it’s a lot of open minded people doing their best for a better future.

I’m sure it is, but could you deifine ‘a lot’ in terms of a global population of nearly 7bn?

(I should resist this one too really, but how, per chance, were you travelling to all these meetings in far flung countries? Just wondering, as I don’t think they’ve mastered solar-powered flight on a commercial scale yet)

Well in the case of Germany it would require about five times the area currently covered by wind farms and solar panels. Given the uncovered roof area for solar panels and windy areas that is entirely feasable. Efficiency increases mean less area will be needed.

I haven’t suggested a carbon tax, I’ve sugested tax reductions on renewables to encourage their use. My first step as European president would be a zero VAT rate on all insulating materials, energy saving investments and alternative energy investments. Who is going to compalin about that?

Who is going to compalin about that?

Nobody much I suspect. But unless you start applying some cost to CO2 emissions, people will just turn to coal when oil and gas become more scarce, which will be a lot cheaper than discounted green energy. If you do apply some cost to emissions, energy prices will increase compared to where they are now, which will probably mean most of the electorate won’t want you as president much longer.

Working out what should be done is easy. Considering human nature and the economics of modern day life, and applying it. Well, perhaps you should run for president if you think you can pull it off…

(Seeing as you ignored my point about the questionable practice of flying for environmental reasons, perhaps you could use Skype next time instead)

By bicycle and train when I travel independantly. Stuttgart was by tramway and train. I own a car and I use it, between us my wife and I get through about 500l of petrol/diesel a year. I buy stuff in Lidl and have a big Samsung TV. I ski (my son even uses lifts though I rarely do so) and have a carbon footprint that means it would require 1.6 planets to sustain my lifestyle if everyone lived the same way, though everyone in france could live the same way sustaibably (WWF calculator). I not sugesting people live in a cave, I’m suggesting they live sustainably.

Edit: I last flew in 1999. I don’t think flying should be banned, simply that people should use less polluting forms of transport where they exist.

On the biomass question raised above, the wood I burn comes from gardens. I know that wood is not a suitable fuel in city centres and that there isn’t enough for everybody. It’s just part of the renewable energy mix that is valid in an area where the area covered by woodland has been steadily increasing for over 100 years.

(so far the reactor has killed no one).

That is neither correct, nor particualrly relavant. This incident is still progressing and the actual final death toll will not be known for decades if ever.

In the last 10 years nuclear has killed 7 people, wind farms have killed 44, I’ve no idea how much more energy nuclear has produced in the meantime!

You can select statistics to suit your argument for as long as you like. Try these: Directly due to Chernobyl 300,000 people have had to relocate, there are estimated to be somewhere between 30 and 60,000 additional deaths due to thyroid cancer as a direct result. 24 years on restrictions remain in place in much of Europe due to high radiation levels. approx 800,000 people were involved in the cleanup no effective records have been kept of the impact on them.

Now find me a busted dam with similar issues which are still unravelling!

Edukator – the bottom line is the ‘sustainable living argument’ is simply a load of tosh postulated by capitalist governments world wide who rely solely on an ever increasing population to increase GDP. You’ve therefore fallen into the trap that we can keep on breeding and everything is fine – 1.6 planets my **s*!

there are estimated to be somewhere between 30 and 60,000 additional deaths due to thyroid cancer as a direct result

According to the WHO – Bullshit!

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs303/en/index.html

I understood that the largest effected group after Chernobyl was children due mainly to the Russian authorities not checking food (at all) or administering iodide tablets.

At its worst the Fukishima incident should not get anywhere near these levels.

The fact here guys is that the other Nuclear facilities in Japan have been in the main O.K. including Fukishima II whilst other power alternatives have suffered –

The facts are

‘In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each year.[22] A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage.[23] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island accident.[24]’

No matter what cave man says…….

Nuclear power is not a safe option

Neither is any other form of electricity generation. By any objective measure of safety, nuclear is far safer than most others though.

Directly due to Chernobyl 300,000 people have had to relocate

I see your 300,000 and raise you 940,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam#Relocation_of_residents

If you check out other threads I’ve contributed to, Tankslapper, you’ll find I’m in favour of contraception, small families and consider population the root of most environmental issues. My solutions don’t include genocide though.

Go on to the WWF carbon footprint calculator and feed in the figures I’ve given you for my lifestyle, you’ll find it corresponds to 1.6 planets. Do it for yourself too, I’d be interested in the result. When my wife did it with a class of French school kids the result was usually around 4.

Sustainability is a theme in the manifestos of capitalist, socialist and communist governments the world over. Greens often form coalitions with socialists which is a pity as socialists and their jobs-for-all capitalist retoric don’t have the monopoly of green policies. If you look at France and Germany it’s centre right governments that have done the most to stimulate investment in renewable energy sources.

Ever get the feeling they’re simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?!

IT’S NUCLEAR!!!!!!! PANIC PANIC PANIC!!!!!!!

🙄

No, it is not the best form of energy generation in the world, but it’s one of the few low-C methods of large scale generation we have technology for. What’s more, the huge cutbacks in nuclear research since TMI and chernobyl have put back new technology by decades. Mindless knee-jerk reactions that some governments are currently taking highlight this.

Ultimately, we all use far too much energy to obtain it from renewable sources, and several Chernobyls would still be a lot less damaging globally than the climate change we’re currently forecast for.

a) we all use much much less energy (cuts by about 80%) and survive solely on renewables
b) BAU and we carry on polluting and not paying for it through CO2, potentially killing millions through direct weather events, famine, and water shortages
c) More nuclear, accepting that seemingly once every 10-15 years something bad may happen locally
d) Something perhaps in between the three

Good God Zokes, is that you or has someone hacked your login?

Start with d) and aim for a) but with incresed renewable capacity so it’s more than just surviving.

Edukator – whilst you are still in your ivory tower here are a few thoughts to burst your bubble

1. It’s fine to be an idealist but seriously is anyone else? No one is going to cut back on energy usage; we’ve all been weened on the stuff – even the WHO / Media / Japanese etc etc are saying that limits to energy production will put people at risk!!

2.Renewable energy at current development rates is far too slow – the energy gap will simply get wider.

3. The other issue with renewable energy and the pseudo green movement is NIMBYISM – its all fine and jack dandy until a wind farm / solar panel farm / etc etc lands in their back yard – you should be at some o the anti-wind farm meetings I have had the displeasure to attend – total and utter selfishness (like most ‘greens’); they’ve never once lifted a finger to complain when it was in someone else’s patch but wait until it comes to a hill near you!

Funny old world – everyone wants energy nobody wants its production near !

Start with d) and aim for a)

Good, you’re becoming more edukated….

I have never ever argued for nuclear over renewables. What I have tried to say and if falls on deaf ears is that the choice is really either coal or nuclear, with an increasing amount of renewables and energy efficiency over time. That does not mean renewables will ever be the dominant energy source in most cases (unless you were planning on culling the world’s population to any great extent).

Renewables themselves are not squeaky clean – hydro especially so (and this is about the only bulk generation technology there is in this sector). Nuclear clearly has potential for rare but major localised catastophes which most people seem to get hung up on, whilst they all just ignore the CO2-shaped elephant in the room.

As I keep saying, the climate debate is currently raging here in Oz. Just have a look at the cross-section of the comments here. Most people won’t even let teh PM articulate the point on climate change, let alone give her chance to discuss how we can reduce its impacts. Why is that? Well, it’s because most people either don’t belive it’s our fault or that there’s anything we can do about it, or they simply don’t care.

hydro especially so (and this is about the only bulk generation technology there is in this sector)

Right now. Undersea tidal might get there within our lifetimes. Still a gap which needs filling, but there are possibilities – if only we could spend more money on useful stuff and less on windmills.

Personally I reckon Scout Moor would look far nicer like this:

Personally I reckon Scout Moor would look far nicer like this:

I agree, although if you’re using CA-fill, could you get rid of the quarry too? 😀

Nah – the windmills are easy, the quarry a bit tougher (anyway I quite like that).

Witha bit of work in PS these days, you could probably reconstruct that landscape all the way back to pristine woodland before us humans got our mits on it….

100!

According to the WHO – Bullshit!

……and like I said Zulu

You can select statistics to suit your argument for as long as you like

The problem is at the end of the day, the degree of dishonesty inherant in these things. Today the Japanese have upgraded the emergency to level 5. I could have told you that ,as indeed could the British, American, Chinese and French governments a day or two ago.

I strongly distrust the Nuclear industry and their assurances of safety, as I do governments. Perhaps if they were more truthful zokes’ option a) might get more support as the sensible way forward!!

Why is it, anything shouted in German sounds so frightening?

I mean, even something like ‘ICH HABE EINE WELLENSITTICH!’ would terrify the life out of me. 😯

coz they always like to finish on a heil! 😆