Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is an expression of the view that mankind is only capable of doing the cheapest, most expedient thing, no matter what the other costs might be.
I don't share that view. And I don't think examples of the opposing view are hard to find. I think it's possible to inspire the various peoples and nations of the world to do the best thing, although it takes strong, forward thinking leadership to accomplish.
The IPCC report to the UN this week projects that not more than 1/3 of the world's known reserves of fossil fuels can be burned before the environment we all depend on for life is irreversibly altered.
How much that kind of scientific research will change the trajectory of current events is unknown as yet, but when leaders are confronted by local evidence of environmental damage, such as the blinding air pollution recently in Chinese cities, they are beginning to take meaningful action. China is now putting environmental concerns ahead of sheer economic growth on a national level. To me the idea that they might become a world leader in environmental action is ironic, but possible, if their leadership stays this new course. Then they could become a real influence over the path other emerging nations take.
We didn't leave the stone age because we ran short of cheap rocks.
We found coal and we'll spend billions upon billions to find ways to make it less dirty although that is an effort in futility.
The countries that now use so much of it have a hard time listening to the hypocrisy that they should not burn coal when those telling them not to built their industries and economies doing the same thing.
It is little different than telling the South American countries that deforestation is a danger to the environment only after other countries have harvested their native forests to the point very little remains of what once was.
I don't think it is hypocrisy to openly and honestly say "we did not known then what we know now." But I do think it is the responsibility of the most developed countries to lend substantial support to emerging countries to choose environmentally sound practices as they strive to move their economies forward.
One technology which might make a substantial difference if it proves successful in full scale implementation is CCS - Carbon Capture and Sequester. The premise is that if the CO2 released by burning coal can be captured, and sequestered from release into the atmosphere, it will help resolve the most pressing issue with burning issue. There are other issues, obviously, but this is the one that is top of the pile. And even if it is not a permanent solution, it could be a significant transitional technology.
Nobody knows yet if CSS will work on a large scale, but two large projects seem poised to answer that uncertainty. One is a $1.5 Billion refit of an old coal-fired generator facility in Sakatchewan. It will, essentially, use 1/4 of its total power capacity to capture 90% of the CO2 it releases, then liquify it and pump it back into deep underground rock fractures where it is hoped it will stay. Another big project in Mississippi will explore the same theory. Whether or not this will induce geological instability, such as earthquakes, is as yet unknown.
Is "clean coal" a real possibility, or an oxymoron? I'm willing to wait and see how this plays out over time, while still holding on to the promise of non-polluting renewable energy methods as the most environmentally responsible.
This is an expression of the view that mankind is only capable of doing the cheapest, most expedient thing, no matter what the other costs might be.
My belief is people dislike living in squalor and seeing their children needlessly die for lack of energy. It seems presumptuous to me that those of us in the 1st world would tell those in the 2nd or 3rd they can't have a better life.
If you have a better solution than coal, GO, GO NOW, visit the 3rd world nation of your choice and build it for them. Give women whose babies die of cold, heat. Give families that die from lack of electricity the power you can make so easily.
Do it man!
If on the other hand you can't, don't suggest people live in squalor while you or I fly freely about this world as we please generating 10,000 times more CO2 than most third world citizens do. They aren't chattel to satisfy my desire to impose a superior world view, they are humans suffering and seeking relief from pain.
My belief is people dislike living in squalor and seeing their children needlessly die for lack of energy. It seems presumptuous to me that those of us in the 1st world would tell those in the 2nd or 3rd they can't have a better life.
It's more complicated than that. The World Health Organization estimates that 7 million people die prematurely each year due to the effects of air pollution, and 1 in 8 deaths globally are linked to pollution.
Quote:
This finding more than doubles previous estimates and confirms that air pollution is now the world’s largest single environmental health risk. Reducing air pollution could save millions of lives.
So just pouring on the coal is not the answer. Especially since the sun provides, IIRC, 71 times the energy to the earth each day than mankind currently uses. Switching to clean, renewable energy generation that derives from this endless supply of power... hydroelectric, solar electric, and wind electric especially... can reverse this deadly trend towards more and more pollution. Even the Chinese have recognized this and are beginning to take action.
And then there are the secondary effects due to this pollution, like the drought and hunger and loss of habitat and collapse of seafood stocks directly attributable to the release of massive amounts of CO2 and other emissions from burning fossil fuels coal, oil and gas.
That's pretty much the premise of this Green Living forum, to discuss ways to conserve resources and reduce pollution, in order to provide a better life for all the residents of this closed system called Planet Earth, where the pollution doesn't go away, it just accumulates.
Sure, coal is the cheapest source of energy today, as long as you only look at the direct cost to dig it up and burn it to produce heat and generate electricity. However on a global scale we can't really afford all the associated indirect costs like air pollution, water pollution, toxic emissions, toxic waste, habitat destruction, etc. in addition to all that needless loss of life. Obviously we can't make the necessary changes overnight, but we really have no choice but to take incremental steps towards improvement utilizing the best practices and best technologies we can muster.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
