--- Mario Goveia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The US believes that while there may be > global warming taking place there is no rational > evidence that it is being caused by human activity. > Therefore controls should be voluntary. The US has > increasingly implemented environmental standards, > but > these are mostly for health reasons. It has far > more > controls and a far cleaner environment then either > India or China, the two fastest growing large > economies in the world, who have no environmental > controls at all, but were exempted from the bogus > Kyoto Protocols for left wing political reasons. --- The US does have better environmental regulations than China and India. There is no doubt about it. However the average US citizen still produces 5-10x more emissions than an average Indian or Chinese due to higher levels of production and consumption in America. It may be a decade or two before which India and China become as energy intensive as the US. Till then, the argument India and China have been given special exemptions is moot.
Ironically, some of the very regulations meant to protect the environment have actually worsened the green house emissions in the US. For example, America's strong focus on reducing NOxs (acid rain producing gases) has indirectly contributed to an increase in green house emissions such as CO2. Over the last decade the more energy efficient diesel powerplants have become the engine of choice to power vehicles over there. However, diesels also emit more NOxs, which have made them fail US standards. Given that diesels are around 30-40% more efficient than gasoline engines, the US could achieve equivalent reductions in green house emissions from its vehicle fleet by switching to this fuel. As a rule of thumb, COx emissions are inversely related to fuel efficiency. Interestingly, the US would also achieve significantly better energy security as it would need to import less oil due to the efficiency gains (thus no need to invade Iraq!). One big road block in implementing this new diesel technology has been the absence of quality/low sulphur fuel in the US. The oil industry in the US had successfully resisted in pushing back improvements in the quality of this fuel. However even the Bush administration has finally begun to see the light on diesel and has succeeded in passing through legislation that will force the industry to produce low sulfur diesel by 2007. In the long term, one does envision a greater role for non carbon based rewnewable energy sources. Wind energy costs have dropped exponentially over the last decade. Likewise, solar energy conversion energy continues to improve dramatically (the latest cells are around 50% more efficient than cells produced just 5 years ago- with overall efficiency rates of 20%). Besides improvements in conventional silicon/semiconductor technology, work is also being done to replicate the solar energy absorption mechanisms found in plants which approach efficiencies close to 100%. There is of course much activity in fuel cell technolgy which while using carbon based fuels, are significantly more efficient and allow for better managemement/entrapment of the carbon by products. Finally, there is the hydrogen economy that many talk about. Again, like fuel cells, the fundamental source of H2 would still be the carbon based fuels, though here too, the process would allow for better entrapment of the carbon wastes. Like the semi-conductor boom in the 1970 and 80s and the IT and bio tech boom in the 90s, today's venture capital is rapidly flowing into the alternative energy sector. > How > can any rational person claim to be able to > "improve" > the Earth's atmosphere by exempting India and China? > > > Anyone who is not an extreme environmental activist > would acknowledge that global warming and cooling > have > taken place many times in Earth's history, way > before > the first automobile was invented. Frozen Siberia > was > a verdant forest and verdant N. America was covered > by > several feet of snow well before humans could be > blamed. > > > >From basic physics classes one would know that 99% > of > the Earth's atmosphere is comprised of Oxygen and > Nitrogen. The dreaded CO2 of environmental > activist's > nightmares accounts for 0.036% of the Earth's > atmosphere. This is so minute that even if we shut > down ALL human industrial activity to stop more CO2 > from being made, it will have a neglible affect on > the > total atmosphere. --- Wow, this is a really logical. Just because something is small does not mean that it cannot have a significant impact on the environment. Please visit me in my lab and I will (quite happily) give you stuff in concentrations of 0.000001% which would be sufficient to kill you :) Just for the record, there is a clear correlation between the increases in concentrations of CO2 with the onset of the industrial revolution and its corresponding use of fossil fuels. It is true that the planet has gone through dramatic climate changes in the past, the reasons for which are still being studied. However to attribute those past events as well as the current warming trend to "natural variations" and therefore do nothing about it is obviously very foolish. There may be other factors in play besides the green house gases. However it is universally agreed by all reputable scientists that the green house emissions lie at the top of the pareto of factors contributing to global warming. It is therefore logical to try and attack the largest known factor first. Marlon -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Goa - 2005 Santosh Trophy Champions | | | | Support Soccer Activities at the grassroots in our villages | | Vacationing in Goa this year-end - Carry and distribute Soccer Balls | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
