Colorado can lead the way on warming

Posted by clyde on February 15, 2008 at 1:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The President has shown quite admirable restraint in not jumping on the charlatan's bandwagon. GW is a scam, pure and simple. It is in the mold of mass starvation, the coming ice age, overpopulation, and a myriad of other "disasters" that required immediate and drastic action. None of these previous "crisis du jour"s ever materialized, but the feeble and emotional jumped like lemmings at every imagined catastrophe facing the Human population and threatening its demise. Critical thought has been weaned out of the government-run school system, creating mindless dependents, eagerly awaiting their next instruction from the Almighty Government. The sheeple are being eagerly led to the slaughter.

Posted by Trythinking on February 15, 2008 at 5:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the incredibly condescending lecture to us the great un-washed masses. I especially like the reference to “science-based” goals and levels that you recite since it carries so much more weigh than the voodoo-based goals and levels that the rest of us use. Here are a couple of fact-based issues to chew on.
1. Ritter could bomb Colorado back to the stone age and completely and totally destroy our economy by cutting the state’s CO2 footprint to 0 and have zero effect on the global climate.
2. Coal is our largest energy resource. Cheap reliable energy is the key to economic power and job creation. One of the poor developing counties that you lament is China. China is driving up the global price of coal because they are using so much coal that they must import. So the US will get less competitive and China more competitive with zero effect on Global Warming.
3. US hydro power plants over 30MW are not considered renewable and cannot claim CO2 credits. China and other countries around the world are able to sell CO2 offset credits from their large hydropower plants. Again China will be economically enriched by large scale hydro development when the USA is afforded no such opportunity. So they get to use cheap coal to become more competitive, they don’t need to purchase CO2 off-set to burn this coal and they get to create offset that are not available to US companies.
4. Al Gore the Profit (misspelling intended) of this cause got a lot of money from the Chinese for his 2000 presidential campaign. Odd in a science-based analysis that CO2 coming from China would be exempt from causing global warming isn’t it?
5. France gets 80% of its power from nuclear. The exact same nuclear power that cannot be developed in the USA. It’s not that we can’t build nuclear power plants, it just that a) Enviros have halted in situ mining of uranium ( Ft Collins) and b) eliminated a long term waste storage facility (Harry Reid and killing Yucca Mountain). If we are to believe global warming is the greatest threat to mankind, why would this form of energy be under attack?
6. Having bought, sold, designed, financed and constructed virtually every type of power plant out there, one other fact exists. The economies of scale, that are going to lower costs and allow for reduced energy price from these new renewable, do not exist. General Electric is one of the largest builders of wind turbines in the world. They are sold out of their 1.5 MW machines until 2010. They are making more wind turbines now than in any time in history. There is more competition with multiple companies building turbines. The price is rising rapidly. This may come as a shock, but manufactures, especially world class manufactures like GE, price their products based on the market, not on the cost. Drive up demand and you drive up cost.

Posted by Trythinking on February 15, 2008 at 5:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Hay, Part 2

Your are probably not well versed in economics, so look at Starbucks. In your world, their prices are actually tied to the cost of producing a cup of coffee. Economies of scale will reduce prices, so since there is a Starbucks on every corner the price for a Latte will soon start to drop, right? Demand for boutique coffee and demand for boutique energy will both result in higher costs.

Now for some experience-based issues.

1. The combined sum total of investment dollars put at risk the Western Resource Advocates, Sierra Club, National Environmental Defense Council, and Environmental Colorado couldn’t purchase a fluorescent light bulb. They don’t invest in solutions; they sue producers, halt and delay project and whisper in the ear of politicos.
2. The combined sum total of power generation experience of the Western Resource Advocates, Sierra Club, National Environmental Defense Council, and Environmental Colorado couldn’t light the aforementioned fluorescent light bulb.
3. If these technologies are truly cheaper and better, they would have no problem competing against traditional technology without mandates & subsidies. Think of the good that Western Resource Advocates, Sierra Club, National Environmental Defense Council, and Environmental Colorado could do by leading the way, investing their considerable resources in these technologies and drive the traditional guys out of business. It is so much easier to lead than to snipe from the side lines.
4. My family owns and operates a small renewable hydropower project. I produce an average of 700 MWhrs of clean renewable power very year, thru getting and engineering degree, obtaining 20 plus years of experience, hard work, sweat, and a large personal capital investment that is at risk. I don’t get tax subsidies and I don’t get government money. The amount of power that I produce is 100 times what we as a family consume.

My questions are these; Mr. Hay is what are you doing besides whining? What is you action-based plan to bring solutions?

Posted by Earl on February 15, 2008 at 6:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ok there ole hay boy, if this is such a hot topic and needs addressing because your robot leader algore says so, why then did he and his buddy billary not do anything during their 8 eight years? algore has preached this for 30 years but it was never a really big problem till now? clinton wouldnt sign the koyto agreement so why should Bush? why is it that all the followers of algore in bollywood tell us to respect the enviornment and yet they ignore it and do what they want? why are the big dems out flying around and taking lots of diesel bus trips to get elected and warn us of the make believe warming issue but can do so because algore sells carbon credits. here is a fix have colorado buy carbon credits from me and I will go plant a tree in venezuela to cure our problems.
so now for all of you who are going to rip everyone about not believing in this crap, o g and his progressive liberal socialist buddies, please list everything you are now doing to reduce your pollution of the planet, and you better not drive anything but a push cart. I think I will go start all the ranch equipment just for fun and maybe even get a few cattle to break wind.

Posted by An_Engineer on February 15, 2008 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with "clyde" and "Hydro_Man"'s statements concerning this uninformed letter from Mr. Hay.

Additionally, let me offer these points...
Before we act to restrict the use of energy by attempting to reduce or eliminate the output of carbon dioxide, Mr. Hay please provide empirical scientific evidence that human generated carbon dioxide is the only cause of variations in global average temperatures. And, I do not mean the scientifically unverifiable results generated by climate models.

Let me emphasize the fact that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and in fact is an important component of the food chain. Plants require carbon dioxide for their existence. Therefore, no carbon dioxide, no plants. No plants, no humans.

Finally, I applaud Hydro_Man's efforts to generate hydroelectric power. It is the one so-called renewable energy source that can be relied on to produce low cost and constantly available electricity. The governor is doing the state a great disservice by completely ignoring hydroelectric generation in his push for "alternate" energy. We should be fitting every possible source with the necessary equipment to generate hydroelectric energy. Political pressure needs to be applied to the current governor to acknowledge and support this important source of energy.

Posted by jackson_foi on February 15, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The city of Seattle is way ahead of you Earl, they have claimed several square miles of nearby national forest.

Posted by rushrulesbaby on February 15, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Global Warming Scam, Global Warming Scam. As it turns out there PT Barnum was right all along: A sucker is born every minute (paraphrased). Whewww! If we could control the climate and make it warmer I would be tickled. It just plain happens. Get over your love for regulation, restricting freedom and get a life!

Posted by greenleaf on February 15, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hydro _Man,

You make some good points about economics. We live in a global economy and, like it or not, we can't ignore the laws of supply and demand on a global scale.

Of course, there is so much pent up demand for renewable energy that prices for solar panels and wind turbines are up considerably and will be for a time until more companies begin production.

Some points to consider before lynching Mr. Hay:

1) The price for these items WILL come down eventually. Consider as a case in point the CFL bulbs you mentioned. I bought some for my business 18 years ago. I paid the shocking sum of $ 20/bulb. Everyone, including myself, thought I was crazy. Because they last 10 times as long, and use 1/3 the electricity of incandescents,I thought they were a product whose time had come and I wanted to do my small part to help them along! It was an experiment on my part and I'm sure that I didn't break even, although 2 of the original 5 bulbs are still lighting rooms today! Fast forward 18 years and most businesses and many homes have converted to CFLS. You can buy BETTER bulbs than my first generation CFLS for as little as $1/ unit. It makes MORE sense at this point to trash your working Edison bulbs in favour of CFLS because the savings come so soon. That's a convergence of good economics , fiscal conservatism and environmentalism. Solar panels and wind turbines will, eventually get ahead of the curve as well.

2. We seldom consider the hidden costs of energy production. Coal is abundant in this country. Unfortunately it is bulky and buried. It must be uncovered to be extracted(in most cases!). Hence we have strip mines that are essentially gigantic holes in the earth that are sometimes miles across (visit Billings, Montana sometime to see one or view it from space on Google Earth.). In other places, West Virginia for example, they remove the tops of mountains and shove the overburden into valleys and streams below. These lands are altered FOREVER, and there are more of them all the time. Consider, too, the ongoing air pollution that burning coal causes. This results in Acid rain negatively affecting forests and lakes . Respiratory diseases in our cities are made worse and more numerous. Who pays? We all do, but it isn't factored into the price of a Kilowatt hour produced from coal.

Oil is another product whose hidden costs are rarely considered. We are currently spending billions of dollars a year protecting middle eastern oil fields and shipping routes. We have other reasons for being there to be sure, but protecting the flow is priority #1. Oil has similar impacts upon the world's environment to coal: from oil spills to tens of thousands of scars upon the land at extraction sites to similar air pollution concerns and health issues . You might not believe in global warming, but it doesn't take an intellectual leap and thousands of scientists to see these hidden costs.

Posted by greenleaf on February 15, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Everybody might want to check out the Rocky Mountain Institute website. They have consulted with many corporations, including Walmart with the object of decreasing energy costs, which coincidentally, help the environment as well

I agree that renewable energy has a long ways to go, but it's obviously getting there ( your Hydro electric plant is one example). And... coal and oil aren't as cheap as they are made to appear either!

Posted by Trythinking on February 15, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Greenleaf,

I see that you have a business, thus the more thoughtful point of view. Reality vs theory always clarifies.

I've switch my home over to compact fluorescent light bulbs because they are less expensive to operate and the new models start quickly and provide good light. No mandates, just the desire to save money. We should use as much economically viable renewable as possible. But we shouldn't mandate a certain percentage nor should we artificially raise the price of traditional power to make renewables more competitive. Allow good old engineering and economics to pick the winner will allows us to avoid making the same mistake as was made with corn based ethanol. Ritter didn't think that one all the way through did he?

The Rocky Mountain Institute is a great organization. They were way ahead of the curve years ago. I don't think the push for mandates. They help companies save money and make higher profits by going green. Good for them and the clients and their clients customers. For a technology to be sustainable, it needs to be economically sustainable. Tax credits, grants, rebates and government mandates allow less than optimum solutions to flourish. The reason every stream and river in the country doesn't have a hydropower plant is that some sites are simply not economical to develop. The same can be said for many of today's PC energy sources.

No one to my knowledge burns significant amounts of oil to product electricity. The absolutely cheapest power plant in Xcel's fleet is Comanche (coal-fired) and $15.20 Pawnee (coal-fired) plant cost per MWhr is $16.10, Fort St Vrain gas-fired combined cycle (darling of the CO2 crowd and legal in California) is $52.50, Ft Lupton $97.90 per MWhr. The absolute best 2008 vintage gas fired unit has a heat rate of 5,600 BTU/kWhr. So if natural gas is $6.00 per million BTUs the fuel cost alone for a gas turbine is $33.60/MWhr and you haven't paid capital costs, O&M costs or provided a profit. Wind is great but even wind power experts will tell you that 20% is about maximum without developing system stability problems. Let's go nuts and say we go to 50% renewable. What should the other 50% be? In my opinion the cheapest most efficient resource, namely coal.

Posted by Gene on February 15, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Forget about Bush. He is a lame duck. Will Mr. Keith Hay work to get John McCain elected President? McCain is sympathetic to the global warming situation.

Posted by Trythinking on February 15, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Greenleaf,

I am not proposing that we lynch anyone and certainly not Mr. Hay. We should applaud the environmental community for pushing my industry into cleaning up NOX (smog) and SOX (Acid rain) as well as particulate (soot) and now mercury. These byproducts of coal combustion had a real measurable negative effect on the environment. Modern coal plants such as Comanche 3 are far cleaner and far more efficient than a plant build just ten years ago. This is a thanks in part to environmentalist pushing and engineer fixing the problems. The problem is that now there is an entire industry that was created that needs another dragon to slay. In Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand said "We ran out of law breakers so we had to change the laws". Well we've run out of pollution so we have to change the definition of pollution to make more. CO2 is not a byproduct of combustion; it is the reason for combustion. By any objective measure, our air and our coal plants are cleaner today than any time since the start of the industrial revolution.

Posted by LFC on February 15, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am all for developing new forms of energy just so I don't breath the stuff. I am all for cleaning up our act. However, I am sick and tired of hearing about Global Warming. Guess what people the climate has changed in the past, and will change again. CO2 CO2.....blah blah blah. I am tired of Al Gore, and can't believe how many people have fallen for this. I am going to get taxed by the dang gov't to save the planet, to stop global change. This has gotten old. How about looking at things we can change.....Like getting rid of the IRS (Let's go FAIRTAX), Looking into Health Care etc.. I can't wait to waste more of our money and see the climate change anyway. Dumb.

Posted by Dan2 on February 15, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Anyone notice in the Journal Science this month, the report about bio-fuels and how they ADD CO2 into the atmosphere? By removing the plants and trees that actually scrub CO2, biofuels have a negative impact. You need to be an AAAS member to read this on line, but you can go and pick up a copy.

Also a very interesting article on cloud activity and how WATER (90-95% of the greenhouse gases), impacts our climate, and how it's study of EMPIRICAL data may "turn the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change on it's head."

Some interesting reading, for sure.

Posted by jay on February 15, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Remember kids....it's not al gore, but nearly every single, peer-reviewed, field appropriate scientist on the planet that agrees that humans are having an adverse effect on the natural global warming cycle.

don't fool yourselves into thinking this is some kind of conspiracy.

if we can curb those effects, without nuking the economy....why wouldn't we?

if we can reduce our dependence on the foreign oil at the heart of so many of our troubles with "terrarists"....why wouldn't we?

Posted by jgd on February 15, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jay,

You are beginning to sound like a used car salesman.

How much money do you have invested in algore's carbon credit company scam?

Posted by pak on February 15, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

China built 112 pulverized coal fired power plants in 2006. Bush is right to require that all nations participate. Man-caused GHG's are only .002% of total global GHG's (water vapor and natural GHG's comprising the rest). 450,000 years of ice core data show that GHG increases are a lagging indicator of warming and changes to GHG's occur after cooling or warming events. We are coming out of the mid-evil ice age and GHG's are increasing because the sun is warming the earth... naturally. GHG alarmism is a hoax and a ploy to tax the rich and transfer the wealth to third world nations and the poor. The GHG alarmists are simply using flawed models that can't even replicate the actual data from the 20th century. We have a energy crisis not a GHG crisis!!!

Posted by KW on February 15, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jay - "if" we can, then by all means.

But those are some pretty big "ifs" you've got there.

Posted by Trythinking on February 15, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jay,

Nice try. Try to stay on subject. We don't get our coal from foreign sources that support terror. We have hundreds of years worth right here. We are totally energy independent when it comes to electric supply.
"If" is a great word. If we could eliminate gravity, plane wouldn't use as much fuel to fly. If the price of solar cells came down they would be competitive.

Please tell us again about "nearly every single, peer-reviewed, field appropriate scientist on the planet". Can you qualify that even more? Say like "nearly every single, blah blah blah on the planet that agrees with my positions or that doesn't present an alternative view".

I'll ask a again what are you personally doing to solve this problem?

Posted by MereMortal on February 15, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Colorado can lead on warming?

Good, it's been too cold around here lately.

Posted by outrider on February 15, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank god for the realist. Great answers, but I have a better solution export/deport the 250,000 plus Illegal Aliens squatters in Colorado, that will give Ritter his percentage plus 20 in two years.

Posted by jay on February 15, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

at least you're not denying that there's not a debate, hydro...just dissent....and there's a world of difference between the two.

Posted by greenleaf on February 15, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hydro_Man,

Another Ayn Rand fan! When I quote her most people say " who?".

You continue to make points I agree with. Corn based ethanol will only benefit the farmers ( good for them, they deserve a break every now and then)! It's an example of a feel good solution on steroids! Cellulose or algae based ethanol may be a better choice a few years down the line but it will take a while to develop.

I agree that coal will be a major part of the equation for the foreseeable future, but we need to be far smarter in how we use that and other valuable resources. Renewable energy will and should shoulder part of the load, but I personally think that the most logical and least controversial part of the equation is in conserving resources. There's something in that for everybody: the rich, the poor the fiscal conservative, the senior citizen, well, you get the idea.

As a businessman who has operated a design, build landscape company for 25 years, I have worn many "hats". My studies in botany and horticulture led me to environmentalism but business led me to fiscal conservatism and distrust of over regulation. I have saved my clients who knows how many dollars by helping them conserve water, energy, pesticides, fertilizer etc. while still giving them a beautiful landscape. I have learned that environmentalism and fiscal conservatism are a great team!

So I contend that we shouldn't fear the "Brave new world" of renewable energy. Rather I feel we should find a way to R + D the best products and sell them to the world and here at home. We could help our economy, mitigate our pollution and weaken the hold that foreign countries have on us. We will still use coal and oil, only more slowly.

I agree that a level competitive playing field would be ideal, but powerful forces will regulate FOR renewable energy and other forces will resist making oil and gas prices reflect the their true costs. Who knows, maybe they will end up with that level playing field by cancelling each other. What do you think?

Posted by Trythinking on February 15, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jay,

Regardless of what I believe, three out of three presidential candidates believe this is a problem that needs to be solved. I would like to be part of the solution that solves the problem, with the smallest impact to our health and economy.

Greenleaf,

The corn based ethanol effort, though ham handed, may not be a complete loss. Once cellulose ethanol becomes a reality, we will already have the distribution infrastructure in place, kind of like training wheels. But you are right that the MWhr not used is the cheapest and greenest MWhr available. Also, keep your eye on concentrated solar. As an old guy with many battle scars from the power generation industry, it is one of the most promising technologies that I've seen. It has the promise of going head to head with coal on price, without subsidies.

Wind power has a real advantage for local economies because it is impractial to build them over seas. Shipping such massive componets has a huge cost. They will need to be built locally to achieve real cost savings.

Posted by greenleaf on February 15, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hydro_Man

That's the attitude we need : instead of us versus us, it should be all of us against the problem . Otherwise Atlas might shrug, right ? It's going to take compromise from all involved. Then we have a better outcome for all Americans in the future!

Posted by jay on February 15, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

there you go my man....well said...part of the solution...not part of the problem...

Posted by Trythinking on February 15, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Atlas Shrugged should be required reading. It is as relevant today as it was in the 40s. Fountainhead is also a must read. Ayn better than anyone shows the danger of politically derived solutions and engineering, science and business corrupted in favor of social change. She would have liked the term "Politically Correct"

Jay,

Part of the solution , to me, is holding China, India and all countries and their CO2 emmission and the CO2 credits on an equal basis with the US. If it is used simply to put us at a disadvantage, then I question the motive behind it. It is either a major problem for mankind or it isn't. To give some a pass at the expense of others is a political ploy.

Posted by joggle on February 15, 2008 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm curious where you guys get off thinking that our crummy economy is going to go to hell if we try to use green energy. Various countries in Europe are already way ahead of us and their economies are doing better than ours for the most part, especially Germany (both in green energy and GDP per capita, currency strength, etc.).

Posted by greenleaf on February 15, 2008 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

joggle, I'm not sure who you are referring to!

Hydro_Man, Fountainhead and Howard Rourke were my favourites. Here's to Rand's celebration of the individual and to more productive posts such as this!

Posted by gary on February 15, 2008 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is nice of all of you wanting to solve "the problem"! But the question is....what problem? Global warming being caused by man has not been proven. Yet a whole bunch of people want to jump on a bandwagon and spend billions of dollars for what??
Hmmm....years back they said..."Return of the Ice Age is coming"
and a whole bunch of people believed it. (What happened??)
Oh..."The swine flu will kill us all" quick run out and give everyone a shot. (did not fall for that one either) Pity the ones that died or ended up disabled from the shots..
How can we forget "Y2K...all computers, including any apliance with a chip in it will fail at midnight on 2000" Wow, did everyone fall for that one or not.(Me, I turned the clock ahead on my computer..nothing happened it still functioned. So I did not run out and buy new equipment. Still typing on it now!!)
"Killer Bees" Run hide they are coming from South America and will kill you" ( Have not seen one yet!)
"The bird flu is coming for you! ( Yep, still waiting for it to kill the millions!)
I could go on...but WHY??
Until you all can prove man is causing the weather to change and more importantly.... that man can change the weather. You have no problem to solve. So go ahead...before you solve your gobal warming, prove that man is causing it and that man can change the weather. Good luck

Nuff Said

Posted by nonayerbsns on February 15, 2008 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DISAPPOINTING??? I am only 'disappointed' when people fail to do what I expect. Dubya the Dummy did EXACTLY as I expected. He's a schmuck. Thankfully, only a few more months of the Bush and the Dick screwing of America.

Posted by greenleaf on February 15, 2008 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gary,

You aren't alone in this. Many people feel exactly as you do. That's fine my friend, if you believe it, I don't! I have spent most of my 57 years in the outdoors, on farms with my uncles and in the wilderness with friends and family and in a 35 year career in landscaping. Something has changed and to me it is dramatic!

Farmers and landscapers are observers of the weather: our livelihoods depend on it. When to plant, the need to irrigate, fertilize and protect against frost and insects. Something has changed that those of us who are in touch with the land need no scientists to tell us.

I don't want to bore you, but if you are interested, please read on. For many years as a young landscaper, I was able to tell people with absolute certainty that certain plants would not thrive here, or, at least would not overwinter. That was true for most of my career, until about 10 years ago. I began to notice a few tender plants returning in the spring. With each passing year it was more and more plants and more and more species.

There is more! Plants are blooming earlier, especially species such as lilacs and tulips. 2 weeks or more earlier than they did 10 years ago. This probably doesn't sound like much, but it is huge! It means that a U.S.D.A.( Department of Agriculture map ) established with growing data from early in the 20th century is TOTALLY obsolete today, just 50 years later.

I have been in contact with others in my field from across the country. This IS happening everywhere! I don't care when people say that man isn't 100% responsible. MY observations, gut feelings and the science presented by others tells me that we ARE responsible to some degree. So, I am afraid that I disagree with you, but I wish with all of my being that you were right and I was wrong.

Posted by warrengfunk7 on February 15, 2008 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FACT:
-Earth is still emerging from the last ice age and "Naturally" warming as a result.

Fact:
-CO2 and Methane trap in the suns heat - which is why they are called, "Greenhouse Gases."

FACT:
-Human industrial activity is increasing CO2 and Methane outputs by many fold. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are on pace to double preindustrial levels within the next 20-years.

FACT:
-Human greenhouse gas emissions are helping to accelerate a natural global warming process.

FACT:
So much carbon dioxide had been locked into the Earth, that Earth was getting colder and colder and headed for an eternal ice age. Human activities are releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere - thus helping to re-balance a system which had become thrown out of balance.

FACT:
If we release too much CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, earth will warm to undesirable levels. Some warming is good for the long-term survivability of life on Earth... Too much warming is bad for society, as coastal areas will become flooded and storms will become much more intense on average.

SOLUTION:
Begin a transition to alternative and renewable energy sources as well as the transition to the hydrogen economy. A gradual transition, lead by post-industrial nations, will free up oil resources for developing nations to use (as our country once did) as a cheap energy source to become fully industrialized. Then as these developing nations become developed, they would follow our example and transition to the alternative fuel/hydrogen economy and join the post-post-industrial earth.

Posted by Oh_Wise_One on February 16, 2008 at 7:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe we should invest in some Nuclear Power Plants and stuff the environuts in the trash.

Posted by greenleaf on February 16, 2008 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh_Wise_One?,

Have you ever considered that your message would be better received without insulting the people you should be trying to influence? For reference, see how much more effective Hydro_Man's comments are. By comparison, yours are much like an out of tune radio: just so much unpleasant static!

Posted by LOUIE on February 16, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Want to survive, or do you truly want to save the earth. Mankind needs to be culled to a third of it's current numbers world wide. Technology is not going to be a solution to infinate reproduction. Plague perhaps? Such an equation; infinate population expanding in a finate enviroment. Does it die in it's own byproduct, God come get us, our maybe a good ole comet? I love simple answers, please give me as many as you can to read...

Posted by farmboy on February 16, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

warrengfunk7,
The problem is that global temperatures have not tracked the greenhouse gas levels.

Supposedly that gas level has increased by about 4% since 1998. If the temperatures increased by that same amount, they would have gone from 14.72 to 15.31 degrees in that same period. But in that decade since, they only went up by 0.01 degrees to 14.73. http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicator...

If that trend continues, it will take about another 1000 years for the temperature to go up by all of 1 degree C.

Posted by greenleaf on February 16, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LOUIE,

I believe in zero population growth. You are correct that we will never stay ahead of any problem we have so long as earth's population continues to increase rapidly.

Unfortunately, reproducing ourselves is a biological imperative that we are hard-wired to accomplish. Plus it's so darned much fun!

Left to ourselves, I doubt we will ever attain ZPG let alone lowering our population. But, something will eventually get us, be it nuclear war, plague, pollution, you name it. The four horsemen of the apocalypse will run us down eventually. Then the earth will simply roam the universe without us!

Posted by LOUIE on February 16, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What if by man's design and creation, he discerns the solution? What if the science we have can be instrumental to man's perilous journey to reduce his numbers? Can't say this is a new arguement, there is just too many of us, nobody wants to buy into this lottery! Population growth is such, we no longer have the capability to reduce our numbers by nature's selection of the laws of the universe. Finate resourses available, and man's selfish nature says: "No!". He wants to create more miracles to preserve life. I am no different, I want to live too. Unless we have a Devine God who truly does know the hour and the day of man. So we go on without a solution, till we erradicate ourselves in our own feces of existance. Don't worry big brother is probably on this equation and the answer will be coming...when? I say the Red Chinease be the first to go, India is her natural enemy... next!

Posted by LOUIE on February 16, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe more churches with pastors like Jim Jones, spreading like wildfire. All three ingredients, God, nature, and man. Maybe more Heaven's Gate and comet tails? We could cull the earth of the gullable, leaving us with a third of humanity to survive. Government can assist the churches created to self-destruct like Waco, start a little fire and watch it grow. Instead of small congregations we encourage millions to become parish members. Popes everywhere luring two thirds of the earths most gullable.

Posted by gary on February 20, 2008 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Greenleaf and warrenfunk
I have done farming also. I have worked outdoors for years too. I can predict the weather better than the weathermen on TV stations.
FACT: Man has only tracked tempatures since 1895. FACT: That is only 113 years, not much of a time span for tracking temps to declare we know what climate cycles and trends are. FACT: No man, noone can say it is a fact that man changes or controls the Earth's weather. FACT: If you want to say it is so...then PROVE it! What would the weather watchers say if they had been around during the Ice Age and the Earth started to warm up and melt the ice? Cavemen burning campfires...changing the Earth's temps and melting the ice...right?
FACT: Current modern electric thermometers are only accurate within 2degrees and require frequent recalibration.
So guess how accurate the temp reading are now that everyone wants to quote!

Nuff Said