Carbon Solutions

[Reeve]

"Energy efficient condos, downtown? Great, better get one for my dog too. Shame on that guy for living out in the burbs driving around that dirty used car... He should just buy a half million dollar condo that's close to everything and a brand new 50,000 dollar electric car like all the good citizens like me."

See, you're stuck on this idea that city living can only be for the wealthy, and that's just not true.

[Adam Jensen]

Solar panels! Solar panels everywhere! And windmills.

Public transportation can be improved, driving more people to busses and trains and putting fewer cars on the road. Better to have one big car than dozens of smaller ones.

And lets keep working on fusion power.

- - - Updated - - -

Ban all non-bike travel.

Sorry but I'm not riding my bike home from work at 2-3AM in the morning for a 40 minute ride five nights a week.

[matt4pack]

Sorry but I'm not riding my bike home from work at 2-3AM in the morning for a 40 minute ride five nights a week.

A skateboard would be acceptable as well.

[Rukentuts]

Sorry but I'm not riding my bike home from work at 2-3AM in the morning for a 40 minute ride five nights a week.

I've ridden at that hour. Really it depends on your route.

[Linkedblade]

Problems we face in the U.S.:
-It isn't profitable. It's sad to say it, but it wouldn't be profitable to create mass transit between metropolitan areas. If anything it would cause more pollution. What methods do we have? Trains, Buses, Planes, Ships? None of them would be convenient or help the problem.
-Cities are spread too far.
-No one wants ot invest in electric mass transit.
-People are frightened of Nuclear power.
-Infrastructure would have to travel between some crazy climates and mantainence would be expensive. Nevada being mostly desert? Rocky Mountains?

Even if we went out of our in the US to eliminate all of out carbon emissions it would be a small dent in the surface of the problem: China and India.

[Gheld]

See, you're stuck on this idea that city living can only be for the wealthy, and that's just not true.

Without redistribution of wealth (which is the essence of your proposal) people inevitably have to take a hit to their disposable income to do so.

But like I said, people who contribute to gentrification incidentally by benefiting unintentionally from the inherent wealth inequity in our society will get off scot free, and I mean, why shouldn't they? They didn't actively do anything bad for the environment right?

But the fact is the inequity is still an overall burden to society. I mean. I'm right underneath you on the totem pole, and I like to pridefully boast that I don't benefit from any government handouts. But if you were to suddenly tax the fuck out of gasoline I'd become dependent on that rebate cheque to pay for my place at that overpriced cramped glass prison across the street from work while nothing changes for you. You can just sit there smugly talking about your eco friendly condo downtown. If you sold it would your asking price be closer to the intrinsic value or the market value? That's what I thought.

[Masark]

Even if we went out of our in the US to eliminate all of out carbon emissions it would be a small dent in the surface of the problem: China and India.

You appear to be speaking as if China emits multiple times as much GHGs as the USA does, when in actual numbers, they both emit about the same amount.

[nextormento]

Even if we went out of our in the US to eliminate all of out carbon emissions it would be a small dent in the surface of the problem: China and India.

While I don't fancy China's non-binding targets precedence in the Copenhagen summit, or the intensity cap, It's not like we can nicely ask them to not industrialize themselves. In any case, at some point they'll need to start investing in greener technologies and greener urban strategies. Those techs will be a great export product for the countries that develop them for China/India to buy; not investing in them is a great opportunity loss.

[Raeph]

Snip

I've personally never been a fan of "carbon taxes" or a "cap and trade" type system. Seems either complicated enough to have issues with a lot of fraud or may prove to be a burden on the economy due to the taxes. There is also the issue of government redistribution, that I don't care for either, but that is a separate discussion.

I believe that part of the role of the government is to use applications of *force* to change the country as a whole. These applications must be done carefully as using too much and you break the autonomous spirit of the individual, which can stifle innovation and invention, too little and they just waste resources.

In that vein (in the United States) I would suggest:

Step 1: A Federal Mandate to convert all coal fired power plants to burn natural gas. A second mandate to have all vehicles on the road either converted to natural gas burning, gasoline hybrids, full electric and work to expand the number of fuel cell vehicles. Remove the farm credits for corn growers and eliminate the mandates for ethanol.

Step 2: Instituted a new small energy tax. This tax will be used to increase the number of nuclear power plants, as well as pay for federally sponsored research in nuclear, renewable, solar and wind energies to make them all more efficient so they will be competitive in the energy market, without subsidies driving consumer cost down. During the time period where research is working on solving the cost issue, natural gas will be used as a bridge resource to get us to the point where cost wise we can switch to clearer energy options through innovation rather than just taxing certain energy options out of existence.

Step 3: Develop a mass transit network to at least interconnect all state capitals and metropolitan areas with a population greater than 500k.

All that said, such a plan would take a decade or two to complete, if not longer, to say nothing for the cost of all those changes and projects.

[Netherspark]

Build like, hell of a lot more nuclear power. The only way to reduce carbon output is to reduce the percentage of carbon burning power production methods.

Nuclear Power stations emit enormous amounts of water vapour, which as mentioned earlier is one of the most potent greenhouse gasses. And while it does rain down eventually, pumping an endless steam of it into the atmosphere 24/7 is going to mean an ever-thickening layer of it is always present, making it just as bad or even worse than Co2.

Fully replacing all fossil fuel power stations with nuclear is not going to help at all, in fact it could be disastrous.

[matt4pack]

Shutdown MMO-champion servers until they run with 100% renewable energy.

Disable Internet service for anyone who doesn't have solar panels.

[Adam Jensen]

I've ridden at that hour. Really it depends on your route.

I could avoid I-95. But last thing I need at that hour is a bike ride. I'm usually in a rush to go to bed.

[Masark]

eliminate the mandates for ethanol.

No thanks. Ethanol (and MTBE before it) is in gasoline for a good reason. It adds oxygen to the combustion, cutting down NOx, CO, and ozone emissions, which help keep LA from looking like this again.

[shise]

Well, climate change IS real ever since climate has ALWAYS been changing in the history of this planet... None can deny this, I mean ,you'd make a fool of yourself

Then about us: we obviously do have a heavy influence on it. We've been creating CO2 and company for more than one century in a daily basis, hour after hour, minute after minute. It is all going somewhere, it doesn't magically dissipate, it spread... Deforestation is also part of our "pollution" to call it somehow, and tat also affects the planet. So yes, we affect the climate, how much? who knows.

About carbon. We could stop using it quite easily, the problem is those whose interests are over it simply rule the planet, so they are not allowing us to give the next social evolution step. Plain simple.

[Masark]

And while it does rain down eventually

"Eventually" in the case of water vapour is about 10 days from now.

In the case of CO2, "eventually" is somewhere between "when I start considering retirement" and "early next century".

[Rukentuts]

No thanks. Ethanol (and MTBE before it) is in gasoline for a good reason. It adds oxygen to the combustion, cutting down NOx, CO, and ozone emissions, which help keep LA from looking like this again.

Is it true that the process of refining + combusting ethanol is worse for CO2 than gasoline? I know it hurts MPG.

We're considering removing the 15% mandate in MN.

[Raeph]

No thanks. Ethanol (and MTBE before it) is in gasoline for a good reason. It adds oxygen to the combustion, cutting down NOx, CO, and ozone emissions, which help keep LA from looking like this again.

And has a large carbon foot print, that negates its *benefits*

http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-news...on-footprints/

Researchers are skeptical of federal claims that ethanol's advances would be sufficient enough to counter emissions associated with food-crop displacement.

"It's not consistent with what I have read in the peer-reviewed literature," said David Tilman, a University of Minnesota professor of ecology who has studied biofuels' conflict with food crops.

"You can make very optimistic projections about what yields may be in the future, but if you look at past yield trends, yield improvements even during the Green Revolution have not been enough to meet the demands we have coming in the future."

Other articles I've read put corn ethanol at a higher ecological footprint than gasoline even, with you take into account additional water resources needed, expansion of farm land necessary to replace the corn as a food crop, the lower amount of energy you get from it compared to gasoline (meaning you need more of it for the same amount of energy), cost of repair work necessary on older vehicles, among other issues.

Sorry, ethanol isn't as good for the environment as you think it is. Even with state and federal governments playing with the numbers.

[Masark]

Sorry, ethanol isn't as good for the environment as you think it is. Even with state and federal governments playing with the numbers.

I said ethanol is fuel is a good idea.

I agree that corn ethanol is a really dumb idea. Make them plant sugar beets or something.

[nextormento]

Nuclear Power stations emit enormous amounts of water vapour

My intuition would dictate that fossil fuel plants emit about the same amount of water vapor for each Kw produced: they all boil water to move turbines. Replacing fossil for nuclear might not reduce water vapor, but I doubt it would increase it. It would, however, reduce CO2, which is a much larger contributor as of today.

people who contribute to gentrification incidentally by benefiting unintentionally from the inherent wealth inequity in our society will get off scot free, and I mean, why shouldn't they? They didn't actively do anything bad for the environment right?

Depends on how you go about it. The prime example of gentrification in the modern world is Washington DC, if I'm not mistaken, and yes: the city and council benefit, because the city now appeals to higher income residents, that pay higher taxes, and lower crime rates, etc. while the poor get displaced to suburban zones.

But you can force social dwelling into the mix through legislation to have a better equilibrium. While most examples that I've studied end up appealing to the lower end of the middle class (displacing the extremely poor), the fact of the matter is that there are variables that can be controlled to build a healthier city (environment and social wise).

[Rukentuts]

My intuition would dictate that fossil fuel plants emit about the same amount of water vapor for each Kw produced: they all boil water to move turbines. Replacing fossil for nuclear might not reduce water vapor, but I doubt it would increase it. It would, however, reduce CO2, which is a much larger contributor as of today.

In the case of coal, it'd not only vastly reduce CO2, but it'd also reduce nickel, chromium, mercury, dioxins, sulfates, and lead.