tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post6461026861739215246..comments2024-03-14T11:50:14.761-04:00Comments on DarwinCatholic: What Virtue In False Promises?Darwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-87872341781674569472010-01-04T15:58:09.595-05:002010-01-04T15:58:09.595-05:00Joel:
It still isn't accurate, even if you ap...Joel:<br /><br />It still isn't accurate, even if you apply it to the world. Though it is true that coal-based emissions constitute a plurality of the planet's emissions, it's not most, and it certainly indicates that petroleum is "more than a fraction."<br /><br />http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.htmlPaul Zummohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01574775522802920843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-64111681752700626852010-01-04T15:52:40.345-05:002010-01-04T15:52:40.345-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Zummohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01574775522802920843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-91323187917677074022010-01-04T15:25:09.148-05:002010-01-04T15:25:09.148-05:00Paul, I wasn't just talking about the US. I s...Paul, I wasn't just talking about the US. I stand by what I wrote.<br /><br />JoelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-61246267243169597912010-01-04T11:42:11.580-05:002010-01-04T11:42:11.580-05:00Petroleum will be pretty much gone in 50 years, bu...<i>Petroleum will be pretty much gone in 50 years, but that's a small fraction of the CO2 problem.</i><br /><br />Not sure about the gone in 50 years claim, but you're quite wrong about it being a small fraction of the CO2 problem. <a href="ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/ggrpt/057308.pdf" rel="nofollow">Here's the latest</a> EIA report on emissions. You'll want to refer to page 10 for a breakdown by fuel, but clearly petroleum-based emissions are higher than coal-based emissions. <br /><br />Now if you're talking solely about the electricity sector, that's a different story, and you'd be right about that.Paul Zummohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01574775522802920843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-53214188814199320502010-01-03T09:59:56.128-05:002010-01-03T09:59:56.128-05:00Petroleum will be pretty much gone in 50 years, bu...Petroleum will be pretty much gone in 50 years, but that's a small fraction of the CO2 problem. The real bugger is coal, and that's going to last another 300 years or more.<br /><br />JoelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-47504915237444110482009-12-31T11:20:06.021-05:002009-12-31T11:20:06.021-05:00I had heard it was just a case of 20 - 50 years a ...I had heard it was just a case of 20 - 50 years a few years ago.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-85653041858042191292009-12-31T10:33:26.641-05:002009-12-31T10:33:26.641-05:00Joel,
I pretty much completely agree with your an...Joel,<br /><br />I pretty much completely agree with your analysis, with the exception that I think there's a certain amount of question as to how climate change will actually play out over the coming decades. Our models are, at best, pretty aproximate, and it's hardly a stretch to say that we don't know if there may be a lot of factors which either cancel out the effects of CO2 emmission on climate, or increase them.<br /><br />Bottom line, though, is that like it or not its basically not possible to get people to take very expensive (in human and monetary terms) actions to mitigate a situation they're not experiencing yet.<br /><br />Hans-Georg,<br /><br />Well, if fossil fuels deplete all the way, obviously CO2 emmissions would plummet. I don't think most people seriously expect that in the next 100 years, though.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-16628381183294428612009-12-31T08:23:20.511-05:002009-12-31T08:23:20.511-05:00But, if fossile fuels are depleting, as was discus...But, if fossile fuels are depleting, as was discussed recently, how can "global warming" continue to be an issue some 20/50 years from now?Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-9741864722894192952009-12-30T18:28:54.510-05:002009-12-30T18:28:54.510-05:00I should probably clarify: in my posting above I ...I should probably clarify: in my posting above I am not being snarky or ironic. I'm completely serious about what I wrote. Global warming is inevitable because of a) the easy availibility of fossil fuels; and b) the human inability to turn away from a profitable activity when the consequences, however dire, are far in the future.<br /><br />JoelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-57015401314220537532009-12-30T18:22:22.797-05:002009-12-30T18:22:22.797-05:00"Wouldn't it be irresponsible to make a c..."Wouldn't it be irresponsible to make a commitment you have no idea how to keep?"<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />I continue to shake my head at climatologists and political activists who are quite good at recognizing scientific realities, but utterly hapless at recognizing political realities. On the one hand, they are correct in noting that global warming is real, is being caused by human activities, and will get far worse in the future if current rates of fossil-fuel consumption are sustained.<br /><br />On the other hand, they fail completely to recognize the political reality: developed countries will continue to consume fossil fuels as long as they are available. Coal is cheap, it's plentiful, and the technologies for utilizing it are well-developed. There's no way the US or China is going to turn their backs on such an economical energy source. The fact that this will alter the Earth in ways that will require us over the next couple centuries to relocate many of our major coastal cities is a problem for future generations to figure out. Seriously. That's how people think. It's human nature.<br /><br />Why can't environmentalists understand this?<br /><br />JoelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com