Divas Monadad says:

It’s funny how to americans the environmental disaster that is ‘air conditioning’ is seen as acceptable for everyday life.

Not directed at yourself, but generally: While there may be these nice borders on the ground, above our heads there is only one atmosphere that we share. Many of us are doing our best to keep it clean, please get your government to do the same.
While there are many worse polluters than the US, it is suprising that it pollutes so much and is part of the developed world, and when viewed per head population it is shockingly high.

Please sign Kyoto, you wonder why the rest of the world dosn’t like you? Because often you act like spoilt jerks.
It really is nothing personally against americans, just stop acting like jerks and particpate in the odd community project.

But, as I said, that was not directed at yourself, as well as getting smaller the modern air conditioner will be somewhat more energy efficient and environmentally friendly. None the less, it does surprise many of us in other, developed, contries how much you demand air conditioning, artifically cheap petrol, and how much individual pollution you are willing to output.

Eh... not so much says:

Divas: as an American, I’d LOVE IT if we signed Kyoto! But it’s not up for vote. And frankly our current business-loving administration will never sign it, because it will make it too hard for their buddies to run their companies. They’ll only make $13 bazillion in a year, instead of $14 bazillion! *sob!* Won’t someone think of the companies?!

(The above was sarcasm, for the irony-impaired. Happy Easter/Passover/Sunday.)

gnomic says:

I’m sure I’m going to get flamed for saying this, but not as bad as Andrew - Jeez, MACheads, lighten up!.

The Kyoto treaty would not have worked; if fact it would have made things worse. Before you spit on the grave you are mentally dumping my corpse in, let me explain why.

The terms of the treaty allowed less industrial nations to polluted more than industrial nations. While this seems reasonable (they are poorer and can’t yet afford stricter standards), combine this with cheaper labor, and it allows these nations to produce goods cheaper.

So, as Eh says, the US will only only make $13 bazillion in a year. So what?

The US, and most nations, will buy the cheaper product, increasing pollution in countries with the least controls and in fact making the problem worse, not better as global demand exceeds local infrastructure.

Don’t believe me - go check out India where it is happening.

While I agree that the Bush administration is evil and corrupt and we need to get pollution under control, Kyoto was hopelessly flawed from an economic standpoint and therefore in achieving its goals as well.

What we do need is a REAL energy program comparable to the space program in the ’60s. And, as unpopular as it may be, the plan will likely have to include nuclear plants in the short term - hopefully using the newer cell-type designs that are much safer. And through improvements to the global energy delivery infrastructure, because 70% of the electrical angry generated from any source is lost in distribution.

The world isn’t about to give up its air conditioning no matter how small the units become. And with global warming, AC may not be a nice-to-have, but a matter of survival.

Emily says:

gnomic:

I believe you left out that silly little decimal point in your assertion about (sic)”electrical angry” distribution losses.

gnomic says:

Emily,

You are right; I got the number wrong, along with a bit of context. The number - according to those gonzo journalists at Scientific American is 90.5% loss from distribution plan to your home.

Luckily, the article is online and free at: http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/Lovinsforweb.pdf

You have to see the graphic, but here’s the quote from the caption: From the power plant to an industrial pipe, inefficiencies along the way whittle the energy input of the fuel—set at 100 arbitrary units in this example—by more than 90 percent, leaving only 9.5 units of energy delivered as fluid flow through the pipe. But small increases in end-use efficiency can reverse these compounding losses. For instance, saving one unit of output energy by reducing friction inside the pipe will cut the needed fuel input by 10 units, slashing cost and pollution at the power plant while allowing the use of smaller, cheaper pumps and motors.

Emily says:

gnomic:

You’re not making any sense. In your original comment you state that 70% of the electrical energy generated from any source is lost in distribution and then you refer to a supporting article that is talking about the conversion rate from fuel to electrical energy, which is a totally different subject. For the record, in the US, distribution losses are more on the order of 7.5%.

I am sympathetic to your point, but please get your facts straight so that people will respect your opinion.

gnomic says:

Emily,

Thanks for correcting me; I was very concerned that people might not respect me. I will endeavor to persevere.

gnomic says:

I’ve been laying awake nights worry about what people think of me, but I’ve found this tidbit that might redeem me.

From http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/05/superconducting.php

As much as half of the electricity transmitted through those ugly overhead high-tension wires is lost through resistance. The dream has been to replace them with superconducting cables, which can be buried, are much smaller, and have no electrical resistance. The problem has been the very low temperatures required for superconductivity, needing expensive liquid helium for cooling. Now Sumitomo Electric Industries has developed a bismuth-based cable that goes superconductive at the high temperature of -200C (-328F)- that’s toasty, warm enough for cheap liquid nitrogen. In May it will be tested in Albany, New York, connecting two power stations. The implications: if one gets more electricity out of the existing infrastructure, then you don’t need new nuclear plants. You can tap distant wind, hydro or geothermal sources and transmit without loss. How much smarter is it to use what you have efficiently than to burn more coal or build more nukes. From Treehugger.com

Emily says:

gnomic:

Nice try, but the author of that article has had second thoughts.
Lloyd Alter says:
“I took a line out of the original article and extrapolated from it. Overall, transmission losses are estimated at between 10 and 20%, depending on source. On very long lines from distant power sources, the loss can be 50% but that is not the overall average loss. I have retitled the post and tried to clarify it.”
And it’s lying awake nights worrying.

Leland says:

I can never support a treaty that does not provide for a level playing field. You bet the third world wants us to sign it. IT will make production more expensive in the developed world sending even more manufacturing and jobs to third world nations.

Kyoto is a no win situation for the United States. Even if we did sign it, the world would just find another reason hate us.

Perhaps we should re-evaluate some of the billions of dollars we’re handing out…

gnomic says:

Leland,

I wouldn’t worry about 3WCs and how they feel about us. We need to address the issue for our own sake, not how other’s feel about us.

Frankly, global warming and this new long term energy crisis is probably the best thing that could happen to us as a nation. It will hopefully give us a common focus that we have lacked since post-Apollo era in the early 1970’s.

America needs a real problem to focus on. Without a national goal to unify us, We have become self-indulgent and focused on labeling each other and trying to dominate each other through legislation of our beliefs or lack thereof. Hopefully if we focus on some real problems (as opposed to flag-burning and what language a song that was derived from the national anthem should be sung in), we might be better for it.

clueless says:

kyoto? yeah, kyoto is completely worthless because india and china are exempt.

Another do nothing proposal.