Global warming best red herring of all time

[Brownout]

I think that discussing global warming causes distracts from addressing the threat of known environmentally degrading practices that involve the use of highly toxic heavy metals and petrochemicals.
Admittedly, the same processes that lead to warming, lead to direct, known environmental degradation. However, the discussion of global warming almost always deteriorates into, "But, how do we know that WE are warming the planet."

So, if people simply said, "I don't care to argue global warming, why don't we take a look at the waste that a coal plant creates, and the damage that we know for a fact it does to human life.", then I think it is easier to make progress with environmental initiatives.

I've seen so many environmentalists waste valuable air time on major networks, when the host goes straight for the typical counters, knowing full well that they will led to nothing constructive being discussed.

 

[pcray1231]

Absolutely true. Global warming, while I'm a believer, as a scientist I have to say there is a lot of unknowns. There's so many factors that go into something such as climate, and CO2 concentrations are simply 1 single factor, and you can debate how strong of one all day long. When you start getting into all the feedback mechanisms, both positive and negative, it makes your head spin, and I don't trust the future models (like the infamous hockey stick graph). It might not be that bad, it might be worse than that, we have no idea.

But you can't debate acid rain. You can't debate the effect of strip mines on the forest and the waterways. You can't debate air quality. You can't debate smog. These are effects we've already felt, so the results are right in front of us.

 

[JackM]

Can you debate nuclear waste?

 

[pcray1231]

Well, yes and no.

No, you can't debate that there's an issue.

You can debate on what the problem is. All you have to do is reprocess the fuel. You get about 1/1000 the volume of waste, its considerably less dangerous, and the half life would be measured in 30-40 years instead of thousands of years. Nuclear waste was a political decision. If you reprocess, you come across a stage where the fuel could be used to make a bomb. And of course then you have to guard it closely, as this stuff would be at every civilian nuclear plant, whereas now its only at well-protected national labs. Plus, its kinda hypocritical to tell Iran and North Korea that they're not allowed to reprocess, and turn around and do it ourselves. (of course, that argument failed, as North Korea is reprocessing, and Iran is getting there). France and I believe Japan reprocess their fuel in the civilian sector, not sure if anyone else does.

Us scientists don't tend to consider the political implications, and they can be severe and important. But scientifically, we've had a good solution for power for 60 or 70 years.

So is the problem with nuclear due to waste, or nuclear proliferation? We chose waste, which has stagnated the growth of the nuclear industry and directly led to many of our issues with fossil fuels.

You can also debate whether our nuclear waste problem, as it is today, is a worse problem than foreign dependence on oil, all of the environmental damage of the fossil fuel industry from mining to pollution, and global warming combined. There is no perfect solution, but IMO, even if we choose to have waste, nuclear is still better than the alternatives which we've been witnessing for many years and are only getting worse.

Solar and wind are wonderful, but only have the ability to slow the increasing use of fossils, not reverse the trend. Nuclear definitely has, and geothermal may have, the power to reverse the trend.

 

[JackM]

Are the jobs existing in the coal industry a point of debate, say, for coal-produced energy? I just think you singled the negatives associated with fossil fuel energy production and ignored pollution-related issues with other energy producing industries. Nuclear was just the one I set up as a foil.

All of our decisions for manipulating the environment to serve our convenience have consequences. It seems the important and difficult task is to weigh the risks and benefits of each and try to find ways to have less of an impact. It may very well be the case that the best way to have less of an impact is for life to be a little less convenient now and again.

 

[pcray1231]

Yes, coal industry jobs are important. But are they more important than nuclear industry jobs? Any of the possible power sources produces jobs. While WV might not be happy, from a national perspective its a wash.

 

[Brownout]

case in point




interview

 

[tomgamber]

Pick an article any article...

Ocean temps warmest of all time!

I'm just saying...

BTW there was an editorial in the paper this morning about how all these new energy sources were going to FORCE companies to have to hire more employees. They were complaining about creating jobs!!!

Cracks me up...

 

[troutbert]

Isn't a red herring a deliberate ploy to create a distraction away from an important issue? I don't think that is what happened in this case?

Global warming may distract attention away from other issues, but I doubt that was done deliberately.

That said, the acid rain issue could use some more work. It certainly has a big effect on our PA freestoner streams, in certain areas.

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:

That said, the acid rain issue could use some more work. It certainly has a big effect on our PA freestoner streams, in certain areas.

Amen to that..... :-(