Christian Democrats in the United States
Global Issues - Global WarmingThe GOP strategy of burying heads in the sand obviously isn't working and alienates the United States from the rest of the world. We believe Al Gore states the problem well, but proposes no meaningful solution. Even if we switched to 100% renewable energy right now, even if we stopped using fire altogether, the global carbon cycle would still be charged with hundreds of billions of tons more than it has ever seen, and the arctic tundra is about to melt and rot, increasing that far more. We must direct immense research effort now to develop energy-efficient means of extracting carbon from the atmosphere without creating a carbonate oxygen sink. This is the only feasible way to reverse the immediate crisis of global warming.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
12:37 PM
The medium-term result of this is two-fold: A) with the threatened economy, investments in renewable energy sources will seem like a bad bet, and B) we will become dependent again on the foreign sources of oil, when we were on the verge of breaking the habit.
This is an economic attack strategy over a period of time that economists and investors do not have the foresight to see. When OPEC decides the time is right, when enough companies in our fledgling green fuel industries have failed because they cannot compete with the oil surplus prices, then they will simply stop producing.
It's also a further step in the war against polar ice, because it will encourage us to continue our massive injection of carbon dioxide into the global ecosystem.
Don't give up on the long-term necessity of renewable fuel just because you can save a few bucks at the pump now.
oil glut is a long term economic attack
Right now OPEC has "failed" to convince investors that the supply glut will go away, resulting in a tremendous, almost unbelievable drop in oil and gasoline prices.The medium-term result of this is two-fold: A) with the threatened economy, investments in renewable energy sources will seem like a bad bet, and B) we will become dependent again on the foreign sources of oil, when we were on the verge of breaking the habit.
This is an economic attack strategy over a period of time that economists and investors do not have the foresight to see. When OPEC decides the time is right, when enough companies in our fledgling green fuel industries have failed because they cannot compete with the oil surplus prices, then they will simply stop producing.
It's also a further step in the war against polar ice, because it will encourage us to continue our massive injection of carbon dioxide into the global ecosystem.
Don't give up on the long-term necessity of renewable fuel just because you can save a few bucks at the pump now.
> detail, links and comments >>
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
8:01 PM
One "pie in the sky" is nuclear fusion, which holds a bit of star fire in a magnetic field and uses it to heat steam and drive generators. With a backup power source like a traditional nuclear reactor to maintain the containment field, a few fusion reactors could emit enough energy to power the country, if not the world. By that time, material production can be replaced by crops or algae, and petroleum will only be useful for synthesizing jet fuel, if that.
Unfortunately enormous unknowns and risky bets on development of so many different technologies cause large market pressures against nuclear fusion research. What little we have is sustained by a few eggheads and theoreticians working with small-scale equipment. While everyone pursues the most rare particle combinations at the new collider in Switzerland, we could focus on the most practical application. That's what Americans are good at. But we don't really, because we are enslaved by market pressures of the global oil producers. People have learned that government definitely cannot force progress. However, we can only make the leap of faith into the new world by coming together to bypass a few particular market pressures obstructing progress, because we can.
Our minds are set free to know the inner workings of the stars. We may take the knowledge we find and consider it a weapon to work out the savage angers of our childhoods, or we can take it as a gift, study it and master it. These are our two choices at the turn of the age: down into the ground or up into the stars.
Please consider writing your Congress representative to ask to declassify research in superconductors. These advanced magnets can hold a precise fusion containment field in place with much less energy, so the fire glows and produces. Superconductors are used today in high-tech guns, and who knows, possibly to propel very large space ships built on the back side of the moon. Meanwhile, we might imagine, as that secret fleet flies overhead, down here in the ashes we weep and gnash our teeth our mother earth burns with the fires of oil and bombs.
nuclear fusion
Besides renewable fuel, which takes space and results in relatively little net decrease of atmospheric carbon, we must consider new nuclear power technologies because we can.One "pie in the sky" is nuclear fusion, which holds a bit of star fire in a magnetic field and uses it to heat steam and drive generators. With a backup power source like a traditional nuclear reactor to maintain the containment field, a few fusion reactors could emit enough energy to power the country, if not the world. By that time, material production can be replaced by crops or algae, and petroleum will only be useful for synthesizing jet fuel, if that.
Unfortunately enormous unknowns and risky bets on development of so many different technologies cause large market pressures against nuclear fusion research. What little we have is sustained by a few eggheads and theoreticians working with small-scale equipment. While everyone pursues the most rare particle combinations at the new collider in Switzerland, we could focus on the most practical application. That's what Americans are good at. But we don't really, because we are enslaved by market pressures of the global oil producers. People have learned that government definitely cannot force progress. However, we can only make the leap of faith into the new world by coming together to bypass a few particular market pressures obstructing progress, because we can.
Our minds are set free to know the inner workings of the stars. We may take the knowledge we find and consider it a weapon to work out the savage angers of our childhoods, or we can take it as a gift, study it and master it. These are our two choices at the turn of the age: down into the ground or up into the stars.
Please consider writing your Congress representative to ask to declassify research in superconductors. These advanced magnets can hold a precise fusion containment field in place with much less energy, so the fire glows and produces. Superconductors are used today in high-tech guns, and who knows, possibly to propel very large space ships built on the back side of the moon. Meanwhile, we might imagine, as that secret fleet flies overhead, down here in the ashes we weep and gnash our teeth our mother earth burns with the fires of oil and bombs.
> detail, links and comments >>
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
3:37 PM
China has already figured this out, their accelerating pollution will not only add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but soot, some of which will blow north over the pacific and settle on the ice packs. They have economic goals far greater than what the U.S. might be able to realize by tapping our own oil reserves near the north pole.
The environmental war began many years ago. The financial giants who see only stacks of numbers have fooled us long enough. It's time to stop believing them. Talk about aid and comfort to the enemy!
In the end, the money that makes it back to regular people by not taking immediate action to counter global warming will be a pittance compared to the profit that China and other far east countries will realize by taking advantage of the global change to the northern ice pack. (Unless the resulting stop of the deep Atlantic currents triggers a new ice age, then we'll all lose big — a lot more than money, we'll lose our whole civilization. Some people say they want that, too.)
While you're thinking about it, consider how your giant truck or SUV is also aiding the long-term goals of countries whose policies and systems of government are antithetical to the freedoms that the U.S. is supposed to protect in the world. After all, why would our rivals need to act directly when they can tempt us and take advantage of our own stupidity and greed to do their work for them? This seems to be a running theme.
Right-wing environmental policies work to the benefit of everyone but regular American people. They want to make us afraid that environmental policies will hurt the American economy... news flash, it's already hurt, and they're laughing all the way to the bank. Wake up, America, and throw the liars out of office!
polar shipping - another financial incentive for global warming
China will make a lot more money by cutting shipping costs to Europe if they can ship straight north over the pole instead of going through Panama or around India to the Suez. Anyone who says "no one wants global warming" is pulling the wool over their own eyes.China has already figured this out, their accelerating pollution will not only add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but soot, some of which will blow north over the pacific and settle on the ice packs. They have economic goals far greater than what the U.S. might be able to realize by tapping our own oil reserves near the north pole.
The environmental war began many years ago. The financial giants who see only stacks of numbers have fooled us long enough. It's time to stop believing them. Talk about aid and comfort to the enemy!
In the end, the money that makes it back to regular people by not taking immediate action to counter global warming will be a pittance compared to the profit that China and other far east countries will realize by taking advantage of the global change to the northern ice pack. (Unless the resulting stop of the deep Atlantic currents triggers a new ice age, then we'll all lose big — a lot more than money, we'll lose our whole civilization. Some people say they want that, too.)
While you're thinking about it, consider how your giant truck or SUV is also aiding the long-term goals of countries whose policies and systems of government are antithetical to the freedoms that the U.S. is supposed to protect in the world. After all, why would our rivals need to act directly when they can tempt us and take advantage of our own stupidity and greed to do their work for them? This seems to be a running theme.
Right-wing environmental policies work to the benefit of everyone but regular American people. They want to make us afraid that environmental policies will hurt the American economy... news flash, it's already hurt, and they're laughing all the way to the bank. Wake up, America, and throw the liars out of office!
> detail, links and comments >>
Monday, May 21, 2007
10:00 AM
The answer is simple -- Antarctica has an undiscovered wealth of natural resources, but it's too hard to access the mainland through all that ice.
It's purely an economic decision for people with mining interests. The amount they will lose on beachfront property etc. will be less than the amount they gain from new sources of oil and ore in Antarctica.
why some people want global warming
It's not necessary to invent alien conspiracies to understand why the powers that be want global warming to continue. Why they tell us how to "slow" global warming but do not discuss reversing it.The answer is simple -- Antarctica has an undiscovered wealth of natural resources, but it's too hard to access the mainland through all that ice.
It's purely an economic decision for people with mining interests. The amount they will lose on beachfront property etc. will be less than the amount they gain from new sources of oil and ore in Antarctica.
> detail, links and comments >>
Monday, May 14, 2007
7:17 AM
But it isn't enough, especially as the tundra melts and rots. There is too much carbon already in the global cycle. We have to develop a safe way to extract carbon from the atmosphere without taking oxygen with it.
My pastor had an interesting comment about the city of God in Revelation contrasted with the story about the man at the pool to whom the lord said, if you want to be healed, get up and walk. It is easier sometimes to believe in a 1500-mile wide cube coming from outer space than it is to believe that we can get up and get our act together before it gets here.
renewables good, but not enough
I don't mean to give the impression that efforts for renewable energy are totally wasted. These are all a good idea to reduce pollution and reduce the amount of fossil fuels burned. Plant trees, remove carbon from smokestacks, generate fuel from plants — all good ideas.But it isn't enough, especially as the tundra melts and rots. There is too much carbon already in the global cycle. We have to develop a safe way to extract carbon from the atmosphere without taking oxygen with it.
My pastor had an interesting comment about the city of God in Revelation contrasted with the story about the man at the pool to whom the lord said, if you want to be healed, get up and walk. It is easier sometimes to believe in a 1500-mile wide cube coming from outer space than it is to believe that we can get up and get our act together before it gets here.
> detail, links and comments >>
Saturday, May 5, 2007
1:23 PM
How much energy does it take to turn CO2 + 2 H2O => CH4 + 2 O2 ? Maybe there is an efficient micro-electrical or bio-photosynthetic method to create methane from CO2. This is the simplest renewable fuel, but when any renewable fuel is burned again, the net balance of carbon is unchanged.
So there is still the problem of how to bring the current level of carbon out of the atmosphere without creating a carbonate oxygen sink.
controlling the oxygen sink
If the amount of hydrogen in the top layer of the atmosphere were increased by creating oxygen from water for the carbon sink, it would either be blown away by solar wind or concentrations of it would periodically combust in natural electrical activity, creating a high-altitude source of water. If it did create high-altitude rain, I guess that would be cool, but we're back to the problem of not having enough oxygen because we need a carbon sink. Hmm, if the concentrations of hydrogen let go were high enough up there, maybe it would light all the nitrogen in the sky on fire when it finally blew up. That doesn't sound good.How much energy does it take to turn CO2 + 2 H2O => CH4 + 2 O2 ? Maybe there is an efficient micro-electrical or bio-photosynthetic method to create methane from CO2. This is the simplest renewable fuel, but when any renewable fuel is burned again, the net balance of carbon is unchanged.
So there is still the problem of how to bring the current level of carbon out of the atmosphere without creating a carbonate oxygen sink.
> detail, links and comments >>
8:44 AM
We support the carbon exchange market to develop atmospheric carbon extraction methods in a free market, but an even exchange does not solve the problem. Governments are going to have to buy carbon credits off the market to reduce the carbon that we've already put into the atmosphere in our 200 years of industrial progress.
In order to do that, the most likely extraction method will be the carbonate ion, CO3. Limestone, baking soda, etc. depending on what other chemical you put into the salt. But that requires an extra oxygen atom from the atmosphere. We do not want to remove all the oxygen from the atmosphere.
If we create hydrogen and oxygen with electrolysis, but then burn all the hydrogen (which consumes oxygen and creates water again), the net balance of oxygen is unchanged. We will need to let a lot of hydrogen go free to create an oxygen surplus which can then be used to extract carbon as carbonate. The excess hydrogen will float to the top of the atmosphere... any problems there?
Anyway, the point is, the global chemical cycles need to be balanced, and that's a lot more complicated than they're telling us on T.V.
hydrogen and the carbon exchange market
Hydrogen is important, but not for the reasons they tell you. A hydrogen fuel network will burn clean in your car, but you still have to burn coal in Utah to get electricity to make the hydrogen by splitting water molecules. It's just a "not in my backyard" solution, at least how they think of it.We support the carbon exchange market to develop atmospheric carbon extraction methods in a free market, but an even exchange does not solve the problem. Governments are going to have to buy carbon credits off the market to reduce the carbon that we've already put into the atmosphere in our 200 years of industrial progress.
In order to do that, the most likely extraction method will be the carbonate ion, CO3. Limestone, baking soda, etc. depending on what other chemical you put into the salt. But that requires an extra oxygen atom from the atmosphere. We do not want to remove all the oxygen from the atmosphere.
If we create hydrogen and oxygen with electrolysis, but then burn all the hydrogen (which consumes oxygen and creates water again), the net balance of oxygen is unchanged. We will need to let a lot of hydrogen go free to create an oxygen surplus which can then be used to extract carbon as carbonate. The excess hydrogen will float to the top of the atmosphere... any problems there?
Anyway, the point is, the global chemical cycles need to be balanced, and that's a lot more complicated than they're telling us on T.V.
> detail, links and comments >>
Friday, May 4, 2007
8:43 PM
infinite carbon
There is an alternative view... pardon me if I sound like Johnny Von Neumann for a minute, this is just food for thought. The worry is that the north pole will melt, but the deep sea conveyor currents will stop without it there to push them down. This will be basically like putting a big ice cube into the ocean, and we will trigger a sudden, very dry ice age. Von Neumann wrote a college paper saying how he wanted to paint the poles black and warm them up because he thought that would be more pleasant for people. I guess the idea there is, there will then be just so much carbon acting as a greenhouse gas that the projected ice age will never occur. We may lose 20 feet of sea level, but at least you'll be able to wear shorts in Alaska in the wintertime. To my knowledge there has never been a climate projection considering if the overcharged greenhouse gas concentration will prevent the ice age.> detail, links and comments >>
8:19 PM
Even if we shut down every factory on the planet, today, forever, and never lit another fire ever again, the global environment would still be charged with this enormously high concentration of carbon. The Siberian tundra would still be about to melt and rot, doubling that amount. The poles will still melt, the deep-sea currents will still stop, and the entire Atlantic fish harvest will still die, and we may still trigger an ice age.
A writing T.A. wrote a cool story about an alien race that strung us along with all kinds of technological doo-dads until we had changed the climate enough for their liking. Then they were done with us. By the time anyone noticed, it was too late.
We must develop an energy-efficient means of atmospheric carbon extraction now if we want to do anything about global warming. "Energy-efficient" meaning that we can't burn more carbon for power than we extract. Some alternatives may include:
U.N. report is a big fat lie
The United Nations report on global warming today is a big fat lie.Even if we shut down every factory on the planet, today, forever, and never lit another fire ever again, the global environment would still be charged with this enormously high concentration of carbon. The Siberian tundra would still be about to melt and rot, doubling that amount. The poles will still melt, the deep-sea currents will still stop, and the entire Atlantic fish harvest will still die, and we may still trigger an ice age.
A writing T.A. wrote a cool story about an alien race that strung us along with all kinds of technological doo-dads until we had changed the climate enough for their liking. Then they were done with us. By the time anyone noticed, it was too late.
We must develop an energy-efficient means of atmospheric carbon extraction now if we want to do anything about global warming. "Energy-efficient" meaning that we can't burn more carbon for power than we extract. Some alternatives may include:
- ocean nutrient seeding to cause algal and plankton blooms above anoxic waters.
- growing algae in land-locked farms and burying it.
- bio-engineering algae to over-produce enzymes that turn CO2 into other chemicals, such as limestone or baking soda.
> detail, links and comments >>
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
6:47 PM
Archives
May 2007 /
January 2008 /
July 2008 /
December 2008 /
Global Warming
The GOP strategy of burying heads in the sand obviously isn't working and alienates the United States from the rest of the world. We believe Al Gore states the problem well, but proposes no meaningful solution. Even if we switched to 100% renewable energy right now, the global carbon cycle would still be charged with hundreds of billions of tons more than it has ever seen. We must direct immense research effort now to develop energy-efficient means of extracting carbon from the general atmosphere. This is the only feasible way to reverse any danger posed by global warming.> detail, links and comments >>