It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fossil fuels cause famine

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
George Monbiot wrote an article on his website regarding geoengineering - the process of manipulating the earths climate to either provide a more favorable climate or counteract global warming. The article was fascinating however one part stuck out at me regarding sulphate emissions:


But of all techniques, it’s the notion of injecting reflective particles into the atmosphere – the technique the ballon and hosepipe experiment is designed to test – that has received most attention. There’s an obvious reason for this: it is both cheap and effective. It is also extremely dangerous.

The reason seems almost as incredible as the proposed technologies, but it’s rooted in solid science. In fact we’ve already tested the method at a very large scale, with catastrophic results. Unfortunately no one realised we were running the experiment until three decades after it began.

It wasn’t until 2002 that a paper was published linking the great famines of the 1970s and 1980s with atmospheric sulphate particles produced in the northern hemisphere. But the link seems to be conclusive. Here are a few of the papers that establish it:

LD Rotstayn and U Lohmann, 1st August 2002. Tropical Rainfall Trends and the Indirect Aerosol Effect. Journal of Climate, vol 15, pp2103-2116.

IM Held, TL Delworth, J. Lu, KL Findell, and TR Knutson, 13th December 2005. Simulation of Sahel drought in the 20th and 21st centuries. PNAS, vol. 102, no. 50, pp 17891-17896. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0509057102

M Biasutti and A Giannini, 8th June 2006. Robust Sahel drying in response to late 20th century forcings. Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, no. 11. DOI: 10.1029/2006GL026067.

JE Kristjansson et al, 23rd December 2005. Response of the climate system to aerosol direct and indirect forcing: Role of cloud feedbacks. Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres, vol. 110, no. D24.

By reducing the size of the droplets in clouds, thereby ensuring that they reflected more light (which is the desired outcome of the current experiment), the sulphate particles lowered the temperature of the sea’s surface in the northern hemisphere. The result was to shift the Intertropical Convergence Zone – a region close to the equator in which moist air rises and condenses into rain – southwards. The Sahel, which covers countries such as Ethiopia, Sudan, Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso and Senegal, is at the northern limits of the zone. As the rain belt was pushed south, the Sahel was left high and dry. As a result of the clean air acts, between 1970 and 1996 sulphur emissions in the US fell by 39%. This appears to have helped the North Atlantic to warm, allowing the rains to return to the Sahel in the 1990s.

www.monbiot.com...


In other words, sulphate emissions primarily from electricity generation caused the temperature of the sea's surface in the northern hemisphere to reduce which moved the intertropical convergence zone southwards. This pushed the rain belt south too, countries such as Ethiopia had crop failure and starved. Emission control (i.e. scrubbers on coal powerstations) forced by policies such as the clean air act enormously reduced the amount of sulphates in the atmosphere (by 76% in the USA from 1980 to 2009) which helped return the rain to these areas during the 1990s.

However many power stations still do not have emission control especially in areas such as asia, which imposes significant external cost on human health throughout the world. China for example has SO2 emissions that as of 2006 were as big as the United States in 1980 and they continue to increase at staggering rate. The problem is therefore likely repeating itself.


An external cost, also known as an externality, arises when the social or economic activities of one group of persons have an impact on another group and when that impact is not fully accounted, or compensated for, by the first group. Thus, a power station that generates emissions of SO2, causing damage to building materials or human health, imposes an external cost. This is because the impact on the owners of the buildings or on those who suffer damage to their health is not taken into account by the generator of the electricity when deciding on the activities causing the damage. In this example, the environmental costs are "external" because, although they are real costs to these members of society, the owner of the power station is not taking them into account when making decisions. Note that external costs are unintended and result from there being no property rights or markets for these environmental effects

www.externe.info...


Air pollution control measures work extremely well as the clean air act in the United States showed as they force power stations to implement emission control. While this does cost billions of dollars, it also lowers emissions which help the third world and reduce external costs. The clean air act in the USA will for example, have saved 2 trillion dollars by the year 2020.


In March 2011, EPA issued the Second Prospective Report which looked at the results of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020. According to this study, the direct benefits from the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments are estimated to reach almost $2 trillion for the year 2020, a figure that dwarfs the direct costs of implementation ($65 billion). The report was updated in April 2011.

In 2020, the Clean Air Act Amendments will prevent over 230,000 early deaths. Most of the $2 trillion in economic benefits (about 85 percent) are attributable to reductions in premature mortality associated with reductions in ambient particulate matter.

Our central benefits estimate exceeds costs by a factor of more than 30 to one, and the high benefits estimate exceeds costs by 90 times. Even the low benefits estimate exceeds costs by about three to one.

www.epa.gov...


Even so, in the USA many powerstations have very old scrubber technology installed which still leads to significant SO2 emissions. As far as I know, many coal power stations do not have scrubbers installed at all. This, among other reasons is why coal still creates around 500 billion dollars worth of external costs in the USA alone. The clean air act worked well, however to reap even greater benefits it should be tightened - and other countries such as China should also take the initiative and do this too. This will lead to an improvement in the quality of life for millions if not billions of people both domestically and abroad, make the market in actuality fairer, improve living standards, and make the alternative energy more attractive.

Thanks.
edit on 2/9/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Monbiot is a an eco fascist loon, who has been proved wrong so many times in the past that its hard to take anything he says seriously.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
As always, it costs a lot more to clean up a mess than to prevent a mess.

Get FEMA in there early to sandbag against an incoming hurricane- billions in savings against actual damage.

Provide a clean environment, water and air, to protect peoples health, billions in savings over the cost of the initial outlay.

Allow the NOAA to track tornadoes and hurricanes, billions in savings and lives saved by timely warnings.

Provide the poor with decent food, pre-natal care and immunizations, billions in savings in disease outbreak prevention.

To remove these things will take us back to the period of time of the Spanish Flu of 1918- where there was very poor infrastructure, filthy water, filthy, sewage filled streets, malnourished, overworked people, no coordination of medical services, open burning garbage pits and open burning of coal - which weakened peoples lungs.

Millions died.

And the world that the anti-science, banking, multinational industrial establishment wishes for is a return to this. No regulations and the vast majority of people undereducated, unfed and at their bidding.

Of course with them living in the mansion on the hill, above it all.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by auraelium
Monbiot is a an eco fascist loon, who has been proved wrong so many times in the past that its hard to take anything he says seriously.


And we are supposed to take your off the cuff one liner seriously? You are just pissing your name on the wall.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratus9

Originally posted by auraelium
Monbiot is a an eco fascist loon, who has been proved wrong so many times in the past that its hard to take anything he says seriously.


And we are supposed to take your off the cuff one liner seriously? You are just pissing your name on the wall.


When you're in a hole, George, stop digging

blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil

blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

Why George Monbiot is wrong on nuclear power

links.org.au...

Why George Monbiot is STILL wrong on nuclear power

links.org.au...

George Monbiot Has His Jimmy Carter Moment

toryaardvark.com...

George Monbiot’s denial fantasy tweet

wattsupwiththat.com...

Monbiot’s prediction – 1 year to go

wattsupwiththat.com...

Monbiot issues an unprecedented apology – calls for Jones resignation

wattsupwiththat.com...

Quote of the week #8 – Monbiot: “looks like I’ve boobed”

wattsupwiththat.com...



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by auraelium
 


Oh - links of Opinion articles by James Delingpole and James Delingpole's website.

I guess the fact that James Delingpole has accepted over $800,000.00 from petroleum, chemical and coal interests for 'speaking engagements' over the past couple of years doesn't mean a thing! Oh no, he's not biased at all!

uh huh



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratus9
reply to post by auraelium
 


Oh - links of Opinion articles by James Delingpole and James Delingpole's website.

I guess the fact that James Delingpole has accepted over $800,000.00 from petroleum, chemical and coal interests for 'speaking engagements' over the past couple of years doesn't mean a thing! Oh no, he's not biased at all!

uh huh


Actualy find it comical you should say that since guys like Al Gore,Pachuari & Maurice Strong are making billions of pro AGW

But ill give you the benifit of the doubt so....ok lets see some proof of that...?
edit on 2-9-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by auraelium
 


Actually, Al Gore makes his money working on the Board of Directors of Apple corporation - who recently kicked petroleum's ass in becoming the richest company in the US.

Al puts a lot of effort in working toward solutions and prevention of disasters caused by AGW - but makes the equivalent of your kids lunch money while doing it.
If you look at Al's history- you will see he has been working on pollution problem solving back when he was in college - for free.

If you wonder who is making all the $$$ from climate change, check your beloved petroleum/coal and utility companies bottom line this fall- when all that cash from Americans running air conditioners constantly throughout the 100+ degree weather throughout most of the country for months on end gets tallied.
Guarantee that every carbon based fuel company will report record profits- off the scale.
While YOU continue to pay their tax bill for them.

You want a money trail? There it is.
edit on 3-9-2011 by Stratus9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratus9
reply to post by auraelium
 


Actually, Al Gore makes his money working on the Board of Directors of Apple corporation - who recently kicked petroleum's ass in becoming the richest company in the US.

Al puts a lot of effort in working toward solutions and prevention of disasters caused by AGW - but makes the equivalent of your kids lunch money while doing it.
If you look at Al's history- you will see he has been working on pollution problem solving back when he was in college - for free.

If you wonder who is making all the $$$ from climate change, check your beloved petroleum/coal and utility companies bottom line this fall- when all that cash from Americans running air conditioners constantly throughout the 100+ degree weather throughout most of the country for months on end gets tallied.
Guarantee that every carbon based fuel company will report record profits- off the scale.
While YOU continue to pay their tax bill for them.

You want a money trail? There it is.
edit on 3-9-2011 by Stratus9 because: (no reason given)


You realy dont have a clue, do you?

Al Gore, the world's first carbon billionaire?

www.dailyfinance.com...

Why Does the MSM Ignore Al Gore’s ‘Global Warming’ Million$?

bigjournalism.com...



Al puts a lot of effort in working toward solutions and prevention of disasters caused by AGW - but makes the equivalent of your kids lunch money while doing it.





edit on 3-9-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join