I grappling with the role of sustainability post-Copenhagen. It just strikes me as so much fiddling while Rome literally burns. While Obama put a happy face on agreements reached there, I can't imagine how people can see it as anything but a dismal failure. A recent editorial does a good job of capturing some key issues, though it paints a picture that's a bit too rosy for my taste. The IPCC is a key scientific group established to provide decision-makers with accurate scientific information. By the way, you won't find any information here from climate change skeptics. That's a waste of time and crucial energy that you can go and research yourself if you so choose. China and the U.S. haggle over crumbs that take on a 'he said she said' quality which is utterly short-term. While the U.S. has its hands bloody in this argument, China again once again rings the sovereignty bell arguing that climate change limitations mess with their sover...
Climate Interactive has a mode l they use to assess the impact of various climate change proposals. They're analysis is quite sobering, indicating that the 'agreement' reached at the recent Climate Change conference, the earth's temperature would increase 7 degrees F (4 degrees C) by the year 2100. This is substantially higher than the goal for temperature rise this century is 2.7 degrees F (1.5 degrees C). This link will take you to Climate Interactive's blog. That blog provides some additional background to the agreed goals for temperature rise, and current efforts to limit it. The New York Times had a fairly good overview article on the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference agreement. A CBS news report contains the following chilling news: " Reducing carbon dioxide levels to 350 would mean reversing the trend of the past couple of centuries. Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for as long as 100 years. And the emissions cuts currently being ple...
Not exactly. Let me explain. Our lack of even the most basic understanding of how the elecricity system operates (explained below) allows us to mistakenly imagine we are taking actions that will shut down CO2 emitting generators. A number of headlines read something like "California Poised To Require All Its Electricity To Come From Renewables." SB100 appears to be a bit more complicated, however. Plus, electricity complies to the laws of physics, not the laws we mere mortals devise. Hoefully, this post will identify several important implications of these distinctions. Recognize that electrons (what electricity consists of) going over the wires thorughout California flow from all generators located everywhere within what’s called the Western Interconnect (WECC). Electrons are already present throughout all the electric wires in every building in every community at every moment in time. When you flip a light switch on, more electricity gets generated ...
Comments
Post a Comment