Online Dialogue: Climate Change Challenge

Sounds like a valuable conversation. I would like to know, having done as an individual the things suggested by members of the panel, how one goes about influencing industry to make available technologies that already exist. For example, ECD Ovonics is a company that has developed a "hydrogen loop," creating hydrogen from solar power (or storing solar energy as hydrogen), and has also created a hydrogen storage system that precludes storage as a gas under high pressure. How can individuals work to help bring this technology to market, so that industrial CO2 emissions can be eliminated totally?

Steve,
That's a good point...
There was this story from Japan a little while back about technologies not currently availble to consumers here ... yet...
I'm sure there are more...

"...A reason is his new home fuel cell, a machine as large and quiet as a filing cabinet that sits in front of his house and turns hydrogen into electricity and cold water into hot — at a fraction of regular utility costs. But even with the futuristic device, which is available for now only in Japan, Mr. Kimura has not let up on the other shortcuts that leave him unscathed by last year's oil squeeze. Energy-efficient appliances abound in the many corners of his cramped home..."

I have a few questions.
1. How can we move photovoltaic power from the pages of magazines and into our daily life? Is it possible for homeowners to adopt this technology in an affordable way, or is it limited to the wealthy by virtue of the high cost and lengthy payback period?
2. How can we overcome the nonsense factor in political discourse on renewables and energy conservation? We have progressed very little from the days when Cheney issued his famous sneering comment that energy conservation was a mere "lifestyle choice" that contributes nothing to solving our energy needs- indeed there is a sizeable number of Americans who still agree with that incorrect statement. And in another example of nonsense, how can the reasoned objections of scientists to GWBs silly ethanol schemes move from a limited audience to our nation as a whole?
3. We have seen those who mock global warming as imaginary shrink from half of our electorate to a third or less, yet they still seem to serve as a brake to all meaningful action by virtue of dominating the leadership of the Republican Party. How can we explode this logjam and convince americans to undertake collective action that may actually cost a few dollars- similar to our actions against Osama Bin Laden, or against the Japan Germany alliance of World War II- rather than relying solely on the sacrifices of a few idealists willing to install compact fluorescents or buy a Prius? How can arguments be crafted in this matter that will harness religious conviction rather than collide with it? Finally, how can we get Americans to resist the temptation of progressing straight from denial of global warming to the conviction that it is such an enormous problem that nothing can be done about it? I call this the need for "optimistic pessimism"- pessimism is realistic given the size of the problem, but if you do not react in a spirit of optimism, yah might as well roll over and go belly up now.
Sorry if this is too many questions from one participant, but these things have been on my mind lots recently, as I do not have a good feeling about the lives that my great-great grandkids will lead.

I would like to hear your response to the assult on human influenced climate change by spokesmen of the right wing:hannity,falwell,rush,drudge,etc. They seem to view the modern environmental movement as some sort of refuge for causeless socialists. This creation of doubt is the front line of the issue.

I would like some help in being prepared to answer those who would debunk global warming (GW) as a myth. I've heard the following arguments, among others:

"Cows emit more greenhouse gas than cars."
"This warming trend is part of a natural planetary cycle."
"Natural biological processes, such as the rotting of plants, create more greenhouse gasses than industry."
"You can shut down all the industry and take away everyone's vehicles, and it won't do anything to impact GW."
"The liberals are all in cahoots."
And this gem, straight from the mouth of everybody's hero, Rush Limbaugh: "Global warming isn't real. It isn't happening, and even if it were, SO WHAT?"

Recently, they covered GW on NPR's Talk of the Nation, Science Friday. One of the guests was asked in phone calls about a half-dozen common rebuttals such as those above, and the guest was aware and prepared to answer that each of these other possibilities has been studied and dismissed, and also put to rest some myths and misinformation.

I would like to be prepared to speak for the preservation of the planet, in lay terms. (I'm a piano player with an appreciation for science, but no great aptitude.) Please help me educate myself.

Is there anybody considering making it a requirement for all new coal power plants to be coal gasification plants. I have pretty extensive knowledge of coal gasification (a good 6 months of research for a school project), and since we are going to have to use coal to provide enough electricity (renewables aren't even coming close to make up for the increases in demand, and hydroelectric, nuclear, and oil providing a smaller and smaller percentage of total production), shouldn't we have a mandate for all coal power plants to be IGCC plants?

Rick, it's certainly possible that a cow could release more greenhouse gasses (probably in effect, although possibly not in total quantity of gas) than a car. Cows produce a significant amount of fecal matter, which breaks down into methane, which is 20 times more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. This can be captured in anerobic digestors, which not only break down the methane into CO2, it produces electricity.

What is the best way to respond to naysayers (such as those Rick McGirr refers to) without pontificating at length?!

First, the fossilized sources of energy have been deposited into the earth's crust over eons through natural processes. Consuming all those resources over a geologically very brief period is bound to cause imbalance in the earth's atmosphere leading to catastrophic changes.

Secondly, our present civilization has become increasingly dependent on the fossilized sources of energy. Only a very small part of the energy received by the earth from the sun goes through the biological, weather and monsoon cycles powering the activities on this planet in a stable manner.

Prudent use us earth's resources holds the key to maintain the delicate climatic balance. Harnessing the solar energy in an efficient, economically viable and easily usable form would be another alternative to meet the increasing demands for energy without upsetting the delicate climatic balance.

yes your right everyone acts shocked because it is so cold in april. WELL they better wake up.and they say I DONT BELIEVE ITS GLOBAL WARMING THEY THINK ITS ELNINO AND ITS NOT ITS GLOBAL WARMING. and we dont start waking up it WILL GET WORSE.
for one you can put garbage in garbage cans that is one
two if you arent using lights turn them off or get a timer so it comes on when you need it to come on.
things like that
dont leave your car running for no reason unless warming it up. but to run in store turn car off you knw there is an idle law to and you will get fined if its running over 5 min
OR better yet i dont believe in global warming, ive heard so many differant ones you cant remember them all

I have always practiced and honored the Mother of all of us Gaia- speak up and unite now to talk with the Global Brain- it is time for us to make the move in mass -or like in the poem "a Sleep of Prisoners " Or will they wake? For Pitys sake.."
joelsamuelpresents
indigochild