About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on November 2, 2010 11:42 AM. The previous post in this blog was A show about nothing. The next post in this blog is What time is it?. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Guess who *really* isn't green

The shipping industry. Yeah -- the folks we're going to run the bald eagles off Hayden island for. Not only are we going to wreck that wild place to ship Wyoming coal to China, so that they can burn it and send the toxic emissions back our way, but we'll be doing it for dirty vessels that wreak their own environmental havoc. Better living brought to you by the Port of Portland.

Comments (21)

Well, and the union jobs. That's probably in there as a motivating factor somewhere.

No matter what we do, the rest of the nations in the world are going to burn coal, oil and what ever. If we use it here we at least will have polution controls. As far as the carbon emission fear; that is total BS. All the carbon in all the oil, gas and coal on this planet was created on this planet. It is carbon that is here; it didn’t come from outer space. If it was here to begin with then it isn’t going to hurt us to use it. Even if using it does contribute to global warming in the short term, who cares. I personally like 70 degree weather here in November. I will plant palm trees in my parking strip and the city won’t have to pick up leaves. Win, Win. It is about jobs folks, union or otherwise. WE NEED THEM.

If it was here to begin with then it isn’t going to hurt us to use it.

Uh, WOW. That actually might be the most ignorant thing I've read in a long, long time, and I read YouTube comments all the time, so that's saying something.

Hmmm, I think something is very suspect with the statistics.

Everything I've read so far shows that ocean transport is, on a per-ton rate, the least polluting form of transport known to man, followed by rail, truck and then air.

While ships do contain massive engines and burn bunker oil, the amount of cargo they transport is just so huge, that the only pratical alternative for most cargo is air travel - a Boeing 747, Airbus A380, or other very large transport can only carry the equivalent of a handful of 40' shipping containers. I would venture that most of the pollution involved in oceangoing transportation actually is in the transloading and drayage process at either end of the journey rather than the actual transit at sea.

Rail is efficient when you have a good quality track and are moving a unit train from point 'A' to point 'B' (which is how most coal and grain is shipped, along with intermodal trains, auto-racks and some chemical trains) but when your car involves multiple switches, trains, and interchanges, your efficiency goes way south. Truck transport isn't particularly efficient compared with train, but if you are out-of-the-way for rail, truck transport is competitive.

No matter what we do, the rest of the nations in the world are going to burn coal, oil and what ever.

Prove it.

If we use it here we at least will have polution controls.

We do use it here. Our "pollution controls" are poor.

All the carbon in all the oil, gas and coal on this planet was created on this planet. It is carbon that is here; it didn’t come from outer space.

I agree--we didn't import carbon from Omicron 6 in the Beta Galaxy.

If it was here to begin with then it isn’t going to hurt us to use it.

I'll assume you mean "carbon dioxide" and not "carbon". There are two problems with that statement: (1) You seem entirely ignorant about the historical development of the atmosphere of Earth, and (2)CO2 in sufficient quantity will kill you.

I personally like 70 degree weather here in November.

How about 85? 90? 95? Oh wait--I bet you assume that the temperature would just change enough to make it more comfortable.

I will plant palm trees in my parking strip and the city won’t have to pick up leaves.

Some palm trees can already grow here. Plant them.

It is about jobs folks, union or otherwise. WE NEED THEM.

No matter the consequences? Then I say let's eliminate half the population, thereby raising wages due to a jobs surplus. I mean, if you're willing to destroy where you live so you can live there, why not apply that dissonant logic to other scenarios?

Of course, I want to be in the half that gets to live. How about you?

Hmmm, I think something is very suspect with the statistics.

Then you didn't read the entire article.

Dave J. and ecohuman: Where do you think the carbon fuels come from? They come from decomposed plant matter that was alive and thriving on this planet millions of years ago. That plant matter pulled the carbon from the atmosphere. The atmosphere at that time had a lot more carbon dioxide than we have now. Was the earth warmer then, well actually it wasn’t. More of the continental mass was along the equator which resulted in more tropical zones and abundance of plant matter. Well I am not going to write a dissertation on planet mechanics as you two rabid environmentalist Rasheesh type cult worshipers won’t except science if it conflicts with your Koolaid drinking beliefs.

John Benton - two words: carbon sequestration.

They come from decomposed plant matter

And animals. You also seem to misunderstand the carbon cycle and how it affects different parts of the system (especially us humans). But I don't want to write a dissertation on planet mechanics.

rabid environmentalist Rasheesh type cult worshipers

All hail Rasheesh. Whoever he (or she) is.

You got it umpire. That is what is happening now. Carbon sequestration - more C0-2, more plant life. More food, more animal life, nature balances itself. Are we humans really significant to the process being here a mere three million years. It is kind of egotistical suggesting that this little fungus of human life is going to have any significant impact on this planet in the long term. Wait until the next super volcano erupts, or a meteor hits us. For crying out loud live and enjoy. Utilize the resources and create wealth for everyone to live well.

This is turning into a demolition derby for dunces -- just like *real life*

Read Storms Of My Grandchildren
http://verydifferentearth.blogspot.com/2010/09/storms-of-my-grandchildren-james-hanson.html

http://www.amazon.com/Storms-My-Grandchildren-Catastrophe-Humanity/dp/1608192008

Updating the Climate Science
What Path is the Real World Following?

Makiko Sato & James Hansen
Columbia University
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/

P.S. -- China's waaaaay ahead of us on this. As are others. Hey, Americans: Snap out of it!

I'd rather burn the cheap energy source, western coal, here in the U.S in best available technology coal plants than send it to China and others for lack of domestic demand. America is rich in coal, and so the supposed secondary argument (namely energy independecn) for higher cost renewable solutions falls away. If you still are concerned with carbon dioxide, buy electric vehicle plug ins as the fuel efficiency gain from driving the plug in substantially offsets the carbon emitted at the coal generating plant.

I am glad this Nimby stance on Hayden island is not be adopting by the powers that be as its good for the local economy. We not only need a reset in the state's budgeting process but Oregon also needs a reset in balancing economic prosperity for working families with environmental goals. Too much weight has been given to the latter. Ivory tower and govenment city slickers got theirs but we need a more vibrant economy. Sorry, Nimbies.

I'd rather burn the cheap energy source, western coal, here in the U.S in best available technology coal plants than send it to China and others for lack of domestic demand.

You don't understand. There's not a lack of demand, there's a lack of supply, whomever consumes it.

And many other countries export more coal than us--the U.S. amount pales in comparison to Australia, for example. The majority of US coal goes to *Europe*. The coal that goes to China tends to be metallurgical (manufacturing) coal, not steam (energy) coal. America is a bit player in the China coal export world.

For those looking for jobs and things "good for the economy", I always ask--

(1) if the economy is your top priority, and (2) the economy is based entirely on inputs of natural resources, and (3) those natural resources in danger, (4) how far are you willing to go in economic input destruction before you rearrange your priorities?

I hope John Benton doesn’t come crawling back to Bojack in a few years asking for his post to be deleted, or have his last name removed. http://bojack.org/2010/11/the_verdict.html#comments

"I hope John Benton doesn’t come crawling back to Bojack in a few years asking for his post to be deleted, or have his last name removed."

No, that will never happen. I am not seeking nor will be seeking employment, or any political office and particularly not from any place that is pseudo green, corrupt as our city government or totally insanely hopeless as Portland State University. I stand behind what I say, write and think and my views will prevail long after the hipster barista ethnic, environmental and gender studies majors go back to trade school to get some marketable skills.

I hope John Benton doesn’t come crawling back to Bojack in a few years asking for his post to be deleted, or have his last name removed.

You hope that?

Whyever would he?

Don't let the public employee paranoia turn into projection. He's braver than you or I, buddy.

“For crying out loud live and enjoy. Utilize the resources and create wealth until the next super volcano erupts, or a meteor hits us” OK John, your argument is persuasive!

(2)CO2 in sufficient quantity will kill you.

So will H2O - which has a track record that CO2 doesn't approach.

Where do you think the carbon fuels come from? They come from decomposed plant matter that was alive and thriving on this planet millions of years ago.

Wrong. Peat and coal are derived from these sources ( and they are abundant). Oil, however, is abiotic - which is to say not derived from dead plants nor dinosaurs.

I'd rather burn the cheap energy source, western coal, here in the U.S in best available technology coal plants than send it to China and others for lack of domestic demand.

You don't understand. There's not a lack of demand, there's a lack of supply, whomever consumes it.

On the contrary, you don't appear to understand that America has among the most abundant resources of actual fossil fuels - specifically, coal. The Boardman coal plant is to be shut down in 2020, and not for lack of fuel supplies.

That fuel will be shipped to Asia, where it will be burned far less efficiently to generate power. All we get in return is the fumes, as they don't have the environmental requirements that we do.

Better living brought to you by the Port of Portland? Yes. But somewhat disingenous, considering they are simply fulfilling the demand for goods, energy and jobs coming from everyone commenting on (and even the one writing) this blog.

Guess who really isn't green? Pretty much all of us. I suppose you could make the argument that many of us don't tout our green credentials as loudly as the port does, and so at least we aren't being hypocritical about it.

So will H2O - which has a track record that CO2 doesn't approach.

You need to make up your mind. Does CO2 kill you, or not?

And honestly, you don't seem to have even a basic understanding of what mining and burning coal does to the planet. Here, read a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_coal

Notice something? CO2 is only part of the problem.

America has among the most abundant resources of actual fossil fuels - specifically, coal.

So? Proven coal reserves, by the estimates of the most favorably biased (BP, for example, and the coal board in the US), will run out in a century or a century and a half. For "enjoy the day" fellows like you, I'm sure that seems like a long time. But it isn't, really, and the devastating impact on society would be felt decades before that.

Want to explain what we do then? Let me guess--your answer is either (a)we'll find more or (b)we'll invent something better.

All we get in return is the fumes, as they don't have the environmental requirements that we do.

yet as I told you, the majority of our coal exports go to Europe--who has better emissions standards than the US. And China's regulations are not much worse than the US, and at their current pace of improvement, will leave the US at the bottom of the list (where it often is on these matters).

Where's Jim Karlock? Dropping in to debunk "global warming" in 3, 2, 1....

ecohuman
NO, CO2 doesn't kill you, it is no more poisonous than H20 or, to reference a gas, N (nitrogen).
YES, there is "global warming" and engines and industrial processes contribute to it (CO, CO2, SO, SO2, SO3).
The perfect solution is an industrial process that consumes CO2 and generates O, got one?

Regardless, critters consume O and generate CO2, plants consume CO2 and generate O, and with finite space on the planet as the number of critters (people) increase the space for plants decreases. Malthus. Yes, something needs to be done, but sometimes it sounds like the fleas are trying to decide where the dog goes to lunch.

Please see *Solutions to Climate Crisis" by Dr. James Hansen
http://stormsofmygrandchildren.com/climate_catastrophe_solutions.html

On coal, for example:

Coal emissions must be phased out as rapidly as possible or global climate disasters will be a dead certainty. “Clean coal” technology does not exist and carbon capture is not economically feasible.

Developed countries will need to complete their coal phase-out by about 2020, if global phase-out of coal is to be achieved by 2030. If coal emissions are phased out this rapidly— a tall order, but a feasible one— the climate problem is solvable. [emphasis added].

More on 350ppm CO2, etc., there for starters, too.




Clicky Web Analytics