Climate Change

[avb3]

It is interesting, and perhaps even more telling, that both the insurance industry and the Pentagon, especially the Navy, are making contingency plans for the impacts of global warming.

One may argue that the insurance industry is self serving, however it is hard to see that the same argument can be made with regards to the Pentagon.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by avb3

It is interesting, and perhaps even more telling, that both the insurance industry and the Pentagon, especially the Navy, are making contingency plans for the impacts of global warming.

One may argue that the insurance industry is self serving, however it is hard to see that the same argument can be made with regards to the Pentagon.

The military has contingency plans for Monaco attacking the United States.

And, it has been shown that at least one large insurance company had a plan to deal with any additional hurricanes after Charlie and Ivan hit them, if they were hit by another in the five year period before they were financially stable again (to just not pay all the claims).

What's your point again?

[foolishsailor]

Originally Posted by conachair

Have you read Straw Dogs by John Gray?

Delves deeply into that idea, being possibly the only poster here capable of zooming out far enough to even ask such a question you might enjoy it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Gray

Thanks Conachair for the book title and summary. Will look for it for my Kindle!!!

Only half way through this thread and I have to say I am impressed. For the most part people are behaving and even the usual suspects are keeping the ad hominum attacks to a minimum - we will see what the rest of the thread brings as I am only on page 15 or so...

Also impressed with all the information packed links. Regardless of whether I agree with one side or the other it is refreshing to see the effort made to present data - in whatever form.

[foolishsailor]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I see no advantage in a modern sailboat as a way of protecting anyone from any sort of crisis of any significant proportion. I certainly do not see it in any way as a survivalist tool.

Dave

Maybe not long term survival or a modern Ark but it would be an invaluable tool for survivng the transition period from a catastrophe, whether sudden or over a couple years, and the new stable result of said events.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I'm sorry... where was the insult...? did I call you names...? all I did was look back at 'fuel development' over the years...
Unless of course you are a full blooded supporter of the nuclear industry... maybe you've stated this somewhere in the last few hundred posts which seem to be links and copy and pastes too or by vested interests... which I've barely skimmed... or is this a 'Nerds only' Thread...
If your offended so easily by a laymans simple perspective of things then something is wrong in this argument you present...
This post may be construed as mildly aggressive...
PS; Standard of living needs no reduction... lifestyle does... 2 entirely different animals

Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps accusing someone of not "give[ing] a damn for the world or his offspring" is considered funny over your way. If this was not meant as an insult, then perhaps you can explain to me how it was intended ... please?

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps accusing someone of not "give[ing] a damn for the world or his offspring" is considered funny over your way. If this was not meant as an insult, then perhaps you can explain to me how it was intended ... please?

I think Boaty was just using bluntness for the sake of clarity for those on the thick end of life.

My take is that if I call you an annoying petty minded (NOPE, can't say that word here) that is an insult (instead of just thinking it ) - whereas saying your beliefs are deluded is just a fact (albeit TBH I can neither remember what your views are, nor care ).



Note to Mods: See, no # used

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps accusing someone of not "give[ing] a damn for the world or his offspring" is considered funny over your way. If this was not meant as an insult, then perhaps you can explain to me how it was intended ... please?

So... you are a full blooded supporter of the Nuclear Industry... to take a flip truism so personally...
All Nuke supporters point to the benefits while trying to lift the carpet and sweep the crap out of sight... you may not be troubled by the thought of your grandkids growing up in the wake of Chernobyl and Fukoshima... not to mention the many lesser hushed/played down incidents over the last 50yrs... not to mention whats yet to come from the ageing sites scattered around the UK and Europe but I am.
My parents fought for a better world... not the crap that's being rammed down our throats whether we like it or not...
Like Cameron trying to bribe locals with millions so he can get a kickback for getting fracking started in the UK... if they cant get it by bribery then the compulsory purchase orders come out...
Over a million marched through London opposing a corrupt war.. and maybe a million more around the UK but we were still taken in by the vested interests and desire for personal gain by a corrupt Government...
You talk Freedom of speech... the democratic way... bollocks... push comes to shove its as ruthless as communeisim...

[CarlF]

Boatman, I'm in the business of renewable energy development but feel nuclear plays a critical role in limiting climate change. Nuclear waste and even a catastrophic nuclear plant accident (like Chernobyl) is FAR less damaging to our our planet and its inhabitants than burning coal for a large part of our electricity.

From Wikipedia

Coal-fired power plants cause nearly 24,000 premature deaths annually in the United States, including 2,800 from lung cancer.[67] Annual health costs in Europe from use of coal to generate electricity are €42.8 billion, or $55 billion

This ignores that future deaths from climate change as coal fired electric generation is the single largest source of CO2. We might well be able to stop climate change in it's tracks by rapidly shutting down all coal fired electric plants (35% of US electricity, 25% of EU electricity) and replacing them with a mix of new hydro, natural gas, nuclear, and renewables. (China and India have to do the same too).

While I spend most of my time working in renewables, wind and solar can't do the job alone since the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. Electric grid stability requires that about 70% of your energy sources be dependable.

Moving away from nuclear (largely replaced in Europe by burning more coal) because of an accident at an outdated and badly designed power plant in Japan is a catastrophe for our planet.

[LakeSuperior]

And furthermore,

The fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045.short

[CarlF]

Boatman,

Geez - except for a few unfortunate fire fighters and plant workers in Chernobly I know of no one that has been killed by nuclear electric power plants (no one died or was even seriously injured at Fukoshima). Fracking natural gas might make someone briefly sick from contaminated water (hasn't happened yet) but certainly no one's died. That's not to suggest the natural gas companies couldn't do far better with more regulation (as could BP drilling for oil 5000 ft under the gulf).

Meanwhile coal unarguably kills tens of thousands each year from precipitate and SO2 -- and will kill millions with climate change from it's CO2 emissions.

Other than being into fringe conspiracy theories, I guess you prefer being a "full blooded" supporter of the coal industry?

Carl

[goboatingnow]

Over a million marched through London opposing a corrupt war.. and maybe a million more around the UK but we were still taken in by the vested interests and desire for personal gain by a corrupt Government...
You talk Freedom of speech... the democratic way... bollocks... push comes to shove its as ruthless as communeisim...

you said it Boaty, you old Trotsky-ite, you're showing your 70s age group you know

dave

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by boatman61

So... you are a full blooded supporter of the Nuclear Industry... to take a flip truism so personally...
All Nuke supporters point to the benefits while trying to lift the carpet and sweep the crap out of sight... you may not be troubled by the thought of your grandkids growing up in the wake of Chernobyl and Fukoshima... not to mention the many lesser hushed/played down incidents over the last 50yrs... not to mention whats yet to come from the ageing sites scattered around the UK and Europe but I am.
My parents fought for a better world... not the crap that's being rammed down our throats whether we like it or not...
Like Cameron trying to bribe locals with millions so he can get a kickback for getting fracking started in the UK... if they cant get it by bribery then the compulsory purchase orders come out...
Over a million marched through London opposing a corrupt war.. and maybe a million more around the UK but we were still taken in by the vested interests and desire for personal gain by a corrupt Government...
You talk Freedom of speech... the democratic way... bollocks... push comes to shove its as ruthless as communeisim...

Hmmm... you are conflating a number of issues here. You do realize fracking (hydraulic fracturing) is a method used to extract fossil fuel -- something that is measurably more damaging to people and the environment than nuclear power. As for your government's political problems, while interesting, are really not that relevant to this discussion.

But I can see this is a waste of everyone's time. If you'd like to carry on insulting me, I suggest we move to private mail.

... Oh, forgot to add .

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by CarlF

Boatman, I'm in the business of renewable energy development but feel nuclear plays a critical role in limiting climate change. Nuclear waste and even a catastrophic nuclear plant accident (like Chernobyl) is FAR less damaging to our our planet and its inhabitants than burning coal for a large part of our electricity.

From Wikipedia

Coal-fired power plants cause nearly 24,000 premature deaths annually in the United States, including 2,800 from lung cancer.[67] Annual health costs in Europe from use of coal to generate electricity are €42.8 billion, or $55 billion

This ignores that future deaths from climate change as coal fired electric generation is the single largest source of CO2. We might well be able to stop climate change in it's tracks by rapidly shutting down all coal fired electric plants (35% of US electricity, 25% of EU electricity) and replacing them with a mix of new hydro, natural gas, nuclear, and renewables. (China and India have to do the same too).

While I spend most of my time working in renewables, wind and solar can't do the job alone since the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. Electric grid stability requires that about 70% of your energy sources be dependable.

Moving away from nuclear (largely replaced in Europe by burning more coal) because of an accident at an outdated and badly designed power plant in Japan is a catastrophe for our planet.

I am not in disagreement with these facts... but quoting death statistics is a stupid statement in my opinion... we've yet to see the end results from Japan... be a damn sight higher than 24,000 I'll wager from 1 accident... and they'll not be workers..
As for coal and carcogens... oil ain't that harmless but its effects have been pinned at the door of smokers... yet no one wonders why as smokers get fewer Asthma and Cancers are on the increase... "Your kids got Asthma.. my god"... "Yeah... there's this old bastard over in Brooklyn won't quit smoking"....
Call out the Bogey Man Brigade Boys.... Mr Nic's had his day....#
I do agree in the present world order renewables will struggle but that's not because renewables are not up to it... its Governments are not up to it... USA blocks Russia blocks EU blocks China and on and on... MeMeMeMeMe....
As for the UN and other so called Independents... they so far up one ass or the other they pathetic...
There's plenty of sites around the world capable of providing all the power needed... all that's needed is co-operation and a joint effort by Nations... and some intelligent leaders... old white beard knows they've been few and far between the last 100 years..

[wildshore]

All of which, folks, avoids the basic question of how WE deal with a changing climate and rising sea levels, stronger storms, and weird weather......that is assuming you believe that's really happening, and I happen to.

Just basically, as a cruiser, more attention to weather forecasting, trying to pursue longer forecast scenarios, and careful attention to changes in current structures, particularly in estuaries where many of us sail, would be prudent. I'm buying a heavier storm anchor, and better lines, and am now paying greater attention to safety and redundancy items that I might have taken for granted ten years ago.

I have a gut feeling this could be a fairly wild ride for some of us, but it seems only those in the EU are really doing anything to prepare for this possibility. The rest is bound up in money, politics, money, ideology, money, religion, and money....mostly, it seems, oil money.....and whenever that happens, people die. Not interested in being one of them through a lack of attention and preparation, nor should any of us be.

[foolishsailor]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Actually the story of the story of the Easter islanders doing themselves in by destroying their environment is considered a myth by some:

http://www.marklynas.org/2011/09/the...lands-ecocide/

It is nevertheless striking that there are so few historical examples of " ecocide". There are thousands of islands in the Pacific. Lots were settled. Only in a few cases did the settlement fail...

Not entirely true.

There is a fantastic book by Jared Diamond called "http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0143117009Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" that talks about this. He has also written my absolute favorite book discussing how differet societies evolve at different paces and why called: "http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0393317552Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies"