Can we have another Stunts meeting?

[Usrin]

Only one more thing for today. The USA never wanted to find "a good idea to cut the CO2 emission", because they have serious scientific debates yet about the question if emission of CO2 causes warming or not. For us, it seems to be undoubted. Yes, it's undoubted for us, Europeans... But Americans can believe everything, and they think democracy means we always have to listen to "both sides", no matter how stupid things one of them says. (That's why in some states children learn that "world was created 6000 years ago by God, in 6 days"...) And oil companies are very strong in the USA: they can easily influence scientists, directly or less directly...

[BonzaiJoe]

I'm impressed Usrin, you really know a lot about this.

In your post, you sound like there's no hope. Like the world is screwed... I think there are the following options, in order to "save the world" from global warming (judging from what you know about energy and what we both know about politics):

1. Switching to energy production by as much natural energy as possible (wind, water etc.), and as this can never be enough, nuclear power for the rest. Nuclear power is not dangerous for the environment, and it is much more efficient than using coal or oil. It is only dangerous if it is not kept well, but I guess we can keep it better than Tjernobyl. Besides, it should be possible at some point to make an automatic nuclear plant, where machines do the job, and where the whole reactor stops if any of the machines has a malfunction.
This will meet much resistance. From people who call themselves environmentalists, and who don't believe the "risk" is worth taking, and from politicians who want to be re-elected and are aware that supporting nuclear power is a very unpopular point of view. This means that there are three sub-options, in order to make the switch to nuclear power:

a. Forget about nuclear power, and spend more money on Fusion Power research. Fusion Power is well underway, but still it will take many years at best before it will be possible to build Fusion Power plants. The problem with this is the amount of money that has to be spent on it (again an unpopular stance for a politician), and the uncertainty of it. Perhaps it won't be possible to use Fusion Power, and perhaps it will take 60 years before it is possible, which will be too late.

b. Using lobbyism and propaganda to change people's minds about nuclear power. This should be difficult, and can only be carried out by very popular governments, who don't have to fight for a re-election. This means it should be possible quickly in a country like China, which isn't democratic, and completely impossible in high-tech democratic countries like France, Germany, Hungary, Denmark etc. In USA, they could do things like that, because they have the best system for fooling the public, but they will never do it, as the oil industry has all the money, and the politicians need their support. But a little lobbyism and propaganda can always be done, and with time, it could be possible to change the general opinion about nuclear power. The problem is it could take too long.

c. As you can read from the first part of the post, it seems that democracy in itself is the problem. Democracy has become an opposition to knowledge, because the politicians know that the general public is stupid, and instead of trying to educate them, they have to speak their language and conduct short-sighted politics in order to get their votes. Democracy is becoming Stupocracy. This becomes even more clear because of what I mentioned before about such a change being possible in China. Something must be done... but it won't be, as democracy simply does not have an Emergency Exit. It cannot destroy itself, because the people involved in it would have to sacrifice themselves too, and they never will.

2. The second option is simply to cut the CO2 emission extremely drastically, as you mentioned. This is even more likely, because people need the energy. Even I wouldn't sacrifice my computer or my syntheseizer to this. They are so important to my life. I am as guilty as everyone else in this, and I think all we can do (apart from making things a little better, like the Kyoto Protocol and pro-nuclear-lobbyism would) is hope that it's not as bad as we think it is.
Otherwise, when is the end of the human race as you see it, Usrin?

[Mingva]

btw, when I was in excibition "Exploring Solar System" last month I knew why UK sending their mission to Venus. Because there's a hypothesis that many million years ago on planet were oceans but because of somekind cataclysm water turned into steam (sorry, don't know how to say it in english ). And now we see on Venus an infernal clouds which is a reason of high pressure and acid rains.

[CTG]

Vaporization? Boiling?

[alanrotoi]

So Venus is the future of this shit world

[Mingva]

So Venus is the future of this shit world

Yes, probably. But also scientists think what Titan is quite similar to prehistory of our Earth And humans will survive

[alanrotoi]

I'm sorry it was a bad day. Anyway I think the world will fall soon and we will see it. I hope we will be allright but I doubt it.

[Usrin]

Yes, we should know more about Venus if we want to save our climate. When somebody tries to prove that increasing CO2 level is not dangerous, his/her main reason is always "Earth is an equilibirial system, and it compensates all influences". Somehow that didn't work on Venus, and we should know why. OK, Earth will never be a place like Venus (with temperatures above 450?C, clouds contaning sulphuric acid, etc.) But less could cause the end of our civilization...

Oh yes, Bonzai Joe asked me about this. I think the end of the human race is far yet... we can't be so stupid to start a nuclear war and use all the nuclear weapons collected on Earth. That's the only thing which could kill all of us. Climate change will stop growth of economy, it will make life harder, especially in poor countries. I think more people will die because of hunger, floods, heat, etc. than nowadays. Rising of sea level will cause serious problems in all countries having shoreline (especially in the Netherlands), but that doesn't mean the end of human race. Humans also survived the last Ice Age, what was about 10?C colder than present climate, and after it, sea level rised by 100 metres. I think in a lower level of technical and social development, we can adapt ourselves easier to changing conditions. A bit stupid example: 10 000 years ago, people could move easier when sea level started to rise... So, in my opinion development will turn back - it won't be good, but that's the way of surviving. And that means we will stop damaging nature, Earth will find a new equilibrial state, which will allow a new progress - hopefully with people who have learned from the past.

Yes, fusion power would be the best solution for our energy problems. I think we could have already made fusion power plants if we could spend more money on it. But oil industry is too strong. If they invested only 10% of their profite into research of fusion power... you can guess the second half of the sentence. But there is another problem about this: nuclear power is very unpopular, I'm very pessimistic about changing this. And the majority of people don't understand the difference between nuclear and fusion power. Both of them is "something about atoms and radiations", and these are known as very-very dangerous things. (or )

About nuclear power plants: modern reactors are cooled by water, and this water is necessary also for the reaction (it slows down neutrons to be able to cause fission). When the system is overheated, this water evaporates, and the lack of water stops the reaction. Tchernobyl was a completely different system, and they made serious faults already during the planning. (And the accident was directly caused by the operators who switched off all the automatics - because they wanted to make some experiments to "make the reactor safer"...)

Don't forget what I wrote, and remember me on it a few years later, when I will work in oil exploration as a geologist. (It's not joke, it's a real possibility...)

[alanrotoi]

Ok Tell your name and I will try to remember you

[Usrin]

I'm Usrin, the Slovak.

[Krys TOFF]

He is Usrin, the Venusian Slovak.

[CTG]

Don't forget what I wrote, and remember me on it a few years later, when I will work in oil exploration as a geologist. (It's not joke, it's a real possibility...)

Okay, reminder for everyone.

[Usrin]

My opinion hasn't changed since then, despite having a job related to oil exploration. Btw, I'm not at an oil company: we only analyse the geophysical data and the core samples we get, and it's not our business what will the information be used for. (It's also possible that it will convince some clients that it's time to give up oil production.)