Global warming?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Pure fantasy. The powerful lobbyist of this country and group we have in Congress have ruined the political process. Nothing like that will ever happen in your lifetime.

Well, if it doesn't happen in my lifetime, then mankind will certainly be doomed, because I believe we will reach a "tilting point" of no return sometime in the next 20 years. In fact, we may have already reached/passed it. I do think we still have time to turn it around, but if we continue to ignore the problem, and we continue with all the burning of fossil fuels at the same rate we are now (and which will certainly get worse if we do nothing to stop it), then I think the tilting point will pass and humans (and other animals) will be up a creek without a paddle.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Sugarpop...you might be interested in this site. Its a competition between 20 colleges to create the most efficient and attractive solar powered house.

http://www.solardecathlon.org/

Thanks pierce!

[classicman]

Here is an interesting plan....

US Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday the Obama administration wanted to paint roofs an energy-reflecting white, as he took part in a climate change symposium in London.

But he warned there was no silver bullet for tackling climate change, and said a range of measures should be introduced, including painting flat roofs white.

My car is white - so I'm already on board - how bout you?

[Beestie]

But I only want to reflect heat when the average outdoor temp is higher than 72 degrees.

What about the other half of the year when I want the extra heat from the sun?

[classicman]

You can't always get what you want....

[TheMercenary]

SO.... we are planning our trip to LV for rugby and up pops this little choice:

Add this attraction
Select an option
Select quantity
Prices are per person
Adult

Domestic Flight $5.50
International Flight $11.00

Details: Carbonfund.org Flight Offset
Simply choose between a domestic or international flight. Your donation supports projects that reduce or mitigate carbon emissions via renewable energy, energy efficiency, or reforestation.

Carbonfund.org is the leading climate change solution provider in the United States. A 501(c)3 non-profit organization, Carbonfund.org is a mission driven organization that focuses on education, carbon reductions and offsets, and communications and outreach to individuals, companies and other non-profits. We develop innovative and cost-effective solutions that empower people to be part of the solution to climate change and hasten the transformation to a clean energy future. Our motto: Reduce What You Can, Offset What You Can't



Redemption Instructions
Thank you for purchasing the Carbonfund.org Flight Offset. This product is non-redeemable. The full value of your donation will go directly to Carbonfund.org.

Terms and Conditions
This voucher is non-redeemable, however the full value of your donation will go directly to Carbonfund.org.



Cancellation Rules
Attractions and services are non-cancelable. A Voucher has no cash value and is non-transferable. No refunds, credits, exchanges, or cancellations of a Voucher will be granted once Voucher has been issued. Refunds will not be issued for unused or partially used attractions or services. Availability and pricing for an attraction or service are subject to change without notice.

This sounds like someone has gotten in on making money off those who want to "offset" their travel. I smell a business hidding behind a 501-3(c).

[TheMercenary]

Interesting study.

Think twice about 'green' transport, say scientists

You worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint -- the emissions of greenhouse gases that drive dangerous climate change.
So you always prefer to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.

Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study.

Its authors point out an array of factors that are often unknown to the public.

These are hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple "tailpipe" tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip.

Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at the University of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.

In some circumstances, for instance, it could be more eco-friendly to drive into a city -- even in an SUV, the bete noire of green groups -- rather than take a suburban train. It depends on seat occupancy and the underlying carbon cost of the mode of transport.

"We are encouraging people to look at not the average ranking of modes, because there is a different basket of configurations that determine the outcome," Chester told AFP in a phone interview.

"There's no overall solution that's the same all the time."

The pair give an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.

Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 percent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.

By comparison, San Francisco's local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston's. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils.

The paper points out that the "tailpipe" quotient does not include emissions that come from building transport infrastructure -- railways, airport terminals, roads and so on -- nor the emissions that come from maintaining this infrastructure over its operational lifetime.

These often-unacknowledged factors add substantially to the global-warming burden.

In fact, they add 63 percent to the "tailpipe" emissions of a car, 31 percent to those of a plane, and 55 percent to those of a train.

And another big variable that may be overlooked in green thinking is seat occupancy.

A saloon (sedan) car or even an 4x4 that is fully occupied may be responsible for less greenhouse gas per kilometer travelled per person than a suburban train that is a quarter full, the researchers calculate.

"Government policy has historically relied on energy and emission analysis of automobiles, buses, trains and aircraft at their tailpipe, ignoring vehicle production and maintenance, infrastructure provision and fuel production requirements to support these modes," they say.

So getting a complete view of the ultimate environmental cost of the type of transport, over its entire lifespan, should help decision-makers to make smarter investments.

For travelling distances up to, say, 1,000 kilometres (600 miles), "we can ask questions as to whether it's better to invest in a long-distance railway, improving the air corridor or boosting car occupancy," said Chester.

The paper appears in Environmental Research Letters, a publication of Britain's Institute of Physics.

The calculations are based on US technology and lifestyles.

It used 2005 models of the Toyota Camry saloon, Chevrolet Trailblazer SUV and Ford F-150 to calibrate automobile performance; the light transit systems in the San Francisco Bay Area and Boston as the models for the metro and commuter lines; and the Embraer 145, Boeing 737 and Boeing 747 as the benchmarks for short-, medium- and long-haul aircraft.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[piercehawkeye45]

In some circumstances is the key word. Of course if we take the SUV highest potential versus mass transit's lowest potential there will be some overlap. In response to this, producing clean electricity and attempting to maximize mass transit should be the next step if serious steps are going to be taken to lower carbon output from fossil fuels.

[Happy Monkey]

Hrm.

Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 percent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.

By comparison, San Francisco's local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston's. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils.

Why even make this comparison? Few people are making the choice between taking the Boston or San Francisco light rail. It's better to compare each of them with cars, which have a much higher percentage of fossil fuel usage (100% less biofuels) than even Boston. And speaking of car vs. train:

A saloon (sedan) car or even an 4x4 that is fully occupied may be responsible for less greenhouse gas per kilometer travelled per person than a suburban train that is a quarter full, the researchers calculate.

So the car has to be fully occupied before it "may" be better than the train? Two problems with that analysis come to mind. First, I don't often see a fully occupied car or 4x4. Second, the train is going anyway. If you take it instead of the car, you are increasing the train's people-moving efficiency and eliminating the car ride.

Sure, I take the underlying point of the article that there are a lot of complicating factors, but either the study's authors or the media interpreting them are reaching a bit to sensationalize it.

[TheMercenary]

I think it has more to do with taking into account all the aspects of running rail. Anyone who has ridden on Amtrack can tell you it hardly seems "carbon neutral", whatever the hell that is to those who want to sensationalize it.

[ZenGum]

That story was reported in New Scientist. The comments thread got pretty savage on their methodology.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

The comments thread got pretty savage on their methodology.

Looks like a slug fest between Urban East Blockers and others vs the Ugly Merican over the advantanges and disadvantages of raising a family with air to breath or breathing the air of others.

[ZenGum]

Yeah, a lot at the start is on the urban/suburban lifestyle choice, but it gets more varied on the next 5 pages.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

but it gets more varied on the next 5 pages.

Ugggggg.....

I never read that far into it.:p

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Beestie

But I only want to reflect heat when the average outdoor temp is higher than 72 degrees.

What about the other half of the year when I want the extra heat from the sun?

Turn your heater on. Duh.


Bwahahahahaahahaaaaa