The climate crisis is a powerful tool to motivate change!

Eller hur Global Warming anhängare motarbetar tekniska lösningar på CO2 frågan då detta skulle kunna medföra att folk INTE BLIR LIKA ALARMERADE LÄNGRE. Cyniskt så säg!

Jag har flera gånger påpekat att hela den här klimatfrågan och Global Warming hysterin INTE handlar om fakta och vetenskap utan den drivs av en bestämd politisk agenda.

Och att det här är väldigt svårt för ”gemene man” att förstå som tror att det hela handlar om ”vetenskap” och att ”rädda” planeten från ”omedelbar” undergång. Global Warming Hysterin är bara ett redskap som dessa politiker och andra använder för att det passar deras syften just nu. Och i detta cyniska syfte så skuldbelägger man vanliga människor och spenderar ofantliga summor på nonsensåtgärder.

Pengar som jag gång på gång påpekar KUNDE ha använts HÄR OCH NU för att lösa verkliga (inklusive miljö) problem.

Jag kommer mycket snart med ett inlägg som vidare beskriver bakgrunden och vilka faktorer, organisationer och personer som ligger bakom denna agenda.

Under tiden ett mycket avslöjande och rättframt citat av Ted Parson, professor vid  the School of National Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan.

”Many individuals, including a large portion of environmentalists, believe that a purely technological approach to stabilizing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could lead to social apathy towards climate change.

Ted Parson, a professor at the School of National Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan, writes that the promises of air capture could carry a ”moral hazard” because political pressure for near-term efforts to curtail climate change may be reduced.

Air capture also only addresses one of many factors adversely affecting the environment. The climate crisis is a powerful tool to motivate change – like checking the ever-expanding global population and excessive resource consumption – and if the urgency of climate change is compromised, other environmental projects may fall by the wayside.”

Hela artikeln från Colorado Daily finns här:

http://www.coloradodaily.com/articles/2008/02/21/news/c_u_and_boulder/news3.txt

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Carbon dioxide: friend or foe?

By EVAN SANDSMARK Colorado Daily Staff

Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:52 PM MST

After years of depressing media coverage regarding the climate crisis, a new proposal to stabilize carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere offers a breath of fresh air – literally.

The concept, known as ”air capture” or ”carbon capture,” seeks to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through several proposed methods, thereby curbing the build-up of one the main anthropogenic gases (i.e. gases produced by human activities) contributing to climate change.

Roger Pielke, Jr., a Professor in the Environmental Studies Program at CU and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, is supportive of air capture research, stating that it should at least be considered along with other proposals to address the multifaceted issue of climate change.

”I think it’s definitely a promising idea that we ought to explore. It might be one element of a very complicated set of solutions. If it turns out to be technologically feasible and economically viable, why on in the world wouldn’t we do it,” said Pielke.

Unless air capture technology is rendered impossible, ”I can see no reason why it shouldn’t be part of the portfolio of the responses that we talk about,” he continued.

The prospect of stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide via air capture is overshadowed by two more popular alternatives, according to Pielke.

The first option is to increase the price of carbon-based fuels like gasoline. In doing so, the reasoning goes, consumers would be more inclined to seek alternative sources of energy. Many renewable energy sources, then, would become economically favorable and attractive to consumers as a result. The Kyoto Protocol is largely supportive of this approach.

The second option, generally supported by the Bush Administration, looks to decrease the cost of renewable energy, requiring increased investment in and development of solar, wind, and nuclear energy sources, to name a few. Just like the first alternative, lowered prices would entice consumers to purchase energy from these sources.

Given the lack of progress made in mitigating carbon emissions, Pielke believes all possible solutions must be considered.

”I think that climate change is complex enough and reducing emissions is difficult enough that we need all options on the table,” said Pielke.

Despite its promise, however, air capture has met resistance.

Many individuals, including a large portion of environmentalists, believe that a purely technological approach to stabilizing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could lead to social apathy towards climate change.

Ted Parson, a professor at the School of National Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan, writes that the promises of air capture could carry a ”moral hazard” because political pressure for near-term efforts to curtail climate change may be reduced.

Air capture also only addresses one of many factors adversely affecting the environment. The climate crisis is a powerful tool to motivate change – like checking the ever-expanding global population and excessive resource consumption – and if the urgency of climate change is compromised, other environmental projects may fall by the wayside.

Responding to these objections, Pielke stated ”I don’t think it’s a good idea for experts to be saying that Š the public can’t handle these technologies,” explaining that all helpful measures, which may eventually include air capture, need to be taken to stabilize the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

”If the success of climate change policies is to be measured by concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases,” he writes in a manuscript explaining his stance on air capture, ”then by this metric air capture offers a direct solution.”

Making the concept of air capture immensely more attractive, two scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory claim that carbon dioxide can not only be removed from the atmosphere, but also reconverted into usable fuel, solving the climate and energy crisis in one elegant scientific swipe.

The scientists, F. Jeffrey Martin and William L. Kubic Jr., explain that their proposed process would convert carbon dioxide from a climate-altering pollutant into a huge pool of renewable fuels.

Since equal amounts of carbon dioxide would be emitted and removed from the atmosphere, the system would be closed, meaning cars, truck and airplanes using synthetic fuels would no longer contribute to climate change.

Surprisingly, the process itself is relatively simple. Kenneth Chang, a science reporter for the New York Times, explains the process thusly: ”Air would be blown over a liquid solution of potassium carbonate, which would absorb the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would then be extracted and subjected to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel: methanol, gasoline or jet fuel.”

Although a prototype of a synthetic fuel factory has yet to be built, the Los Alamos scientists claim the carbon-dioxide-to-usable-fuel concept is grounded in existing technology.

The scientists’ promising work, however, faces a big hurdle: a vast amount if energy is required to convert carbon dioxide into fuel.

Although the scientists have developed a number of innovations to address this energy quandary, a consistently-working power plant would still be needed to produce gasoline on a commercial scale.

For the sake of economic viability, a nuclear reactor would be the best source of energy for the power plant, but alternatives sources, such as solar panels, could also be used, although the gasoline produced would undoubtedly cost far more.

Contact Evan Sandsmark about this story at (303) 443-6272, ext. 113, or at editor@coloradodaily.com.

Etiketter: ,

Kommentera

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Google-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Google-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Ansluter till %s


%d bloggare gillar detta: