Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA's Hansen Calls Out Obama On Climate Change

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the there-are-no-deniers dept.

Earth 461

Hugh Pickens writes "Dr James Hansen, director of the NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who first made warnings about climate change in the 1980s, writes in the NY Times that he was troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves 'regardless of what we do.' According to Hansen 'Canada's tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now.' Hansen says that instead of placing a rising fee on carbon emissions to make fossil fuels pay their true costs, leveling the energy playing field, the world's governments are forcing the public to subsidize fossil fuels with hundreds of billions of dollars per year."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"Level playing field" is a sham (4, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 2 years ago | (#39977975)

The level playing field for carbon neutrality is a sham designed to do nothing more than transfer wealth from first-world economies to third-world economies. In the process, all you really do is set a soft cap on carbon emissions without reducing actual dependence upon fossil fuels.

We can achieve the same goal of reducing carbon output by instead investing that money into first-world research and development of alternative fuels. Full implementation then eliminates carbon emissions altogether, a goal which can't be achieved by market-based carbon neutrality alone.

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978007)

The problem is that "green energy" has been sold as a jobs program. So the money goes to manufacturers instead of basic research. The problem is that a solution to our energy problems is not going to come from a manufacturer. A solution is far more likely to come from research. But research just doesn't generate the same number of jobs that a manufacturer can.

It's politics as usual.

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (3, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978043)

But research just doesn't generate the same number of jobs that a manufacturer can.

Research can provide as many jobs as you have funds.

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (5, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978307)

That's a false dichotomy. Both manufacture and research provide jobs, and both are being funded. There is no either/or.

There are plenty of alternative technologies already, and they need to be rolled out. Then as research comes up with better ones, the roll out will progress to better technology.

Compare and contrast with microprocessors. Would you have said in the late 1970s that we need to invest in microprocessor research RATHER THAN manufacture? That the 808*, 6502 and Z80 weren't good enough and we should wait for something better before manufacturing? Had we have done so, we'd never have had the Core 2s and such like of today. The market supplied reason, direction and finance to the research.

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978359)

If Solyndra's any indication of things... It's done NEITHER.

Nuclear (3, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978341)

Hansen would be garner more support from a wider base and generally more acceptance if instead of trying to stop people from doing things he encouraged them to do something...such as invest in nuclear power.

If the AGW crowd expended only half as much energy advocating and educating the public about nuclear power, and how it could solve the AGW problem, as they do with silly stunts and way over the top scenarios (50 feet higher eh?), it would be a win win. CO2 would be cut and we could tell the Oil Tyrants to fuck off and die.

I know that Hansen supports nuclear, including Breeder reactors for waste recycling, but he's not very vocal about it.

People respond better when you come to them with a solution rather than admonishments, guilt and doomsday predictions.

Re:Nuclear (4, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978509)

Nuclear may or may not be part of the energy solution, but it's hardly the whole thing. You don't solve our transportation by sticking uranium up your car's tailpipes.

Reality and sanity says that we need both to look where we're using oil, and find alternative ways to generate and transport energy to those points of use, how we generate energy at all, and whether there are more efficient ways to do the same things.

Anyone who says "Global warming? Let's just go Nuclear!" is, unfortunately, failing to address 90% of the issues. Which is why you'll find those concerned about global warming don't restrict themselves to a single solution.

I dearly want us to stop banning people from living close to the businesses that serve them, as is common in the US. I want to see better use of available infrastructure, such as rail, to provide access to walkable cities from everywhere. I want more fuel efficient vehicles, and I'd like, ultimately, to see lower cost electric vehicles designed to drive the shorter distances that ought to be more common if we rethink planning policies - I don't know about you, but I don't really need a vehicle that goes for more than 50 miles without {long period of downtime due to recharging} 99% of the time, and would be happy to keep a low cost second vehicle around for those times of journey, yet 99% of the expense of electric vehicles right now has to do with the obsession of making them universal replacements for gasoline vehicles - sticking in redundant gasoline motors, or five times the number of batteries.

And here's the other thing that really bothers me: most of those pushing against global warming or insisting on single solutions are insistent that any solution must protect the status quo. The status quo sucks. My energy usage is high not because I want it to be, but because of poor zoning policies, crappy offerings from transportation businesses, and so on.

Even if gas was back to a dollar a gallon as it was under Clinton, I don't _want_ to fucking drive everywhere. Who the hell does? Who enjoys being locked in a metal box for an hour or two a day, having to concentrate on nothing except whether that box is between two lines painted on the tarmac? Who likes the fact they can't really go for a drink after work or, well, easily socialize anyway, because of the requirements and boundaries set by reliance on motor vehicles?

Does everyone actually like the fact their property and sales taxes are high despite the complete lack of the public services, solely because of the costs of maintaining many times the lengths of roads necessary because we've gone out of our way to partition off neighborhoods from businesses? What about the cost of food and other essentials? (Why is it about half the price in Britain than in the US, despite much higher taxes and much lower subsidies in the UK?)

You're looking for a positive message? That's because you're not listening! Put in the basic, obvious, solutions that have been proposed for decades, and there's every reason to believe our lives will be more relaxed, our cost of living cheaper, and our options more free.

Nuclear solves 10% of the problem, and isn't a positive or negative solution, any more than windmills or solar is.

Re:Nuclear (2, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978567)

You are the reason people push back and you provide the fodder needed for people to say AGW is all about Control.

You don't like people's lifestyles and you want to change them..that's Controlling and AGW is the club you are using to achieve it.

I guarantee you, you will get a great big Fuck You from the majority of people when you take this approach. You will from me anyway.

Re:Nuclear (1)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978583)

Hansen would be garner more support from a wider base and generally more acceptance if instead of trying to stop people from doing things he encouraged them to do something...such as invest in nuclear power...People respond better when you come to them with a solution rather than admonishments, guilt and doomsday predictions.

I agree with the admonishments and guilt part, but doomsday predictions are entirely appropriate and will work,, because people respond to fear. I'd love a reasonable, science-based debate, but the climate change debate is all about fear, and humans are wired to avoid danger and to overvalue threat information. You might get a friendlier discussion with hope and change, per those lying bastards the Democrats, but you'll get more vote with fear and disgust, per those lying bastard Republicans. So it depends on how you define "respond better." I think.

If the AGW crowd expended only half as much energy advocating and educating the public about nuclear power, and how it could solve the AGW problem, as they do with silly stunts and way over the top scenarios (50 feet higher eh?), it would be a win win. CO2 would be cut and we could tell the Oil Tyrants to fuck off and die.

50 feet higher is what will happen if we burn all the Canadian oil sands. It's only an overstatement in that it overstates perhaps how much oil we're going to consume in the near term, but Dr Hansen is not exaggerating the effects of doing so. Nuclear fission is not a panacea -- there is none. This is going to be a tough challenge, on a global scale, and we need something better than nuclear fission to solve it. It takes 15 Terawatts to power the world [wikipedia.org] and each fission reactor apparently provides about 1 gigawatt [euronuclear.org] , so to furnish 50% of the world's energy needs of today with nuclear, we'd need to build 1 billion nuclear fission reactors. I think we need a combination of fusion + solar-to-fuel (artificial photosynthetic fuel) technologies and that's going to take massive research funding. Maybe if we stopped the NFL budget for a year, we could solve the problem, LOL

I know that Hansen supports nuclear, including Breeder reactors for waste recycling, but he's not very vocal about it.

As a scientist, I'm frustrated by the apparent fact that most people don't care about the science. What we need to be vocal about is that climate change is real and something needs to be done about it. In America, many people don't even think this is a problem. My business school friend thinks that scientists are making this up in order to get research grants and Obama is pushing it so he can create a command economy. Seriously, that's how deniers think.

Re:Nuclear (3, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978645)

Well, apparently, looking at the polls, Fear and doomsday has not worked.

Also, you assume that the nascent nuclear industry (technology wise it is just learning to walk) will not mature. It is not unreasonable to expect far greater efficiency and power output.

Last, if replacing all the fossil fuel power plants with nuclear, which are blamed for the majority of CO2 production, what on else earth do you imagine could be done about it?

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (2)

WaywardGeek (1480513) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978375)

It is politics as usual, but in this case, Obama is right. If we don't buy their oil, they'll just build a pipeline to the coast and sell it to Japan. In the end, humanity has proven over and over that money wins. Here in NC, there's a battle to keep fracking out. In the end, we'll have fracking here. We'll also open ANWR for oil exploration, because it is expected to increase our very short US oil reserves by 50%. You just can't fight that kind of money. However, opening up all offshore drilling is not expected to increase our oil reserves enough to make any significant difference, so that's just dumb politics.

On the positive side, from a green perspective, none of this oil is cheap. Also, Canada's oil sands companies have figured out how to generate oil much more efficiently, so it's not as dirty as it used to be. Not that they care about pollution, they just want to make more money. Oil sands might help keep oil prices below $200/bbl, which is a good thing, because prices that high would cause global suffering on a huge scale. However, none of the Canada oil is going to keep gas prices below $4/gallon. So, let them drill for it, and build them a pipeline to Texas. Keep fracking out of NC until natural gas prices are so high that voters decide to allow it. Hopefully by then, we'll have figured out how to do fracking safely. And, we need to use this time of permanent high oil prices to ramp up alternatives, like molten salt reactors.

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978039)

Actually "carbon neutrality" crap is an imperialist scheme to stop developing countries from developing. America polluted it's way to the top and now it wants to block others from this development path.

On the other hand your plan to create clean energy sounds good too bad the U.S. is not going to fund this research. It's just not going to happen in a democracy controlled by fossil fuel oligarchs. The Chinese, however, have no such pesky troglodytes getting in the way of their research which is why they're getting in front of us. See it's a win-win for China. If they "go green" they head off the "carbon neutrality" scheme that might get forced on them by the UN or WTO and at the same time create technologies that Americans will have to import. When it comes to "doing the right thing" democracy just doesn't deliver.

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978571)

Use the word "Imperialist" = automatic loss of credibility.

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (5, Insightful)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978133)

The level playing field for carbon neutrality is a sham designed to do nothing more than transfer wealth from first-world economies to third-world economies.

Actually, I think the idea is to put a monetary cost on things which currently have no cost, namely, emission of gasses which may have a negative effect on climate. I think thinking that there is some conspiracy here is kind of ridiculous. One side wants to implement government regulations to reduce carbon emissions. The other side believes the market will solve these problems. So we arrive at a compromise where we attempt to achieve our goal (reducing emissions) by using the market (make it have a cost). This seems entirely reasonable. Why shouldn't we attach a cost to pollution?

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (5, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978219)

It really is the only sensible way to go about it: as you say, fossil fuels' cost doesn't represent their true cost, because they cause unreimbursed damage to ... everyone.

Use a carbon tax to make these fuels' cost represent their real cost, cut taxes somewhere else if you want to or dole the money out to the public, and let the market sort it out.

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978233)

The theory that the market is capable of balancing anything what so ever, is conjecture and pseudoscience based on broken or incomplete mathematical models. That in of itself is the root of the 'conspiracy', but I prefer we call it the market, so we can talk to the people that are responsible.

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (1, Insightful)

oiron (697563) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978265)

With a little help, it's probably quite capable. The only times that capitalism has worked is when it wasn't naked.

A free market implies boundaries and regulation to keep it free!

let's level it for real then (2, Insightful)

khipu (2511498) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978323)

Actually, I think the idea is to put a monetary cost on things which currently have no cost, namely, emission of gasses which may have a negative effect on climate.

Great principle. What about charging for the environmental destruction many third world nations are guilty of? What about charging for the enormous population growth that Asia and Africa are imposing on the world? What about charging for the stupendous costs environmental destruction in Europe over the last 5000 years has imposed on the rest of the world, not to mention the consequences of European colonialism and emigration, which kick-started these processes all around the world?

Depending on how you account for these factors, you reach very different answers about who should pay for carbon emissions. There is no objectively right answer, and that's why there won't be any meaningful agreement on carbon emissions.

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (1)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978439)

Why shouldn't we attach a cost to pollution?

We should attach a cost to pollution, and a hefty one. The problem is, cap and trade as currently implemented is very easy to scam, with built-in incentives to do so [elawreview.org] . With no adequate policing or enforcement, current carbon trading schemes are worse than useless - they can actually allow a company or industry to emit MORE greenhouse emissions than they would otherwise have gotten away with, under the pretense that some other body somewhere else in the world is offseting those emissions.

The carbon market is already rife with fraud - companies selling credits on the premise that they're planting forests that never get planted, or where the proceeds ostensibly reduce future emissions that were never in the works anyway, or in jurisdictions where monitoring and enforcement are extremely corrupt or downright non-existent.

Carbon trading as it exists is a comforting lie, a fairy tale meant to lull us all to sleep while the house is burning down around us.

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (1)

Disfnord (1077111) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978633)

Because "compromise", in today's political climate, no longer means both of us meeting at the half-way point, but rather means you compromising and accepting my side of things.

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978251)

The level playing field for carbon neutrality is a sham designed to do nothing more than transfer wealth from first-world economies to third-world economies. In the process, all you really do is set a soft cap on carbon emissions without reducing actual dependence upon fossil fuels.

[citation needed] (Fox News does not count)

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978585)

[citation needed] = automatic bitch slap.
Reference Fox News just for the hell of it (without, ironically, a citation)= automatic kick in the balls.

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978281)

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/02/10/CarbonWeb.pdf

Somehow Canada should show up as larger than it is on this map if the claim is true

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/02/10/CarbonWeb.pdf

Instead, Canada is just a bit higher than Italy on a per capita basis?

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978329)

This isn't true. The emission-rights are being sold on the world markets and it isn't the third world that is making billions and billions of them...

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978337)

"The level playing field for carbon neutrality is a sham designed to do nothing more than transfer wealth from first-world economies to third-world economies."

Have you heard about "proxies"? The third-world countries are just there to distract the public eye while the money goes to a first-world bank account.

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (2)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978371)

There is nothing wrong with being carbon neutral in theory. If every country were carbon neutral the economic benefits would go to those who do it most efficiency without simply resetting your economy to pre-Industrial.

One of the problems is how to implement it. It is almost like arguing over flat, progressive, or recessive taxes*. Make it perfectly neutral between all countries and you hinder the development of... well... developing countries. The developed have a huge advantage and they can keep it. Have a progressive and it puts a larger burden on the developed countries and the developing get economic advantages. Unlike taxes where the stratification between rich, upper-class, middle-class and lower class, we have a developing country as the second largest economy in the world. Another sixth in GDP (Brazil). Two developing countries above Russia and the United Kingdom.

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (1)

phrostie (121428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978437)

The statement, "According to Hansen 'Canada's tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now.' " strikes me as an odd wording.

when fuel/gas reaches the pump it's content and octane are tightly controlled. the bitumen will have been removed as part of the refining process. this is already being done. the alowable sulfur content was tightened just a few years ago. so the fuel being burned in cars will produce exactly the same amount of carbon as any other fuel. if there is an issue then it needs to be tighter control at the refineries.

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978597)

Ha!

I guess you could say that Hansen is a is just a Climate Scientist and not a Petroleum Engineer. So he's really not qualified to have an opinion on gas from the oil sands.

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (1)

Ichijo (607641) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978537)

The level playing field for carbon neutrality is a sham...In the process, all you really do is set a soft cap on carbon emissions without reducing actual dependence upon fossil fuels.

In order to prove the above is correct, you also need to prove that demand for petroleum is perfectly inelastic. Good luck with that!

Re:"Level playing field" is a sham (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978625)

"The level playing field for carbon neutrality is a sham designed to do nothing more than transfer wealth from first-world economies to third-world economies. In the process, all you really do is set a soft cap on carbon emissions without reducing actual dependence upon fossil fuels."

So? Where do you think the material basis for the wealth of the first world came from?

From coltan to copper, from rubber to rice, from bananas to coffee to mahogany to tea to gold and diamonds and silver - it comes from the third world. Simple fact. The periphery feeds the centre, and the centre pisses it away on conspicuous consumption. So, a wealth transfer from the first world to the third world IS CALLED REPARATIONS AND JUSTICE.

New Global Warming Strategy (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39977981)

Blame Canada!

Re:New Global Warming Strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978147)

"Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history."

Uh, isn't that like saying there's a lot of oil down there, just in an alarmist fashion? How much carbon dioxide is in the Canadian forests, if we burned them all down?

Re:New Global Warming Strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978499)

Hansen is a retard that can't figure out that burning everything all at once is not the same as extracting it year over year. Mitigation happens; better filters, better controls. These things are already being improved, and the efficiency will improve further long before all of the oil can be extracted.

Considering the hidden carbon dioxide release costs of solar and wind manufacturing (Why is it hidden, though? Do people still not understand that the factories where those technologies are built still require a huge investment of oil and gas just to run them?), whose environmental efficiencies aren't being improved because they're still trying to figure out how to improve energy efficiency, the oil sands extraction process has a pretty good chance of becoming LESS of an environmental hazard before either solar or wind can become replacements.

The problem no one will mention (2, Insightful)

hessian (467078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39977985)

Overpopulation.

If you want less carbon emitted, reduce our population.

We are not going to achieve zero carbon emissions, but we need more (a) natural land and forests to absorb that and (b) fewer producing sources.

All people produce some carbon. Having seven and then nine billion people guarantees we will be unable to stop the increase even if we all live in mud huts, eat vegetables and bury our poop.

Re:The problem no one will mention (1, Funny)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978003)

If we were all vegetarian, we'd starve until the seas rose. There isn't enough arable land for that to hold up, and the carbon emissions from arable farming are *ridiculous*. Have you any idea how much oil it takes to produce a kilo of soya?

Re:The problem no one will mention (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978033)

Have you any idea how much oil it takes to produce a kilo of soya?

a lot. Did you know that cows are being fed soya? And for a kilo of beef, you need 10 kilos of soya?

Re:The problem no one will mention (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978173)

Only in the US. It's uneconomic to feed cows soya. In most countries, where soya and wheat isn't subsidised quite as strongly as in the US, you tend not to find that.

None of the cows round here eat soya. They eat grass, or silage in the winter.

Re:The problem no one will mention (1)

jbengt (874751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978523)

Actually, in the US, the beef cattle are typically fattened up with corn, often with offal mixed in, along with antibiotics and hormones.

The bigger issue (2)

hessian (467078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978035)

That's a good point. What I said was that even if we cut emissions to the bare minimum by living in mud huts, subsistence farming, etc. we're not going to be able to stop carbon emissions.

If we visualize this as an equation:

P x R = I

Population times average Resource use equals total Impact.

Then we can see that if we decrease R, but raise P, we cancel out any benefits gained.

Even more, there's another variable, which is the only truly fixed commodity we have -- the open land that replenishes our water, air, etc. and filters out toxins.

P x R = I - F

If we reduce the amount of Forest, we have more impact. There is also a minimum amount of Forest below which we start losing natural species and living in a toxic gasmasks-required Fallout 3 type world.

Re:The bigger issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978595)

I believe you want something more akin to

I=Sum_{Pop} Resource use (Person)

If you reduce people, of course your reduce impact, but there are ways to reduce the largest contributors to Resource use(Person).

I know that you used average resource use, so your equation is technically correct, but it is misleading as R is a function of P.

Also the sign on your F term is incorrect - increasing forest decreases impact, so it should be I + F.

Re:The problem no one will mention (3, Insightful)

bogjobber (880402) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978041)

Do you have any idea how much oil it takes to produce a kilo of beef?

Re:The problem no one will mention (4, Insightful)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978059)

So if I understand well, eating the vegetables ourselves is unsustainable. But feeding animals with them, then eating the meat is somehow sustainable?

Sorry but something doesn't adds up here.

Re:The problem no one will mention (5, Interesting)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978139)

What's wrong here is the feeding of the cows with soya. In the former times, cows were eating grass which isn't eatable by humans and grows in places not useful for agriculture. In other words, they made additional resources available.

BS on both of the above (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978089)

Overpopulation is certainly a huge problem, but even if we decided to address this 'problem' today, short of killing people there's no quick fix. However there's plenty that can be done to change the rate at which we burn fossil fuels which is linked directly to our rates of production, transportation and consumption. The methods we employ for each, the geographic relationship of production to consumption and the efficiencies or which we take advantage, in terms of energy use, determine the rate of carbon emissions. It's that simple.

As far as food production, the energy we put into raising animals for food is immense in comparison to the nutritional yield. In terms of protein alone, there's a 16:1 ration between the feed protein required to raise cattle vs. the protein yield from beef, and the energy required to raise all that corn and soy and transport it to feed the livestock only compounds the problem of carbon emissions.

James Lovelock, as well as the authors of The Limits to Growth: the 30 Year Update, point out the the lifestyle choices we make have more to do with determining emissions and carrying capacity than any single variable you can wave your little arms at in the vain hope of simplifying the nature of the system.

Re:BS on both of the above (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978213)

Cows and sheep eat grass. Humans cannot eat grass. It's pretty simple. It doesn't matter how much grass and scrubby plants cows need to eat to produce a kilo of beef, because it won't do us a bit of good if they don't.

Unless you've got some genius idea, of course, for how we can suddenly grow an additional stomach and majorly rejig our gut bacteria. That could work too.

Re:The problem no one will mention (3, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978135)

If we were all vegetarian, we'd starve until the seas rose.

What? If we ate more efficiently, we'd starve until the seas came up and rendered the land unable to support crops for five years across the affected area? Whatchoo talkin' bout, willis?

There isn't enough arable land for that to hold up

Maybe not with bullshit "Green Revolution" agriculture designed to provide windfalls to pesticide and fertilizer companies, which destroys the land on which it used, killing off the biological components of the soil. More people are going to have to pick crops until we figure out how to do it with robots, but as it turns out, if you interplant (for example) plants which need nitrogen with plants which fix nitrogen, it all works out a lot better. Indeed, it is possible to produce more food per acre by simply interplanting, and as well, the food is more nutritious as the soil contains the trace elements that we like to find in our food. And you can do it without tilling.

Have you any idea how much oil it takes to produce a kilo of soya?

None whatsoever is required but a great deal is used.

Re:The problem no one will mention (3, Funny)

dadioflex (854298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978161)

I love subtle humour as much as the next guy. Not enough arable land? Priceless.

Besides we can always eat insects, algae, people, fungi. The list is end- what? I said we can eat insects, algae and fungi. Jeeze. Why are you looking at me like that?

Re:The problem no one will mention (1)

oiron (697563) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978095)

Whenever somebody comes up with this argument, the question that comes to mind is: "What do you intend to do though? Nuke China? Kill every child in the developing world?"

Don't forget, the third most populous country is the United States.

Like every other problem, it needs to be addressed correctly - family planning, birth control...

Anyway, both India and China have made quite a bit of progress in terms of birth rate: it's now down to about 2%, and the fertility rate is about 2-3 per woman, which is not too bad.

What more?

Re:The problem no one will mention (4, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978333)

Don't forget, the third most populous country is the United States.

Its China and India with their 36.47% of the worlds population, and then the United States with its 4.47%.

Your statement, while correct, is disingenuous in intent. You are using the truth to be dishonest.

This graph spells it out nicely. [wikipedia.org] The United States is on the same line as all less populous countries, while China and India are playing on a completely different field.

The fact that every other country falls on that line says something important about the line, and also says something important about the only two outliers.

Re:The problem no one will mention (1, Troll)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978193)

Are you worried about carbon emissions through breathing? Because animals do a lot more of that than humanity, so by this logic we should start by killing all animals in order to save the environment.

Re:The problem no one will mention (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978223)

Totally agree, the continued growth of the world population is not sustainable.

The catch is that most (all?!) world economies are based on the assumption of indefinite growth. This in turn depends on population growth.

To reduce the world population to sustainable levels requires some pretty fancy economic reworking to allow both contraction without economic collapse.

This is not something mankind is capable of, based on my limited time and experience on the planet. Though China seemed to be able to pull something like it off so maybe there is hope?

Re:The problem no one will mention (1)

oiron (697563) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978253)

Though China seemed to be able to pull something like it off so maybe there is hope?

China's is a slowing of the growth rate, not a contraction. And it comes with a (very high) price... That may not be a great model for the rest of the world!

Re:The problem no one will mention (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978245)

This, pretty much.

Out-of-control population growth is going to keep happening while religion gets to dictate the position of women in our world, though.

Re:The problem no one will mention (1)

webnut77 (1326189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978589)

Out-of-control population growth is going to keep happening while religion gets to dictate the position of women in our world, though.

This is not true. While the missionary position is great, some religious men actually like it better if the women are on top.

Re:The problem no one will mention (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978591)

Except for that fact that first world nations tend to be losing population, most of the stagnation or growth of our populations is from immigration and births of immigrants. Large families are no longer the norm in 2nd + generation families.

Re:The problem no one will mention (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978317)

>All people produce some carbon
Less-developed countries have vastly smaller "footprints."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions [wikipedia.org]
(go ahead and divide that out per capita)

The problem is not population, it's the population of wealthy consumers. As China and India develop economically, their populations of wealthy consumers will grow and will vastly increase consumption.

We need to scale back our consumptive lives, stop subsidizing gluttony, and stop making excuses based on the mythical "invisible hand." It's time for some serious policy both to reduce consumption and to promote research into alternative fuels.

Re:The problem no one will mention (1)

SpockLogic (1256972) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978321)

Overpopulation.

If you want less carbon emitted, reduce our population.

Free ebola sandwiches for everyone, right?

Again. (2, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39977993)

Every political debate about climate change countermeasures comes down to the same fundamental conflict:

Politician: "My advisers inform me that if we do not take action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, there will be serious global climate repercussions."
Public: "Well, reduce emissions then."
Politician: "This does mean some unavoidable increase in gas prices, but -"
Public: "FUCK THE CLIMATE! Give us cheap gas!"
People are happy to do something to help reduce emissions, providing this something doesn't involve any expense or inconvenience for them personally. Politicians know this. There is a big public demand to exploit every drop of oil that can be found in order to keep gas prices down, and it's very difficult for anyone hoping to get elected again to go against that.

really... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978125)

That's a debate between an adult with an assertiveness problem and a child acting out its candy seeking behavior.

The adult doesn't have to justify anything to the child who will throw up when he inevitably fails to regulate his intake.

Re:really... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978603)

except the child can call social services and get the Adult in your scenario taken out of the equation. For the politician it is the failure to be reelected.

Re:Again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978169)

You have one part of it, but equally important in my opinion is this little dialogue:

Politician: "My advisers inform me that if we do not take action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, there will be serious global climate repercussions."
Oil companies: "That's not important. What's important is that there are resources there that are immensely profitable, and we must extract them. All of them. Or else there will be serious global economic repercussions, and who will be blamed for any instability? You've got a nice power apparatus going on here, why rock the boat? And by the way here is a modest contribution to your political cause. I'm sure it will help you in our common goal to help the public understand the real issue."
Politician: "Of course climate changes naturally all the time and how could that be due to anything we humans do. Must be a socialist plot to transfer wealth to the Third World."

Re:Again. (0)

Entropius (188861) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978275)

I have cheap gas already.

Why?

I bought a (cheap) car that doesn't use much. It will go over 100mph, cost $12.5k, and carries a family comfortably.

People who drive cars that get under 40mpg have no footing to whine about expensive gas.

Re:Again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978507)

It would be helpful if you told us what this car was.

Meanwhile in space... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39977997)

Little did James Hansen know that his obsession with space studies would lead to his daughter Annika to be degraded and objectified by the Borg.

A market problem needs a market solution (1)

Fished (574624) | more than 2 years ago | (#39977999)

The reality is that global warming probably sounds kind of good to most Canadians, and billions of dollars in oil revenues probably sound even better. (Whether it should is, of course, a different question.)

The ONLY way to prevent future global warming due to Carbon Monoxide emissions is to develop a credible alternative to petroleum for cars. I suggest a small "carbon tax" that is, by statute, 100% dedicated to alternative fuels research. The Chinese are actively pursuing this. Do we (as Americans -- sorry to all those not American) want the 21st century to be the "Chinese Century"?

Re:A market problem needs a market solution (2)

Fished (574624) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978005)

Errr... that should have been "Carbon dioxide emissions." I'm smoking a cigarette, so I guess I have carbon monoxide on my brain.

Re:A market problem needs a market solution (1)

JWW (79176) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978109)

Sure, that'll do it.

Because once we switch to electric cars charged by coal plants, we'll be fine.

We need to switch to nuclear power to but the greenies always miss that step.

Re:A market problem needs a market solution (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978143)

We need to switch to nuclear power to but the greenies always miss that step.

We need nuclear power to plan for the future (reprocessing fuel) and to be operated safely (not controlled by corporatists) but the nuclear playboys always miss those steps.

Re:A market problem needs a market solution (1)

oiron (697563) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978221)

Don't forget the mining... The playboys always forget the mining...

Re:A market problem needs a market solution (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978315)

It should be controlled by private industry because private industry, in most conditions, is overwhelmingly more efficient than the government. Should I point out that the worst nuclear accident in history was at a government-controlled plant?

But that private industry needs to be liable for anything it breaks -- in the context of that liability, they actually have an incentive not to cause an incident. Modern nuclear power is far safer than coal any way you measure it, though.

Re:A market problem needs a market solution (1)

oiron (697563) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978189)

Actually, switching to less tail-pipe emissions really would help...

As far as nuclear power's concerned, we can't afford to build the old designs (I mean 1st to 3rd generation stuff like Fukushima) anymore. We would need to use modern designs, which are often either experimental (molten salt, pebble bed,...) or expensive (Gen 3+ or Gen 4 PWRs). They also take years to build correctly! Can we really afford to wait?

My problem with nuclear power in India (yeah, I've got to come back to my country, after all) is that I know how crappy safety procedures can be here. The consequences of a methyl isocyanide leak in Bhopal was a toxic cloud that dissipated, and at least the area is still habitable. The consequences of a blowout in Kalpakkam [wikipedia.org] would be that my city is irradiated.

I know how unlikely a blowout may be, but what about radiation leaks, or leaks of radioactive material? The coast on which that particular plant is situated provides seafood for a vast hinterland. A radiation leak there would work its way up the food chain into any fish-eaters in much of the state!

Not that I'm against nuclear power, but it has to be done correctly and responsibly. And it has to be done along with other methods like solar/wind, efficiency increases in the grid, or at the consumption end and so on.

It's not a turn-key solution. That's something that the nuclear drummers can't seem to wrap their brains around!

There's no end to the alarmism, it seems (0)

mfearby (1653) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978009)

Sea level rises 50ft more than the current dodgy "science" predicts? The prophesying of these alarmists is completely self-serving, not to mention so "far out" that we'll all be dead by the time they're supposed to come to pass, and would be used for toilet paper if I wasn't reading this off my LCD monitor.

at least one libertarian likes this idea (2)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978021)

Jonathan Adler agrees [volokh.com] , and thinks Hansen's proposal is a viable market-based approach, and better than the cap-and-trade approaches that have been getting more press.

Mr. Holocaust Rhetoric still at his post I see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978029)

"If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains — no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species."

Yes, I want this man to peer-review my science.

So he wants Imperialism... (3, Insightful)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978047)

So on this website whenever Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, etc. do anything that America doesn't like it's universally applauded as "standing up against evil imperialist right-wing Chrisitan America" No matter how bad or destructive the action, it's OK because it's "speaking truth to power" or some nonsense.

Now we have Canada basically saying that it's going to use its own oil, and the exact same people are going apoplectic. International intervention suddenly become

  Note that these same people are strangely silent when Brazil or Venezuela develop new oil resources, and I haven't heard any huge outrage over the fact that drilling off the coast of Cuba will put oil rigs just a few miles from the Florida Keys. The same people who complain that America == Somalia (you've seen those posts) because we don't have the federal government in control of all economic activity never complain when foreign corporations drill for oil righ in the middle of sensitive areas.. as long as the money will be going to a government they approve of.

I've come to realize that environmental movement doesn't really care about what is done to the planet, only on who is doing it. Put up a windmill in America that a bird might run into? Destroying the world! Use nuclear power in Japan? CHINA SYNDROME! Setup nuclear plants in Iran that are known to be using unsafe designs that are intended to produce weapons-grade plutonium instead of producing electricity? No problem. Put an oil pipeline directly through the rainforest in Venezuela to prop up Hugo Chavez? That's a wonder of the world showing how great socialism is!

I've seen it all before and this is just a thin coating of green paint on a corrupt and broken set of ideas.

What the fuck are you going on about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978069)

You descended into nonsensical gibberish within the first sentence of your comment. I didn't even bother to read beyond that point, but I'm sure the rest of it is utter bullcrap, too.

Re:What the fuck are you going on about? (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978145)

It ended with we are all a bunch of retarded commies and the world is going socialist and the sky is falling.

Re:So he wants Imperialism... (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978111)

So on this website whenever Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, etc. do anything that America doesn't like it's universally applauded as "standing up against evil imperialist right-wing Chrisitan America" No matter how bad or destructive the action, it's OK because it's "speaking truth to power" or some nonsense.

Well, that's what happens when "you"'re evil as fuck. Well-meaning people sometimes overreach and get confused, and less well-meaning people happily mingle with them.

Stopping to be evil as fuck doesn't solve the problem completely, so it's usually recommended to not be evil as fuck as well as not being a sissy. Because then, once you know you're also not evil as fuck anymore, you'll actually be able to gently smile at the remaining, unfounded criticism, or merrily counter it with facts if you feel like it. It actually works, so don't knock it until you tried it, which you haven't. You're not the only one who has seen a thing or two before, heh.

It's just nuts (4, Insightful)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978061)

Consider the vast amount of energy the sun is pumping into earth (not to mention all the stuff that doesn't hit earth....). We need to get to that, instead of plundering resources that could be used for other things other than just burning them, or in some cases even are best just left there. If worst comes to worst, we let "elites" and private, short-sighted interests run amok with this, and when they're done with it let it serve as an excuse for even more control and subsidies (for more stuff that does more harm than good, ofc). Instead of, you know, being gentle(wo)men and trying to get free energy, shelter and food for everybody. How can we even look in the mirror.. Oh wait, we can't, that solves that.

I know this is a rather random rant off-topic; I have no clue about the details about any of this, anyway... but "the big picture" gets me every time. It's just nuts! No convincing me otherwise.. we have a veritable Garden of Eden on one hand, and New York and Calcutta is what we turn it into. WTF.

Re:It's just nuts (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978573)

Solar power satellites are the way forward, I am convinced of it.

I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978077)

The comment is about Canada. We have as much influence over Canada's political and economic processes as we do over those of Mexico. If we don't buy the oil someone else - probably China - will. Other than the very short term, Obama's point about our impotence to stop tar sands extraction rings true. This is like going to a foreclosure auction and saying that other people shouldn't let that guy default.

Hasn't Hansen been discredited enough yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978085)

Come on, people, this guy Hansen has already admitted to bending the facts to fit a political agenda. And he's done it consistently since he went on a nationwide speaking tour to complain about how he was being silenced by the Bush administration.

What Hansen doesn't say about the Pliocene (1, Informative)

tp1024 (2409684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978157)

What Hansen doesn't say about the Pliocene is that back then, North America and South America were divided continents.

What we call the Gulf Stream today (and some people seem to be quite impressed by it) would have been the Pacific Stream back then. It transported a much larger amount of heat to Europe and beyond than it currently receives from that puny bathtub called the Gulf of Mexico. Of course that had a large influence on the amount of ice in and around the arctic sea and the global sea level.

There is no causative link from higher CO2 levels during that age to higher sea levels, it is merely a correlation.

China would be happy to take it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978165)

Charging the full price of oil and the environmental damage it causes would simply drive down demand in the US. China would be happy to pass the oil along to their people without paying the environmental fees, while the US starves for a cheap resource to replace it. Good luck getting Canadian companies to produce or sell the oil if the fees for that are levied directly on them, while OPEC charges the market price for oil. Of course Canada's government would have to do that part, and no politician wants to kill jobs. The best bet is for the government in the US to raise our super low gas taxes just a little and put the money into R&D for better tech, not that such a thing would be particularly popular.

Re:China would be happy to take it (1)

oiron (697563) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978231)

I don't think China's track record on the environment [wikipedia.org] is anything for others to emulate...

So sayeth the Book (0)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978175)

It is written in the Book of the End:
"...(2) And it came to pass in the years of the Second Millennium that the Prophet did pause, and did turn to his followers, wroth with bitter words. "You who claim to follow me, why do you not keep up? I bear the Holy Understanding given unto me, and thou hast claimed to be a member of my Temple. (3)Yet I outdistance thee. For thrice I have taken a stride, yet thou has taken but one in turn. I understand that it is given to me that I will have followers, yet these so-called followers lag behind and lack the enthusiasm I need to spread my Word across the face of the Earth. (4)You are my friends, but your support is weak. You listen to the Word, but your faith is like dust in your mouths. You repeat the Word to others, yet you are empty of understanding." (5)He raged for hours, castigating the Faithful ceaselessly in many ways and tongues. The followers were taken aback by his rebuke. (6)And from their eyes did fall a veil, revealing him as a charlatan, a rogue, and a mountebank. (7)By his recriminations did he finally reveal himself as the False Prophet. (8)In droves his angered followers slowly recognized that he was nothing, his ideas were nothing, his Word was not The Word, but merely Another Lie. (9)Powerful men among them took up the cry to stone him, and he was finally driven away into the wilderness. (10)Yet the Faithful mourned him as they had been so deeply affected, and lacking a Messiah they cast about for another to follow, for they were Followers and could not live without the Guidance of another..."

Re:So sayeth the Book (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978273)

Cool story bro

regardless of what we do (1)

thereitis (2355426) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978211)

But it's important to understand that Canada is going to be moving forward with tar sands, regardless of what we do. That's their national policy, they're pursuing it. With respect to Keystone, my goal has been to have an honest process, and I have adamantly objected to Congress trying to circumvent a process that was well-established not just under Democratic administrations, but also under Republican administrations.

From http://stoptarsands.wordpress.com/:

70% of the crude oil being extracted from the tar sands is exported directly to the United States mostly for use in transportation.

Chicken Little, again (1)

davide marney (231845) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978255)

As a lay person, I have honestly tried to follow all the arguments and counter-arguments about catastrophic AGW, the only kind of climate change that matters -- and that we could do anything about. One thing is clear to me: claims of imminent catastrophic changes such as 50-foot elevations in sea level are all highly exaggerated. Yes, the climate is changing -- as it ever has -- but it is doing so much more slowly than predicted: my layman's sense of it is that for each foot of claimed rise there's been a half-inch actually observed.

The other Chicken Little angle on this is that yes, there have been huge changes in climate -- but not caused by Man (at least, not yet). The cafe where I'm writing this comment was under a mile of ice not too long ago, in geologic terms. It has never been shown to my satisfaction that the last ice age was caused by CO2. There are a lot of competing theories, and CO2 is just one of them. Until there is clear proof regarding the mechanism for ice ages, why should we believe anyone who claims to know the mechanism for warming ages?

Hippie Apocalypse (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978293)

I am very tired of the same old Apocalyptic rants from this stupid political straw man. "Global Warming" is now "Climate Change": a move in words that Joseph Goebbels would love! Climate change is a straw man. These people are anti-capitalists, they are Puritanical. They are elitist ecological technocrats. They are moralists! They believe that everyone should bow to their world view, the means to do that is through legislation on "climate change".

GUESS WHAT?? ITS CALLED THE WEATHER! AND IT CHANGES!!!! Why does it have to be apocalyptic, in your myopic vision? Why can't northern fields, liberated from cold produce more 10 times more food? Energy saved with mild winters would be Trillions of Barrels of oil! Deserts, emersed in the warm steamy wind off the oceans will bloom! Why not have that kind of a hippie dream? NO! instead it has to be DOOM!

Listen you liberal apocalyptic fear-mongers:
QUIT TELLING US WHAT TO DO!!!

B-b-b-but... (1)

loshwomp (468955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978325)

...nuclear energy is bad, nuclear energy is bad, la la la I can't hear you nuclear energy is bad.

I don't see a contradiction (1)

khipu (2511498) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978349)

Hansen says that tar sands contain a lot of carbon. Duh.

Obama realizes that Canada is going to exploit this resource no matter what we do, which also sounds correct to me.

Hansen seems to be shooting the messenger, but that doesn't alter the fact that the message is correct.

In context (3, Informative)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978355)

If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now.

Let's put this alarmist prediction into context [slashdot.org] :

James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books -- mine included -- because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace.

Let's just fix this problem (3, Interesting)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978367)

We aren't going to stop using whatever kind of oil we find, obviously. So we need to clean up this carbon out of the air. Classically, nature does this for us but we seem to have overloaded that mechanism. Trees have been the acme of biological agents for scrubbing the air, but we need a new one.

We need a plant that grows fast, and by growing and producing it's seeds/fruit it consumes a lot of carbon. We have just such a perfect candidate, but leave it to politics to forbid it. I am talking about hemp. Hemp has the bulk and the seed production that will yank carbon out of the air by the scruff of it's neck. It grows small tree tall in a single season and it sucks so much carbon that the seeds are teaming with a hydrocarbon.

Historically, it's a weed that farmers hate because it leaches soil quickly of nutrients. To me this isn't a problem with modern hydroponics. We have plenty of recyclable products and our own sewer to feed a hydroponic system that would feed these hemp plants. It would process waste and carbon into a plant that has more uses than I can count.

With hydroponics, lots of real estate that is worthless to build on can be used for hemp patches, piping a rich slurry to feed them, processing our own waste. We don't need to cut into crop lands, hence the "leaching" effect can be controlled.

Of course there are roadblocks to this solution. The cotton industry has been an enemy of hemp, mostly out of fear that it will replace them. Of course we have the anti-drug crowd that will insist that hippies are going to smoke it. Counters to that are that is creates new industry and innovations from a very "green" resource that is not only renewable, but it helps scrub the air. Everyone wins. Except for the hippies who tried to smoke it, who are wreathing in agony from a "ditch weed" headache.

Re:Let's just fix this problem (1)

Broodje (646341) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978653)

This has to be a part of the solution, it is simple, everyone can pitch in, and it just makes sense.

freelancer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978425)

just as Betty explained I am dazzled that a stay at home mom can make $6823 in one month on the computer. did you see this link makecash16.com

It will be mined (1)

readin (838620) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978427)

I hate to say Obama's right, but he's right that the Canadian shale oil will be mined and used regardless of what we do (unless we intervene militarily, of course). From an environmental perspective, it is better that the oil be refined in the US where we can have stricter rules on the refining process to limit pollution. From a strategic perspective we should want that oil coming our direction so we don't need to import so much from unfriendly countries and so that we have a secure supply (and one less supply for China). Obama should have approved the Keystone pipeline a long time ago instead of trying to postpone the politically dangerous decision until after the election.

I have concerns about global warming but not being heavily immersed in the science I have to made my judgement largely based on how much I trust the people and the motives of the people on each side. I have to say that the pro-warming side lost a lot of credibility with me when they started trying to slander their opponents with the word "denier' (which was before then usually part of the term "Holocaust denier"). Such behavior suggests they feel they can't win a fair debate and have to resort to name calling.

ACLU to the rescue ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978577)

ACLU, please step in to protect separation of state and religion. Stop this sect of global warming from trying to influence our government.

JAM

Hansen is a fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978617)

Hansen's ex-boss has stated that Hansen is an incompetent fraudster. FOIA requests can't even get the taxpayer funded research data that he says proves something. There is only one reason you hide data! The data is fraud. I can't see how the media and socialist politicians accept the CO2 arguments without seeing the data and without letting the world see the data. There is some real serious criminal activity going on here. And Obama is part of it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?