Interesting article for all you treehugging hippies out there :p

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=18488

Choice quote:
"Those who demand that the government take drastic measures to reduce fossil fuel use ignore the fact that the U.S. economy has doubled its energy efficiency during the past 50 years. This has largely occurred through market forces, not regulation."

Fossil Fuel use will decline on its own. Its called 'Peak Oil', and if 53-a-barrel prices don't decline, we'll be seeing some really fun activity later on this year. Drive 'em while you got 'em.

Eggy,

This article exemplifies the kind of thinking that is used by the United States, which is responsible for 25% of the planet's artificial CO2 emissions. Most other countries are accepting expense and possible privation in order to reduce their emissions, but the US refuses to sign the agreement.

I think the most worrying thing about CO2 emissions is the 'runaway' point. Largely, because we don't know where it is. We do know that if there is enough CO2 in a planet's atmosphere, you get a runaway heating effect, and the planet ends up like Venus.

But there are other undesirable effects. The article implies that global warming might be beneficial. Tell that to the people who live on islands.

Hmm, increase in 50% for efficiency is good.

This article from 2001 :
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_24_17/ai_76134360



Is that 1800% increase in energy consumption?

actually, wouldn't 18 times be a 1700% increase? IE: 2 times would be a 100% increase .

-----

NIT PICKER EXTRAORDINAIRE!!!

Yes. So if you account for the doubling in efficiency it halves the amount of pollution corresponding to that energy consumption. And then there's population growth to account for and... what percentage of that energy comes from renewable sources compared to 1950?
Selador, what are your sources?
What I learned in school a long time ago was that the earth was a self-regulating organism, and if CO2 increased, O2 would proportionally decrease, so we would have less fires to emit CO2, and more vegetation would grow to consume more CO2... gradually putting us back where we started. I don't know of any "runaway effect" or "tipping point", but currently if you ask 3 different scientists about the environment you will get 3 different answers...
I usually deal with problems if and when I have them...

Well, my chemistry teacher at school pointed out that there is a theory that the earth is a self-regulating organism ("Gaia", that it could prevent anything bad happening to it, for example by removing humans.

Azelda

I never said that wouldn't happen! See, I'm a good marketer, I hide the nasty side effects from people!

Well, with CO2 emission and absorption in the environment, you have what are called 'carbon sinks', basically large-scale systems or conditions on the planet that tend to absorb CO2. Forests are one example; the oceans are another. As CO2 gets produced, these sinks serve to absorb it out of the atmosphere into other forms, removing its contribution to any greenhouse warming.

The problem with increasing CO2 emissions is that these sinks can absorb it only at a certain rate; even forests have to take time to grow. Also, they can become saturated, they can only absorb so much. Once this point is reached, the rate of CO2 build-up in the atmosphere will suddenly jump, even though production levels haven't changed. This is when things start going 'runaway'.

Oddly enough, I was reading an article earlier that discussed recent trends discovered by researchers, indicating that the rate of CO2 build-up in the atmosphere suddenly jumped, by about 3%, over the past few years. It has some worried that it may indicate that a significant carbon sink may have become saturated.

What about that theory that says we are still coming out of a glacial period?

I have been saying that for years.