as possible. We're running into something called the law of diminishing returns. You can take a given piece of technology, sails or car engines, work on them, make them better, but sooner or later, one winds up putting more and more effort into improving old technology for less and less return. We're there with the internal combustion engine. Right now the only option is to make cars smaller. The U.S. can mandate such fuel effeciency standards, but without America drilling for more of its own oil, it's not going to do much, dammit.

7. Give tax credits to homebuilders who increase the R factor of insulation.

That only takes us so far. America needs to develop sources of energy to meets its needs.

The tax credit thing kinda reminds me of the Carter energy crisis malaise thing where everyone thought we were going to run out of oil and the only solution was to turn down the heat and freeze. America is better than that, dammit.