Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages

Deep Creek Hot Springs

The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (81% of Full)


Advanced

Re: SC36

All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion and not fact until verified independently.

January 30, 2007 10:22PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2001694,00.html

Don't be fooled by Bush's defection: his cures are another form of denial

George Bush proposes to deal with climate change by means of smoke and mirrors. So what's new? Only that it is no longer just a metaphor. After six years of obfuscation and denial, the US now insists that we find ways to block some of the sunlight reaching the earth. This means launching either mirrors or clouds of small particles into the atmosphere.

The demand appears in a recent US memo to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It describes "modifying solar radiance" as "important insurance" against the threat of climate change. A more accurate description might be important insurance against the need to cut emissions.

Every scheme that could give us a chance of preventing runaway climate change should be considered on its merits. But the proposals for building a global parasol don't have very many. A group of nuclear weapons scientists at the Lawrence Livermore laboratory in California, apparently bored of experimenting with only one kind of mass death, have proposed launching into the atmosphere a million tonnes of tiny aluminium balloons, filled with hydrogen, every year. One unfortunate side-effect would be to eliminate the ozone layer.

Another proposal, from a scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colorado, suggests spraying billions of tonnes of sea-water into the air. Regrettably, the production of small salt particles, while generating obscuring mists, could cause droughts in the countries downwind. Another scheme would inject sulphate particles into the stratosphere. It is perhaps less dangerous than the others, but still carries a risk of causing changes in rainfall patterns. As for flipping a giant mirror into orbit, the necessary technologies are probably a century away. All these fixes appear more expensive than cutting the amount of energy we consume. None reduces the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which threatens to acidify the oceans, with grave consequences for the food chain.

The demand that money and research be diverted into these quixotic solutions is another indication that Bush's avowed conversion to the cause of cutting emissions is illusory. He is simply drumming up new business for his chums. In his state of the union address last week, he spoke of "the serious challenge of global climate change" and announced that he was raising the government's mandatory target for alternative transport fuels fivefold. This is wonderful news for the grain barons of the red states, who will grow the maize and rapeseed that will be turned into biofuel. It's a catastrophe for everyone else..............

Bush and his Daddy have bought huge spreads in Paraguay. Perhaps as a future refuge from angry US citizens? If Cheney moves there, why they would have thier own " Axis Of Evil "! These Smoke and Mirrors climate fix suggestions from the Bush administration should show American Citizens clearly how un-hinged these people have become. They will say anything, do anything, to by time, until thier South American Ranches become thier last resort, as they flee from all those citizens in the US that want to seek justice, for war crimes of Bush and Cheney, and the other crimes against the US citizenery, that they have perpetrated in thier time in power. My opinion is, there won't be any realistic mega fixes coming for humanity in terms of throwing up some dust into the air, and planting huge mirrors in space. We will either find some way to drastically reduce our greenhouse emissions by changing the way we do things here on the ground, or, we will have to face the consequences that will ensue from increasing CO2 levels.
SubjectAuthorViewsPosted

SC36

Wizard 599January 29, 2007 10:52PM

Re: SC36

Wizard 441January 30, 2007 10:22PM

Re: SC36

Wizard 390January 30, 2007 10:54PM

Re: SC36

Wizard 373January 31, 2007 10:31PM

Re: SC36

Paul P. 358February 01, 2007 09:48AM

Re: SC36

Wizard 345February 03, 2007 02:25PM

Re: SC36

Wizard 393February 06, 2007 08:29PM

Re: SC36

Wizard 438February 06, 2007 09:04PM

Re: SC36

Wizard 420February 06, 2007 09:32PM

Re: SC36

Wizard 377February 06, 2007 10:19PM

Re: SC36

Wizard 398February 06, 2007 10:55PM

Re: SC36

Wizard 389February 09, 2007 09:08PM

Re: SC36

Wizard 360February 10, 2007 08:16PM

Re: SC36

Wizard 393February 11, 2007 10:05AM

Re: SC36

Wizard 387February 11, 2007 10:17AM

Re: SC36

Wizard 348February 11, 2007 10:36AM

Re: SC36

Wizard 398February 11, 2007 10:59AM

Re: SC36

Wizard 380February 11, 2007 11:58AM

Re: SC36

Wizard 420February 11, 2007 02:10PM

Hydrogen Energy costs too much?

Rick 440February 12, 2007 07:11PM

Re: Hydrogen Energy costs too much?

mojavegreen 753February 13, 2007 11:32AM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login