Alberta Leads the World in Combating Global Warming -- Not!
So yesterday afternoon I dragged my girlfriend and her mom to the Royal Alberta Museum, and when we exited the building we noticed a commotion of sorts out by Government House, right next to the museum. There were a couple of limos, a few policepeople, a bunch of guys in suits (some of them wearing black sunglasses -- very Matrix!), a tv crew, and a group of schoolkids anxiously awaiting something. There was also a protest group brandishing signs; the group was made up of six college-age people who seemed to be wearing a lot of hemp. It was hard to tell what the signs said, or what they were chanting, or even what kind of hemp they were wearing, because the police had corraled them a fair distance down the street. The schoolkids were standing closer than the protesters! I don't get it; there wasn't a single Muslim-looking terrorist among them. Apparently you now need a megaphone to exercise freedom of speech.
We did not stick around, but I wish we had. Instead we watched the news that night, in which they ran a story about Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach holding a joint press conference with Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- at fucking Governor House! The protest group was the Sierra Club. The two bigwigs announced plans for federal funding to help make Alberta industry more environmentally friendly without slowing down the economy (Here is a crappy newsstory about the press conference, and it was the best one I could find. Newspapers suck).
Actually I lied: here is a better story, one that outlines Harper's spanky plan to help the environment that just so happened to be the brainchild of industry: carbon sequestration. They want to capture carbon dioxide from emissions and then store it underground, or inject it into wells to help extract hard-to-get resources. That was not a typo; I wrote CARBON DIOXIDE. Granted, I'm not familiar with the process, but am I the only one who knows that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is GOOD? You know, the stuff trees breathe? Carbon MONOXIDE is the bad shit. This article also includes a great (and obvious) observation at the end: all this does is hide the problem. The best thing to do is produce less greenhouse gas emissions.
Actually, Wikipedia has a great article on CO2 sinks and sequestration. It outlines things pretty good, including that carbon gas has to be stored as CO2. But my favourite section is about halfway down, in which they discuss gas storage. Sticking it under the ground isn't necessarily safe: the geological barries are only 'supposedly' sufficient. You also need high pressures and low temperatures to make this work -- under the sea is the best place, not the oilsands of Alberta.
All this reminds me of those stupid commercials about nuclear energy that are now all over the airwaves. They are saying that nuclear energy is a good alternative energy source because it doesn't produce any carbon emissions -- conveniently forgetting about all the toxic waste byproducts (This Greenpeace article effectively kills that idea). And that reminds me of KFC commercials a couple of years ago, that claimed KFC chicken was a healthy food choice because it didn't have any carbs in it. Apparently grease and fat are okay to digest in large quantities. If you don't believe me check this article.
Must we be constantly bombarded by the thought process of idiots?
We did not stick around, but I wish we had. Instead we watched the news that night, in which they ran a story about Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach holding a joint press conference with Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- at fucking Governor House! The protest group was the Sierra Club. The two bigwigs announced plans for federal funding to help make Alberta industry more environmentally friendly without slowing down the economy (Here is a crappy newsstory about the press conference, and it was the best one I could find. Newspapers suck).
Actually I lied: here is a better story, one that outlines Harper's spanky plan to help the environment that just so happened to be the brainchild of industry: carbon sequestration. They want to capture carbon dioxide from emissions and then store it underground, or inject it into wells to help extract hard-to-get resources. That was not a typo; I wrote CARBON DIOXIDE. Granted, I'm not familiar with the process, but am I the only one who knows that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is GOOD? You know, the stuff trees breathe? Carbon MONOXIDE is the bad shit. This article also includes a great (and obvious) observation at the end: all this does is hide the problem. The best thing to do is produce less greenhouse gas emissions.
Actually, Wikipedia has a great article on CO2 sinks and sequestration. It outlines things pretty good, including that carbon gas has to be stored as CO2. But my favourite section is about halfway down, in which they discuss gas storage. Sticking it under the ground isn't necessarily safe: the geological barries are only 'supposedly' sufficient. You also need high pressures and low temperatures to make this work -- under the sea is the best place, not the oilsands of Alberta.
All this reminds me of those stupid commercials about nuclear energy that are now all over the airwaves. They are saying that nuclear energy is a good alternative energy source because it doesn't produce any carbon emissions -- conveniently forgetting about all the toxic waste byproducts (This Greenpeace article effectively kills that idea). And that reminds me of KFC commercials a couple of years ago, that claimed KFC chicken was a healthy food choice because it didn't have any carbs in it. Apparently grease and fat are okay to digest in large quantities. If you don't believe me check this article.
Must we be constantly bombarded by the thought process of idiots?
posted by Kris at 8:35 PM
9 Comments:
well, somebody needs to keep us on our toes, making sure we're paying attention;) idiots and their thought processes are important elements of the fabric of society!
k.
ps. then again, i do have a sign on my study's wall saying "don't be such an idiot!".
BTW, Carbon Dioxcide is the big greenhouse gas. Sure, lots of plants use it and output Oxygen, but we are producing it in such quantities that even if the whole world was full of trees, we'd still be in doo-doo. Carbon Monooxicide is not a huge greenhouse contributer.
As for nuclear power: at least 99% of the byproducts are reusable once refined. Unfortunately, it's easier to excavate new Uranium than refine the old stuff. Any source of energy we use is going to wreck the plantet in one way or the other. It might be easier and cheeper to clone Tesla and get him to tell us his secret for free energy!
and there you have it. that sign of mine is staying put.
k.
Good points, artemis. you have an excellent head on your shoulders. I'd like to add a few things. First, I have been temporarily silenced; CO2 is the problem, not CO1. I admit my mistakes.
But: currently nuclear power is responsible for about 15% of the energy we use. To change our habits to make nuclear NRG our leading source of power would actually drain uranium sources faster than we are currently draining oil sources. So nuclear power is actually a very short term solution.
And i have to at least commend alberta for trying something different. You see, the biggest resisters to green energy say that to do so would destroy the economy. Albertans say this because they assume the only way to cut carbon emissions is to cut down on production of oil. At least carbon sequestration is an attempt to change the effect of carbon emissions while keeping oil production the same. However, what do we do with the CO2 when we stop using it to injecting into wells to mine out more oil? Do we just store it? Again, seems short term to me.
It's funny you mention Tesla, because I'm working on a post about him, plus the recently created green friendly automobile that bears his name. Stay tuned!
And k., are you gonna let artemis talk to me like that? Please do me a favour and cut off one of her fingers, then mail it to me. The index finger, if you could.
cut off her fingers yourself, damn you! i have a thesis to finish.
and besides, i only cut off men's, er, fingers. women are far too nice to me for that sor of thing.
k.
Cut off my fingers all you want, I'll just learn to type with my nose! seew, itkjs nodt habnnrd! =)
Okay I am not all that smart in these matters and have recently been hit on the back of the head, but isn't there another side to this? One way to "absorb" the CO2 is plants, right? So isn't part of the problem the fact that AB (and everywhere else in the world) is clearing land for industrial use or development (and therefore getting rid of the very things that could-at least partly-counter act the industrial emissions-also see the sinkholes that have been in the news recently). Now, as an archaeology student who hopes to one day be employed, I understand the hypocrisy in arguing against land clearing, but I just wanted to add something to the discussion.
D
At the risk of Heresy:
One of the things I liked about this is that all the scientists they interview whose credentials I've checked so far seem pretty credible - warning - the 8 clips total about 90 minutes. I'm not fully persuaded, but they raise a lot of interesting points:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk
on the other hand:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
man, this shit is getting messy
Post a Comment
<< Home