7.9 BILLION TONS of Fossil Fuels Released in 2005

ENN FULL STORY
2005 Another Record Year for Global Carbon Emissions

November 22, 2006 — By Earth Policy Institute
WASHINGTON, D.C. — "In 2005, carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels climbed to a record high of 7.9 billion tons, an increase of some 3 percent from the previous year. Annual global emissions have been increasing since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the late eighteenth century, when humans first began burning fossil fuels on a large scale to produce energy. Since the early 1900s, emissions have been rising at an increasingly rapid pace. Annual emissions have grown by a factor of fifteen since 1900, advancing nearly 3 percent a year over that time," says Joseph Florence of the Earth Policy Institute.

This Has To Stop!!

This is beyond ridiculous. We continue to throw these toxic fumes into the atmosphere when it is not even necessary. Global Warming aside, the fact that we are not contributing anything beneficial to the ecosystm cannot be denied.

We are a cancer upon mother earth.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
We are a cancer upon mother earth.

Unless you live "off the grid", surviving only on solar/wind power and drive a horse fed only by the grass growing on your land; and eat food that only you raise/grow using hand tools; you are a major part of the problem--and a hypocrit!!

Saying "This has to stop!!" is not a viable solution.

[edit on 24-11-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Unless you live "off the grid", surviving only on solar/wind power and drive a horse fed only by the grass growing on your land; and eat food that only you raise/grow using hand tools; you are a major part of the problem.

Saying "This has to stop!!" is not a viable solution.

[edit on 24-11-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]

Copntinuing to support money grubbing corporations while they continue to not only kill the earth,but man himself with toxic fumes is not very viable either,eh?

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Copntinuing to support money grubbing corporations while they continue to not only kill the earth,but man himself with toxic fumes is not very viable either,eh?

First; corporations are in business to make money. Refereing to them as "money grubbing" is meaningless.

Now; what corporations are you talking about?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Copntinuing to support money grubbing corporations while they continue to not only kill the earth,but man himself with toxic fumes is not very viable either,eh?

First; corporations are in business to make money. Refereing to them as "money grubbing" is meaningless.

Now; what corporations are you talking about?

Namely,EXXON,TEXACO,MOBIL,et cetera.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Namely,EXXON,TEXACO,MOBIL,et cetera.

I see; Your beef is with "big oil" companies. If you own a gas-powered vehicle; or if you ever fly, or use electricity; or have plastic products in your home; I again emphasize that you are part of the problem.

Now; in deference to the "solution" you offered in the first post; have you ever considered any meaningfull solutions? Or are you someone who simply likes to complain about the effects man has on the environment?

BTW: I don't believe mankind has the power to "kill" mother nature as many would have us believe. I believe that line of thinking is arrogant at best and a complete over-statement of man's power over nature.

My beef with petroleum products follows more of a political stance in the danger of being dependent on foriegn sources of energy--especially the middle east. But failing finding our own sources of pretrolium or figuring out a way to process energy that replaces oil at a similar cost and ease--I don't see us becoming dependent from oil in many, many, years to come.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Now; in deference to the "solution" you offered in the first post; have you ever considered any meaningfull solutions? Or are you someone who simply likes to complain about the effects man has on the environment?

Well,firstly,humanity,not just Americans, need to quit using the argument that "We cannot give up our way of life for the good of the planet." Why the hell not? Do we have the capability to pilgrimmage to another planet and "set up camp?" Absolutely not. What happens to the ecosystem also happens to us. However, the majority of the poulation is so wrapped in their own petty affairs to realize it.


Secondly, electrically powered vehicles are a viable alternative to fossil fuels. So is solaror nuclear powered energy. So don't tell me that there is not a "viable" solution to fossil fuels. That argument is codswallop.

www.alternative-energy-engineering.com...

www.alternative-energy-news.info...

There is much more where that came from... Sure,it may take some time for some of these things. However, if the powers that be were as concerned as they claim about the welfare of humanity, it would seem that many of these projects would have been in the works long ago.

[edit on 24-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

ENN FULL STORY
2005 Another Record Year for Global Carbon Emissions

November 22, 2006 — By Earth Policy Institute
WASHINGTON, D.C. — "In 2005, carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels climbed to a record high of 7.9 billion tons, an increase of some 3 percent from the previous year. Annual global emissions have been increasing since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the late eighteenth century, when humans first began burning fossil fuels on a large scale to produce energy. Since the early 1900s, emissions have been rising at an increasingly rapid pace. Annual emissions have grown by a factor of fifteen since 1900, advancing nearly 3 percent a year over that time," says Joseph Florence of the Earth Policy Institute.

This Has To Stop!!

This is beyond ridiculous. We continue to throw these toxic fumes into the atmosphere when it is not even necessary. Global Warming aside, the fact that we are not contributing anything beneficial to the ecosystm cannot be denied.

We are a cancer upon mother earth.

1st... title is misleading... they're not talking about the amount of fossil fuel being burnt... it's the emissions.

I love it. Everyone wants to complain about how much fossil fuel is being burnt "at an alarming rate". But... that didn't stop them from using the electricity provided by burning these fossil fuels to make it, and then complain about having it.

The alarming rate of increased fossil fuel is in direct correlation with the rising population and each of them using more electricity.

If you want to help out the CO2 problem, plant a tree.

Oh, and leave your computer running all day long as you await my next response.

[edit on 11/24/2006 by Infoholic]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well,firstly,humanity,not just Americans, need to quit using the argument that "We cannot give up our way of life for the good of the planet." Why the hell not?

Because it would be an economic disaster!!! We live under a consumption based economy and a HUGE part of that consumption is for the purpose of maintaining a way of life. With the exception of the Amish, no one wants to go back to horse drawn carriages and mule-driven plows; lanterns; and dried beef as a staple.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Do we have the capability to pilgrimmage to another planet and "set up camp?" Absolutely not.

Not yet. And besides; why would we need to? You've been duped into the "doom and gloom caused by our dying climate" left wingers love to foist on people.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
What happens to the ecosystem also happens to us.

Please site your references and examples here......

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Secondly, electrically powered vehicles are a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

This is incorrect!! Elecrtic (battery) powered vehicles have to get their charge from somewhere. These vehicles are charged from the power grid. The electricity from the grid is provided by mutliple sources: Coal; Fuel; Dams (hydro-electricity); Nuclear; Solar; and Wind. Coal/Fuel-fired plants make up the vast majority of energy sources of electricity in America. When you charge your electric vehicle all you're doing is causing more pollution at the source of that energy. Of course, your back yard stays relatively clear of polution!!

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
So is solaror nuclear powered energy.

There is not enough acreage within our borders to accomodate the solar colectors necessary to replace the energy consumed from the elctrical grid. Even if every home and every building had solar panels installed on their roofs it would only replace about 10-15% of the total energy used. The cost of installing these panels would be astronomical and it would take about 10 years to recoup that cost. By that time, the panels would need to be replaced for they have a limited service life. This unfortunate fact is the precise reason why most homeowners don't have solar power--and I live in a place (Arizona) that would provide the best oportunity for solar collection.

Because of energy concerns (dependency on foreign sources) nuclear energy is starting to get a rebirth despite the Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl perception. Right now, nuclear is our best (and cleanest) replacement of coal/fuel fired power plants.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
So don't tell me that there is not a "viable" solution to fossil fuels. That argument is codswallop.

Of course there's a viable solution!!! We're just many years from that solution. I don't believe part of that solution is to have everyone change his lifestyle because of the perception that we're "destroying" our planet. We're not. And if everyone did change his lifestyle our economy would be destroyed.

[edit on 24-11-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]

quote: Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
What happens to the ecosystem also happens to us.


Please site your references and examples here......

Sources? What for? It's rather common sensical.. If the ecosystem is in disarray we are and will feel the effects of it.

our economy would be destroyed.

Here is the problem I have with people who argue from the economic view of the argument. What good is a good economy going to do anyone if the air is not healthy to breathe?

[edit on 24-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Fossil fuel is the worlds most abundant supply of fuel for producing electricity.

Nuclear fuel - hmm.. chance making an area uninhabitable for 50+ years? not a good choice. Besides, there is plenty, if not more pollution coming from the cooling systems.

Solar - As Freedom_for_sum said, the area (acreage) would be too great, and there's the night time issue to contend with, let alone clouds.

Wind - Keep in mind, you'll need to understand how wind turbine's work to appreciate the lack of applicability of this one. The wind turbine will only work at a specific wind range... anything under or over, the turbine will automatically shut down... thus making it unusable.

Hydro - mm... doesn't sound viable with the "water shortages" worldwide.


I saw somewhere in a post the use of battery operated vehicles... uhh.. they only work when charged by an electrical source (plug it in and suck the juice from a power plant) and two, they typically work in conjunction with a gas engine.


Different types of Electrical Generating Facilities

Fossil fuel: Coal, natural gas, oil - comparatively cheap
Nuclear: uranium - very expensive
Hydro: water - not so abundant source of "fuel"
Solar: sun light - questionable source of "fuel"
Wind: *blow* - self explanatory


Pick your poison.

Let me dispel some myths here:

-First of all, animals and humans breath out carbon dioxide and do it every waking minute of their life, thus cut down population of humans
-Every animal and human vents gas which also contributes to assult on the ozone layer around the earth, thus cut down the population of humans
-Massive immigration from the third world to the first world has led to rapid development of the first world with no corresponding reduction in third world population growth, thus cut down on third world to first world immigration
-Fires, industry and other processes also consume oxygen and produce carbon dioxide thus adding to the problem
-Water vapor in the air causes world humidity level to increase allowing specific heat carrying capacity of environment to increase

Thus you see autos and gasoline are only a part of the problem related to global warming then there is the issue of the sun's activity which we have no control over.

We do need new energy creating technology and new motive force generating technology and it seems to me that electrics are a good choice.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Unless you live "off the grid", surviving only on solar/wind power and drive a horse fed only by the grass growing on your land; and eat food that only you raise/grow using hand tools; you are a major part of the problem.

Saying "This has to stop!!" is not a viable solution.

[edit on 24-11-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]

Copntinuing to support money grubbing corporations while they continue to not only kill the earth,but man himself with toxic fumes is not very viable either,eh?

Hmmm
As you sit in your comfy machine produced computer chair, at your wooden/metal desk typing away on a plastic key board into a computer which is eating away electricity, not to mention of course the lights on in the room, the monitor and anything else electrical in the room.

Yeeep. I believe someone already said "hypocrite"

I don't think someone on a computer should tell others not to use energy.. seems problematic to me, not to mention contradictory.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Sources? What for? It's rather common sensical.. If the ecosystem is in disarray we are and will feel the effects of it.

The ecosystem is not in "disarray". The fear du jour commonly preached is global warming. Studies from arctic/antarctic ice cores show that this may be a normal cycle the Earth is going through. This appears not to be the first time the Earth has been on a warming trend. The previous warming trend led up to the last ice-age--which is believed to have had the greatest adverse impact to life on our planet than warming. So it seems to me the concern ought not be the warming of the climate; but, rather; the next ice age that might happen in a million or so years!!

BTW: What negetaive effects are you experiencing that you believe is being caused by the "ecosystem"?

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
What good is a good economy going to do anyone if the air is not healthy to breathe?

Other than a few localized "problem areas", most of which are in third-world developing countries, the air is quite healthy and has been gradually improving despite increased energy consumption. One of the worst place I've ever visited in my adulthood is Santo Domingo, Domincan Republic. When the wind is blowing a certain way the air quality is extremely bad because they use fuel fired power plants (jet engines driving generators). Plus all the traffic. But, there seems to be no relative increase in cardio-pulmonary problems as a result of this.

When I was a child, I used to live in Riverside CA where they used to issue 1st, 2nd, and 3rd stage, smog alerts. I remember walking home from school with a burning-aching sensation in my lungs that made it difficult to breath. But now, I don't think the problem is nearly as bad now and I have suffered no ill-effects from those experiences. So it seems to me that money ought to be invested on ways to reduce emissions. It certainly wouldn't hurt if people found ways to use energy more efficiently; but not to such an extent that their lives would be significantly (and therefore our economy) impacted. Quite frankly; I think there are many other things in this world that are likely to kill you.

Originally posted by Infoholic
Nuclear fuel - hmm.. chance making an area uninhabitable for 50+ years? not a good choice. Besides, there is plenty, if not more pollution coming from the cooling systems.

Infoholic;

I just want to correct this one statement. That ominous cloud you see escaping from nuclear cooling towers is nothing but steam. There are no pollutants escaping cooling towers. The pollution that naturally results from nuclear energy (other than a disaster) are the spent fuel rods and the radiation they emit. This has been the source of the "not in my backyard" fight between communities and the government on where to store these rods. I don't remember the exact time frame; but the amount of time it takes fuel rods to become benign in terms of radiation is about ten thousand years. Until that time there are a couple of places undergrouond the government would like to store them. This is the primary controversy surrounding nuclear energy.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
When I was a child, I used to live in Riverside CA where they used to issue 1st, 2nd, and 3rd stage, smog alerts. I remember walking home from school with a burning-aching sensation in my lungs that made it difficult to breath. But now, I don't think the problem is nearly as bad now and I have suffered no ill-effects from those experiences.

Really? Are you sure it is that the air has gotten better or have you just become accustomed to bad air? You see, there is this little thing that the body does. It's called acclimation. Your body becomes adjusted to where it literally tricks you into thinking that it is no longer a problem for you.

When in reality, it is still affecting your health,you just are no longer aware of it.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Infoholic;

I just want to correct this one statement. That ominous cloud you see escaping from nuclear cooling towers is nothing but steam. There are no pollutants escaping cooling towers. The pollution that naturally results from nuclear energy (other than a disaster) are the spent fuel rods and the radiation they emit. This has been the source of the "not in my backyard" fight between communities and the government on where to store these rods. I don't remember the exact time frame; but the amount of time it takes fuel rods to become benign in terms of radiation is about ten thousand years. Until that time there are a couple of places undergrouond the government would like to store them. This is the primary controversy surrounding nuclear energy.

I beg to differ.

Every single cooling system used in the power industry has some chemical of one type or another. The chemicals used are for one sole purpose, to prevent corrosion within the condenser tubes (where the steam used to turn the turbine is condensed back to it's water state by passing the steam over tube bundles *usually made of copper or titanium*)... thus making the "steam" you see billowing out of the cooling tower "pollution". The chemicals that are in the cooling systems are in fact worse for our health and possibly the environment than the air (or flue gas) expelled from other types of power plants.

I completely understand the rest of your statement, about the fuel rods, of which is true.

[edit on 11/24/2006 by Infoholic]