One part of a sensible solution that is rarely mentioned is the use of hemp as a fuel. With a calorific content greater than that of coal and a twelve week maturation time it would be ideal as a replacement for some of our electricity generation. Add to this the facts that all sorts of materials can be made from the stuff from fabrics and contruction materials to paper (which doesnt require a raft of dangerous chemicals to make and is of a better quality than wood pulp paper) and highly nutritious foodstuffs then it seems a wonder that environmental organisations dont promote it more vigorously.
I can only assume that the drug aspect of hemp scares these groups off despite industrial hemp having no application as a recreactional drug due to its pitifully low THC content.
These are only some of the applications of hemp which could alleviate not only environmental but economic problems aswell.

Actually, it's not science fiction, it's well-proven technology, but not in the UK where the government were (as usual) slow on the uptake. Anyway, what's the short/medium term alternative? Have you any idea how long it takes to build a fast breeder reactor, even if we buy from the French? Or how quickly you get voted out of power if you propose covering the local grouse moor with wind turbines? Or how little juice a wind turbine actually produces?

Individiual wind turbines are now available producing 8MW. A collection of 50 would give 400 MW. So wind farms can now be just as productive as conventional power stations.

Compressing CO2 is indeed an old technology - older than the fizzy drinks industry. But the sheer volume of the stuff from coal power stations is a problem which has not only not been resolved, it is not capable of resolution.

The carbon emissions we are AT THIS MOMENT pumping into our atmosphere is guaranteeing that we will exceed the magic figure of 2 degrees Centigrade that governments say they are going to limit global warming to. By the time we build (and produce power from) new coal-fired power and nuclear power stations, it won't matter how 'green' they are. The climate will be reacting to the emissions the world has produced between now and 2020. We will be facing global warming of 4-6 degrees. Even the Environment Agency, on their coastal defence strategies, is allowing for a minimum 1 metre sea-level rise by the end of this century, with a 'worst-case' figure of 2.7 metres. That means in all probability (unless we stop all emissions now) a certain 2.7 metre sea-level rise. And that means that most of our nuclear power stations (which are by the coast) will be put out of action with ghastly results.
We have waves, tides and wind NOW. We need to use them NOW, and taxpayers' money should be diverted to those technologies - NOW. We also need to face the fact that we have to change our behaviour, NOT scrabble around trying to find ways of carrying on as usual. It is possible - we don't need to go out and commit suicide now - but we need to ignore governments and simply do the right things - or not do the wrong things.
The Chancellor's 'greenwash figleaf' is not green so much as shitty brown, or shitty Brown, whichever way you read it!

It seems that the government is attempting to satisfy both the green agenda and our energy strategy by pretending that carbon capture is viable.
I do not even see discussions about what the actual energy overhead on carbon capture would be? 10%, 20% maybe even 50% resources wasted. We had Ed Miliband banging about a 2% increase in bills. Doubt it.
Its all fantasy land or perhaps as Craig infers an excuse to press on with building coal plant.
A more sensible means of actually saving energy would be to develop means of mass energy/electricity storage. No more of a fantasy than carbon capture. I would estimate that we would need probably one third to one half as many power stations. We would actually save energy, reduce costs and emissions.
Furthermore, mass energy storage is an absolute must if generation from natural source such as wind is to become viable.
Carbon capture, what a joke!

I am going to be very very unpopular here but I cant believe that a group of supposedly clever people like you lot that see conspiracy in everything the Government do cant see that you have all been had by this global warming rubbish. Its just a blind a diversion to get more money and control us same as the terrorism threat.So its OK to introduce draconian and unrealistic taxes and laws as long as its for trendy causes like saving polar bears. Its all bollocks and the scarey thing is that we will probably all be skint and long dead before I am proved correct.

Yes, Stuart, you probably will be dead, and what will kill you will be the effects of global warming, not your inability to grow up.

Thanks for the insult lesley nothing like attack anyone that dosnt buy into your new religion. Blind faith that cant take critism is very very scarey

Stuart.
Wither you believe in anthropogenic global warming or not and I don't, mass energy storage is a good idea.
Of course, it would reduce consumption and therefore profits for the energy companies. Perhaps this why you may not have heard of it.

Stuart

Go study astronomy. You don't have to stick with it very long to get the standard model of the evolution of planetary atmospheres. Then ask yourself why you are being told that these laws apply to every planet except Earth. You might have a look at the people who're telling you that, and you might note that they are not physicists. But when you have your answer we'll be waiting here to hear it. Telling us that the laws of physics is some sort of collective illusion is fascinating, but maybe you should be posting to sites dealing with Zen, where such unthoughts have their unplace. The sound you just heard was one hand clapping.

Back to the point of Craig's post. It will take time to put alternative electricity generation in place - we need to spend on this as if there was no tomorrow, because without it there is no tomorrow that any of us would recognise.

In the meantime and in the short term (and only in the short term) we can burn coal (carbon captured or otherwise) if we commit gigabucks to the clean alternatives. We urgently need to avoid the multi-thousand year toxic legacy of nuclear.

Tidal flow (*flow* - not rise and fall, not waves) is the answer, certainly for Scotland. It needs a lot of money and a lot of aggressive ambition. We need a peaceful Manhattan Project.

I'm with Stuart on this one: Man-made global warming is a nasty little hoax that is being played on us all, and the less "developed" countries in particular. For me it lost all credibility when Al Gore leaped on the gravy train and I have seen nothing since to change my mind (rather the reverse in fact).

Could the fact that coal fired is now "acceptable", by what ever "method" they dress it up in, mean that they know that that there is no link between CO2 and so called Man Made Global Warming??

Not sure what you are getting at xsdogskin. I dont believe in wasting energy just as I dont believe in squandering the worlds resources so I recycle and dont waste energy. But To sign up to hugely expensive projects and make draconian laws relating to CO2 emmisions that basically equal taxing me and you more for everything to reduce CO2 by more than any other country in the middle of a recession based on dodgy science seems the biggest conspiracy of all. I bet if you offered huge grants to the currently pro global warming scientists to disprove the theory they would all find plenty of evidence saying it is sunspots or natural cycles. My theory and thoughts still stand People will always try and latch onto a cause and this Government is great at manipulating hype. Ever since the Cold War finished governments have tried to find something to control us hyping up the terrorism threat works well. But should that fail better have something else up your sleave

Try and get hold of "Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy" by George A. Olah, in which one of the proposals is that methanol be produced from electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide to give a convenient (and long known) liquid fuel. Of course, that would just be putting off the moment when the CO2 escapes to the environment...

Personally I'm in favour of global warming, I hate the cold. Polar bears are nasty vindictive creatures that kill baby seals and get in the way of exploiting the oil fields of Alaska.

Not a trendy POV I'll grant you, but I'll take a balmy summer over a frigid winter any day.

So I hope it isn't all a hoax, burn petrol, melt the ice caps and find more, it's win win.

Stuart.
Electricity demand varies on both a daily and seasonal basis.
We need enough power stations to cope with the peak demand. If we had energy storage, we would need far fewer power stations as the generation requirement would only be for average demand.
Power stations cannot be easily turned on and off, this is especially true for nuclear plant. Without energy storage, this simply translates to waste.
For generation from natural sources, for when the sun doesn't shine or the wind blow, energy storage would make these sources a bit more viable.
The problems surrounding developing this technology are probably no greater than carbon capture.
So, why isn't energy storage discussed? Well, carbon capture assures MORE consumption and more profits. Go figure.

Global warming: have I got my facts right?

Putting carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere creates a "greenhouse effect" which warms up the overall temperature of the planet?

In some cases, because this is resulting in the ice caps melting, the sea currents are getting colder, as are the countries around them (for example) the Gulf stream? Hence the term "climate change" instead?

Otherwise seas, which used to absord carbon dioxide, are now heating up and releasing it, speeding up the process?

Algae, which used to also absorb CO2, is being killed off by the increasing acidity of the seas (caused by pollution?) and instead the seas are becoming populated by jellyfish?

Humankind emits quite a lot of CO2, in fact, after the Industrial Revolution there is a huge spike in our carbon emissions. It is a prime contributor to the greenhouse effect?

If we weren't spending all our money on fssil fuels, and if it hadn't all been sold to aluminium corporations, we could buy cheap thermal energy from Iceland. And, if we hadn't fallen out with the Scots, we could have run the pipeline from Iceland to Kent?

Otherwise people in England should start looking round for their nearest mill stream? I agree, at some point in the future, energy will be localised, with smaller "power stations" collecting their energy from water, wind, methane gases, hemp, solar power, solar paint and bicycles. But until we get there? The Icelandic pipeline seems to be not a bad solution. Standard disclaimer: it should, of course, be a nationalised one, not a corporate one.
?

Or maybe the pipeline's just a distraction too...thank goodness for my solar powered lamp.

technicolour
That C02 causes an appreciable effect on global temperature via the greenhouse is yet to be proven despite what the alarmist tell you.

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant and has no significent effect on the Climate of The Earth.

The entire Global Warming issue is a Massive Scam based on Political Control. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Science.

Whilst there are very serious environmental issues that need to be addressed - Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere are not one of them.

In fact the truth of the matter is that significantly increased levels of Carbon Dioxide will be extremely good for plant growth - and providing food for people and animals to eat.

Of course we do have a serious problem with exponential growth of the human population - but that can be resolved by Education - and eliminating Poverty and Wars.

People at all levels are being brainwashed by junk science by an extremely rich powerful elite (largely originated in the UK)

Politicans are incredibly vulnerable to such corruption because they did not do Science at school.

If there is Massive Finance available (Multi-Billions) to Convince The World's Population that CO2 causes Global Warming - and we must stop it - or the World will Over-Heat - and we will all die - then you will believe it - unless you have been trained in Science.

It's Bollocks.

Tony

Tony/opmoc: "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and has no significant effect on the climate of the earth".

Do you have peer-reviewed references for that? I think you will find that the only solid science that exists illustrates that excess release of carbon dioxide is causing the planet to warm up faster than it would have otherwise have done, and to say otherwise flies is the face of what mainstream scientists have been saying for some decades. The warming effect is doubly dangerous because it could trigger a feedback loop in which planet warming starts to accelerate - demonstrating how finely balanced it was to start with. The only conspiracy on this topic is that it has taken so long for it to come to the attention of the corporate media.

If you yourself are less vulnerable to corruption (Presumably Because You Did Science At School) then you'll have no trouble providing those refs. It is worth bearing in mind in whose service you are presently arguing, too; the only substantial body of people who "agree" with your position are the companies who stand to make a short-term profit from carbon-based fuels, and who have spent billions of USD lobbying against weak restrictions intended to protect the environment.

Over the last 10 years - I have personally witnessed the dramatic improvement and recovery of coral reefs in the Indian Ocean.

In 1997 - 1998 much of the coral reefs in the Indian Ocean were devastated by Global Warming.

I witnessed the results in 1999. Whilst it wasn't complete devastation - there was very serious bleaching - of a great deal of coral. Much of the coral had been turned into a white graveyard - and was completely shocking.

But this is a natural effect - that happens cyclically and has - throughout history - it results in the most lovely white coral orginated sands on the beaches of the Islands of the Indian ocean. It's almost like walking on talcum powder.

The Tsunami of Christmas 2004 - created even more of this almost white sand.

Yet even by Easter 2005 - the new coral was looking very healthy

In 2007 it looked like a young garden

In 2008 it looked like a beautiful well established garden

Now it's like diving and snorkelling in an underwater heaven

I have underwater videos to prove that what I am saying is true - the most recent taken in high definition

But all the money is in "proving" that the Oceans are being devastated by Global Warming and CO2 causing ocean acidification - by extremely rich and powerful genocidal lunatics

They ain't going to pay me to publish my results

No one pays me. I find the truth out for myself.

Tony

Jon,

I did Pure Physics and Maths at University in 1971.

At the time there wasn't a political agenda based on the manipulation of scientific results.

The UK was still slowly recovering from the devastation of WWII.

I was lucky cos I was born after it had finished.

Sure when I was a kid - I played in bombed out mills

But I was free to gain a brilliant education without any political bias for free

My older brother nicked my metal globe of the World - and using proximity detectors - made it spin in free air - with an electronic circuit he built himself in hardware.

There were no computers available to anyone at the time.

Do you think I am making this up?

I ain't fucking stupid.

I might be totally mad - but I have just got back home from sampling the Stingrays and Sharks with my Wife and Kids.

Who should I peer review my results with?

I am not lying.

If you don't believe me that's O.K.

My 18 year old daughter took some brilliant photographs at the G20 protests.

She is currently building an exhibit for her "A" Level Art and Photography.

Sure the World is Currently Fucked.

But it's Fucked By The Idiots in Control of Us.

Your Brain is an Open Mind.

It is Receptive to Truth and Lies.

How do you know that I am Lying?

Or telling the truth?

And I am just a silly drunken old cunt posting on the internet.

Tony

Opmoc/Tony
"Of course we do have a serious problem with exponential growth of the human population - but that can be resolved by Education - and eliminating Poverty and Wars."

I'm all in favour, but if "exponential growth of the human population is to blame", then how will eliminating poverty and wars help? I mean, people die in them?

Alternatively, which populations would you like to see stopping breeding? And, through education, how? Education China's way? Or the "we can't afford a school uniform for more than 2.4 of them" Western way?

I thought Co2 (and other gases, including those of farting cows) did have an effect since they go up into the atnosphere and er create this kind of layer thing which stops heat leaving and therefore increases warming. Do gases not block/retain heat? Tell me more?

I'm still on the fence about global warming but tend to the sceptical side. A bit of research I did a while ago presented me with the following facts, and as far as I can acertain, they are facts. But who knows?
Before about 6000 years ago the earth was warmer than it is now, and there was no belt of deserts around the tropics, the Sahara, Arabian, Gobi deserts etc. These areas were populated and food was grown, there was food for everyone without having to trade in it, more or less. I could find no information on the state of the poles at that time except there seems to be an acceptance that they were largely as they are now.
Then, about 6000 years ago, the earth cooled slightly. The main effect was that the air could hold less moisture, that's a basic fact of nature. Rainfall reduced and the deserts formed. No doubt the ice caps increased but this didn't result in a lowering of sea levels because the increased ice came from the freezing of the moisture that the air used to hold.

So, it seems a simple thought experiment to me to reverse that process, and warm the earth back up to the temperature pre-4000BC.
What I have never seen discussed by any global-warming pundits is that the air will hold more moisture. It's a fundamental fact of nature and is what drives our weather systems and keeps life on the planet.
So, going back to the pre-4000BC situation, the extra moisture in the air, through nature's equilibrium, will come from the melting of the poles.
There will be a greater circulation of moisture in the form of rainfall and evaporation, and maybe the deserts will start to become fertile again. No bad thing maybe, particularly if nature intends it.
Sea levels? Well, who knows? Maybe they will drop as more moisture is absorbed by the warmer air. I think it is a fact that the UN have regularly revised downwards their predictions for sea-level rises. And I never found any reference to major changes of sea levels over the last 6000 years or more. Just the possibility of the formation of the Black Sea.
And it also seems logical to me that more moisture in the air will result in more water standing on the land in the form of rivers, lakes and wetlands.

Here's a little bit of belief to add to those 'facts'.

It has been a natural process for man's intellect and knowledge to result in the earth's resources being used, and maybe wasted, in various ways. So we have arrived where we are today by a process of nature, which maintains an equilibrium of life on earth.
But now, (meaning since the mid-20th century), I fear, man's intellect has reached the point at which it believes it can interfere with nature. It believes it can alter the metabolism of the planet, which itself is controlled by the sun (way out of our control).
A few people, the same ones who saw huge money-making possibilities in buying and selling imaginary investments based on the population's need to consume more and more, now see a way to make similarly obscene amounts of money out of the belief other people have about the need and ability to change the earth's metabolism.
It will continue until the next 'Great Game' comes along, and then be forgotten, or overtaken by 'new science'.
There will always be people able and willing to grab power and wealth from the beliefs of others.

I'm sure it was here on one of Craig's blogs recently that someone quoted that fundamental rule for observing what, in actual fact, is going on in the world: "Follow the Money!"

technicolour,

In order to understand a problem, you have to objectively analyse it without any prejudice or bias.

If you have someone paying you to produce a result that they want - you will not tell the entire truth.

You will emphasise the results of your research that they want to hear - and barely mention the results they do not want to hear.

If you just tell the truth - you will be fired - and someone else will be employed to achieve the required result to prove that the Result is True.

I Resigned - Because I would Not Lie.

Well I didn't resign as such - I just wound up the management so much - that they REALLY HATED me - cos I told them what completely stupid fucking cunts they were (slightly more diplomatically).

They did their best to get rid of me for Free.

They Tried Total Humiliation

Like - I Go Back To Work After Christmas - and I suddenly have no desk of my own.

And this came from a Very High Level from within.

I phoned The Cunt Up

I said

You Will Arrange My Desk For Me By Midday - OR...

I got my desk back by Midday

CUNTS

Tony

I'd just like to add a little support to Tony/Opmoc's points above.

I too did my engineering training from 1965 to 1970, and before that played on London's bombsites.

The struggles of the country to recover from WWII, and the nature of childhood in those days, taught me to use my eyes and senses to observe what was happening around me and what happened to the things I touched and played with.

That led me, while still at school, about 1963, to be able to transmit the human voice over about a quarter of a mile by using a light source, (a good-quality torch), modulated by a microphone and amplifier, and the other end feeding a pair of headphones. No metallic wires. (Every street corner had an army-surplus store selling all manner of ex-WWII electrical gear, and the only limit on what you could make with it was your imagination).

Well, I and a few friends were absolutely fascinated by that, but none of us (aged about 14) wrote peer-reviewed papers about it, canvassed investors, or ever thought what fundamental changes the science contained in our little 'game' would have on future lives. Also, our teachers weren't particularly interested in it, (they too couldn't see a use for it), but, most significantly, positively encouraged us to continue our explorations using whatever our pocket money would buy in ex-surplus shops, and wherever our imaginations led us. There was no attitude that said, "this isn't in the curriculum, so don't spend any more time on it."
It was a significant part of our education in using our own eyes and senses to learn what nature fundamentally does and can provide us with. It also led to my engineering career.

Now, my grown-up children have been educated by a completely different type of childhood and educational system, dominated, unfortunately, by TV, media, and the mobile phone.
Sadly, they are completely unable to use their own true senses to properly make up their mind about 'nature', and what goes on and what happens in the world. They are utterly dependant, not on what their own eyes 'see' in life but on what the media tells them. What TV tells them, the newspapers, and, yes, 'peer-reviewed papers'. Papers reviewed by those peers that have been through the same educational mill as themselves.

So we have a generation of scientists, that seem to me to be characterised by arrogance, funded largely by big business (as are most of the universities it seems to me), that for me is summed up in the pronouncement made on TV recently by a scientist, senior enough to be on the TV (sorry, don't remember who this was or what programme it was, but about 3 or 4 months ago) who blithely proclaimed, "We know about 90% of all that there is to know."

Apologies in advance to any modern scientists upset by my views - they aren't peer-reviewed.

Sorry, I just sent this anonymously, didn't intend that.....

I'd just like to add a little support to Tony/Opmoc's points above.

I too did my engineering training from 1965 to 1970, and before that played on London's bombsites.

The struggles of the country to recover from WWII, and the nature of childhood in those days, taught me to use my eyes and senses to observe what was happening around me and what happened to the things I touched and played with.

That led me, while still at school, about 1963, to be able to transmit the human voice over about a quarter of a mile by using a light source, (a good-quality torch), modulated by a microphone and amplifier, and the other end feeding a pair of headphones. No metallic wires. (Every street corner had an army-surplus store selling all manner of ex-WWII electrical gear, and the only limit on what you could make with it was your imagination).

Well, I and a few friends were absolutely fascinated by that, but none of us (aged about 14) wrote peer-reviewed papers about it, canvassed investors, or ever thought what fundamental changes the science contained in our little 'game' would have on future lives. Also, our teachers weren't particularly interested in it, (they too couldn't see a use for it), but, most significantly, positively encouraged us to continue our explorations using whatever our pocket money would buy in ex-surplus shops, and wherever our imaginations led us. There was no attitude that said, "this isn't in the curriculum, so don't spend any more time on it."
It was a significant part of our education in using our own eyes and senses to learn what nature fundamentally does and can provide us with. It also led to my engineering career.

Now, my grown-up children have been educated by a completely different type of childhood and educational system, dominated, unfortunately, by TV, media, and the mobile phone.
Sadly, they are completely unable to use their own true senses to properly make up their mind about 'nature', and what goes on and what happens in the world. They are utterly dependant, not on what their own eyes 'see' in life but on what the media tells them. What TV tells them, the newspapers, and, yes, 'peer-reviewed papers'. Papers reviewed by those peers that have been through the same educational mill as themselves.

So we have a generation of scientists, that seem to me to be characterised by arrogance, funded largely by big business (as are most of the universities it seems to me), that for me is summed up in the pronouncement made on TV recently by a scientist, senior enough to be on the TV (sorry, don't remember who this was or what programme it was, but about 3 or 4 months ago) who blithely proclaimed, "We know about 90% of all that there is to know."

Apologies in advance to any modern scientists upset by my views - they aren't peer-reviewed.

Global Hoax on global warming....mmmm, we need a proper debate, to many half truths on both sides.

Now, at the moment the Global Warming sayers have it for me....why...well if they are right the outcome is we're fubar'ed.

And if they are wrong.....you can say I told you so.

one of the answers doesnt look to clever to me....you wanna play lottery on this one..I dont

I, and my colleagues are working on the carbon capture technology at the moment, although in our experience the first hurdle proves to be the dream capture step, which is not going all that well. Trouble with dreams; these normally reside in the quantum flux fields generated as per the Fleming left handed widget rule, that renders ricochet from the event horizon as per bollockixo-paralytic acti-inebriation desperato principle (mmmmmm crapsola) that dictates in case of running out of ideas, there always remains the straws to hang onto, and jargon regurgitated furthermore the more bizarre the notion of the conjectures forwarded the better.

The above can be explained in the terms of laymen, and lager louts, as in the last time anyone of you played scrabble, whilst under the influence, the combination of desperation of exertion of trying to remain coherent, and the urge to win, leading to the attempt in concoction of alphabet, that resulted in a made up word, which then elegantly was concluded in getting into an argument about; go and find it in the dictionary, as well as which dictionary is that you are holding in your hand?

As ever, the notions of ripping off the punter, that is explained away as the “unusual returns” by none other than the fantastic Mr. Greenspan, whom finally admitted; “we got it wrong” to the congress. Meaning normal profit margins will not do, and only enormous amounts of profiteering can remain the only acceptable mode of conduct for the big conglomerates, keeping these inefficient behemoths afloat on the backs of the punters, and toil and sweat of the great unwashed.

Hence the notions of creating the smoke and mirrors, and shoving a couple of pipes into the ground, and then adding ten pence on the units of electricity, and fifteen pence on a therm of gas, because the steel pipes for the gas company's pipelines will be costing more, due to the high incidence of usage of the pipes in the carbon shoved into the ground project. Although the up side of it will be the water companies will be charging more, and justifiably so, for the soda water that will be running out of your taps.

This kind of pitiful scheming to fleece you the punter is then sold as the responsible protection of the environment, that is evidently being destroyed because you the punters have been breaking wind far too often, whilst driving your cars, and revving the engines of these cars. The fact that your guilt will be less if you all were paying more, and you will be even poorer no doubt will save the planet.

PS do me a favor before the righteous indignations of what will happen to our children, and how will the green planet remain green mantra is regurgitated, can anyone please let me know the direction of the spin of our pesky little solar system in the Milky Way, and furthermore direction of the of the traverse of Milky Way with respect to the Sagittarius and the emergent vector with respect to the center of the universe (you may reference this as per your own predilection, however must justify the need for any such choice).

PPS a case of little knowledge, and Missy me lad where is my washboard etc.

Now I'd like to respond to technicolour's post above about population, particularly as, on less-scientific subjects, like politics, I normally agree with him/her.

Populations in 'western' countries are generally falling. I heard the other day the Scotish Parliament expressing worry about the falling population of Scotland.

It is in societies ravaged by poverty, and often ravaged by war, that populations soar.

The reason is simple.

If you have no land, no income to speak of, no reliable supply of food or water, no proper, and safe, home, no security from those who will bully you. And the resources of your country have been/are being stolen, and your corrupt government is supported by rich governments elsewhere in the world, you have only one option to provide yourself with some sort of protection, some sort of security in future years, some sort of means by which you will find food and water when you are no longer able to walk miles each day to find it yourself. It is the option that nature put you on earth for in the first place.
Have children.
It is the only way you can see to have someone who will look after you when you are old. Will help you die as nature intends, naturally, not through starvation or thirst or someone stealing your home when you are too old to survive such a thing.
And the greater the danger of your children dying early, the more you will have.
It's called Nature.

So yes, eliminating poverty, and wars, and corruption, and inequality, and one country stealing the assets of another, will reduce population growth.
Enabling populations to become as 'westernised' as today's 'western' populations, will, statistically, result in the world's population falling. Children will be less necessary for future security.
It is, really, the only humane, and natural, way to reduce world population growth.
The alternative is the barbaric policies of China.
I wonder, in 50 years time, who will support the elderly of that country?
The young of that country, in 50 years, seeing the state of things, will initiate a baby-boom that will dwarf today's growth in numbers.

Gosh. I seem to have really stirred an anthill. Ken, Tony: are you having a laugh? Subsequent mind drivelling posters: do you think it's healthy?

Took the debate away from the Icelandic pipeline, though. Not to mention the move towards sustainable local alternatives (nationally funded and contributing to a national grid)

Worth a look:

"The Skeptics Handbook

Rise above the mudslinging in the Global Warming debate. Here are the strategies and tools you need to cut through the red-herrings, and avoid the traps."

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

Some thoughts on climate change...

There is a big difference between the "War on Terror" and climate change. The "Threat of Terrorism" is promoted by secret "intelligence" services and the security industry, citing "facts" (often actually exaggerations or fictions) from almost invariably unverifiable or secret sources. The type of people drawn to this sort of career are likely to enjoy a bit of "cloak and dagger". In contrast, climate change is debated by the scientific community, a far larger group who have chosen to work in a field where all data and hypotheses must be made public, and where success accrues only when others have duplicated ones results independently. Scientists expect their ideas to be challenged, this is central to the scientific method. It is certainly true that vested interests fund scientific research in order to distort the scientific consensus and fund publicity to influence opinion in their preferred direction. But over time the truth will out; Nature has no Official Secrets Acts.

Back in the '80s environmentalists warning about climate change were frequently derided as scaremongers or cranks, but as evidence accumulated vested interests started taking them more seriously, and responded with the sort of disinformation campaign I described above. Governments, while sometimes acknowledging environmentalist's warnings, seemed to regard damage to our home planet as an irrelevance that would stifle business if it were attended to. This seemed to change suddenly with the publication of the Stern Report in October 2006, which described environmental degradation in economic rather than ecological language. Presented with a huge bill rather than a trashed planet, many governments started to get suitably worried; a strange set of priorities, if you ask me.

A few people commenting on this blog believe that climate change is a conspiratorial fiction invented to make money. This is a complete about-face that seems to have occurred in the last few years. Previously, it was oil companies, big business and most notably the Bush administration of the US that denied climate change. Maybe some of us have swallowed one too many of the Red Pills! That said, there IS a huge amount of "Greenwash", such as advertising encouraging people to replace things that are in good working order with ones that are claimed to consume less energy, and dubious "Carbon Offset" schemes and, in my opinion, carbon capture.

Decades of cheap oil (a fraction of the price of bottled water!) and other cheap energy has led to societies profligate in their energy use. We no longer live near our friends, families or places of work. Many local shops have closed. Technological appliances have become over complicated and are not considered worth repairing; they are simply thrown away, often just because fashions change. People are expected to work long hours, so they have no time to do things in the old-fashioned, energy-frugal ways. The world has become increasingly noisy, hurried, stressful and impersonal.

Let the power fall.

Craig is right about CO2 storage. It's a con. But so also is the idea that we buy lots of new heat pumps full global warming modern refrigerants and copper smelted in Chinese coal-fired power stations. The end user should pay a levy on the carbon emmissions of production so that we can see the real cost of 'green' technology.
In reality the only solution is to use less, i.e. work locally, learn to live with low energy consumption, cold showers, move to a third world country with a better climate and saner government than the UK.

Given the fact that science promotes open discourse, while demanding that any assumptions, or assertions, ought to be continually challenged, however dose not mean that science can regulate the behaviour of those engaged in any scientific endeavour. Hence the integrity of science somehow is not extensible to the “scientist”, whose imperatives may shift away from seeking the truth states, towards feathering their own nests, be it coveting after the relevant; grants, sources of funding, chairs, offices, kickbacks, etc.

In other words, scientists may not be as objective as their science requires these to be, this fact combined with the additional pressures upon these weak operatives, by the sharper political masters may yield the mess in which we are in, and we find the cooling and or warming of a planet that is roughly about four billion years old (4,000,000,000) to be adduced based on some one hundred and fifty years of records, which have been obtained through rudimentary and local readings (ie not planetary wide, and or solar system wide, but here and there, by some philanthropic busy body, whose habit of cold showers was not enough to keep their minds at rest).

This kind of deduction that can only be achieved by the same bunch of hairless apes, whom believed Earth was the centre of the universe, and flat to boot, going so far as excommunicating any poor soul who dared to think otherwise.

The arrogance of the hairless apes is put into perspective as and when the numbers are crunched by considering the relevant ratios ie 150 divided by 4000,000,000 which is equivalent to 0.0000000375 or 0.00000375 percent that leaves only 0.99999625 percent uncertainty about the rest of the time although the margin of knowing how warm Bognor Regis was in 1874 is sufficient enough grounds for climate change, and the correct cue for the various operatives to get on with their Malthusian agenda of; bad humans, and even worst great unwashed.

Fact that these Malthusian misanthropes are only engaged in realising their dreams of reducing the levels of competition, which in fact flies in the face of the Darwinian model perverted into Hobbesian Zeitgeist which itself is ironic for most of these pontificating misanthropes cannot even so much as control their own bladders never mind grappling the next pilgrim along for a morsel of food.

Fact that animals in the wild have no monetary constructs, and or political structures to ensure the class differentials, and only rely on getting down, and dirty to win the argument, is somehow never pointed to by the same bunch of shrivelled dick operatives, whose visions of the Hobbesian world is only the induction of the brute force of the proletariat to keep the next batch of the unwashed in check, whilst the same bunch of incontinent old things get on with ruling the roost.

Hence to find the muddled debate raging on here, in which facts and conjecture are constructed into the regurgitation of the existing bankrupt notions, these are the results of the bankruptcy of the ideas, and paucity of human invention, to perpetuate the same social structures, seeing as any other emergent arrangements can only be viewed as chaos and ought not be acceptable.

Climate change, which is the latest incarnation of the big freeze (in seventies the planet was heading for ice age!) which was then replaced with global warming, which is now keeping a foot in either camp has been elevated to “climate change”. Fact that most so called “green” notions are only engaged in anthropomorphising all things none human, whilst assiduously promoting misanthropy, never is debated. This is acceptable to save a pod of Dolphins, but hang back and watch a Palestinian village get razed, or to stop the Japanese whalers from killing the whales, whilst hang back and let the thousands of Japanese commit suicide due to the enormous pressures brought on by their fascist employers. On the other hand it is acceptable to pay for a barrel of Oil, less than a Barrel of fizzy drinks, as well as accepting the human costs of keeping the indigenous populations of these oil fields under a constant regime of intimidation, and cycle of invasion, and death, all in the way of “securing the oil supplies”. But hey don't let a cat get the wrong tin of cat food, just think of the distress it can cause.

Finally; think of our children, and think of the little polar bears, and stop the climate change, by killing at least four fifth of the planet, and keeping the same bunch of bastards on their respective gravy trains, for otherwise where would all this end, if we let chaos reign? Hence get on with shaking the kaleidoscope ….................

NB ; ‘This is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do let us re-order this world around us’ (T. Blair, Speech at the Labour Party Conference, Brighton, 2nd October 2001)

It is quite depressing here to hear opmoc and ken dismiss the need for peer-reviewed science. Chaps, you both seem to be saying that because the culture post WWII permitted free science experimentation, you are more able than current scientists to look at the issue of climate change. Furthermore, you say your experiments or observations have demonstrated that global warming is not happening. This is remarkably short-sighted.

I am pleased for you that the coral reefs in your preferred holiday spot are getting better, but here you seem to be taking one anecdote and compiling a statistic out of it. That is not sound science at all. You should be aware, especially if you are a physicist, that to examine the whole gamut of indicators of climate change, you cannot do it all yourself. This is where other scientists are needed, to publish their own findings and research, and then to review each other's work. This has been happening in the last two decades, and the incontrovertible evidence is that we should have started to tackle this problem many years earlier.

Furthermore, rather than worrying too much about 'The Idiots in Control of Us', obtain some research papers on climate change - there will be plenty on the internet - and critique them. Publish your critiques and alert other scientists to their existence.

Opmoc, you ask who you should peer your results with: well, if you have results of a publishable quality, I would recommend you talk to a university physics department near you. Speak to several scientists if you suspect (as you appear to) that some have been compromised by "the system". Ask them how you can get your work reviewed. Some may offer to informally review it, perhaps by using their awareness of the best current research in your chosen topic (such as coral reefs).

I mean you know offence when I say that, given your posting style, and that you seem determined not to listen to the best minds on climate change, you are not open to the possibility that you might be wrong. Furthermore, I suspect if you take your results to other scientists, an informal peer review will indicate some basic mistakes in the science, and that you will have to go back to the drawing board.

Proving it all yourself, one way or another, is impossible. Not even the best environmental scientist in the world would consider that a reasonable approach.

Dear Craig
As usual agree with you 100 p/c. The biggest failure is not to use tidal power
the energy produced anywhere round our coast is endless and more reliable than wind.They havent got a clue have they.....

Tony: "Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant and has no significent effect on the Climate of The Earth."

Oh yeah? Try adding extra CO2 to a garden greenhouse on a hot day. Hint: your plants won't grow faster.

Tony: "The entire Global Warming issue is a Massive Scam based on Political Control."

I see this accusation levelled again and again by global warming sceptics of all stripes, even some who appear to be otherwise intelligent, and I really don't see how this is meant to work.

No-one official is actually forcing me to do anything in the name of global warming other than use different lightbulbs (hardly the most profitable of scams, unless the fluorescent tube industry is much more significant than meets the eye).

The abolition of civil liberties in the UK is being justified using exaggerated fear of Muslims, not global warming.

The government's not encouraging global warming protesters: it's setting the police on them.

Getting back to the original article - I strongly suspect Craig's correct, and CCS is something the government would dearly love to use, and therefore has determined that it Will Be Possible.

However, determination is not enough to override reality, and it's probably not possible. The fact is that CCS was an idea that grew in the marketing departments of big coal companies, not among engineers.

The outcome of this policy will almost certainly just be more entirely normal coal-fired power stations - grossly short-sighted and possibly utterly catastrophic if most countries fall for the same scam.

Renewable avenues not being explored enough:
Tidal Power
HDR Geothermal
Simple energy saving (why is it that supermarkets have open-fronted fridges running 24/7 when they could have doors!?)

"Global Hoax on global warming....mmmm, we need a proper debate, to many half truths on both sides."

"Now, at the moment the Global Warming sayers have it for me....why...well if they are right the outcome is we're fubar'ed."

"And if they are wrong.....you can say I told you so."

"one of the answers doesnt look to clever to me....you wanna play lottery on this one..I dont"

Me

I had to repost the above...Well said Me...Well said.I am in total agreement with you.

I half agree with Craig on this one, new labour have ducked the issue of our impending energy crisis where 23GW of electricity production will be turned off by 2023, not to mention the complete inadequate response to climate change policy.
However, CCS is not as some have mentioned an unproven technology, it is proven and has been used successfully in various ways since at least the early 1970's. What is unproven is its application and its commercial viability.
The Sleipner gas project shows that co2 can be extracted and sequestered successfuly and made to be commercially viable with the incentive to avoid pollution taxes.
However, applying this technology to large scale power plants and especially retro fitting has rarely been tried. It also reduces the efficiency of the plant meaning less power generation. Only 2 demonstration plants are in operation at present, a pre-combustion plant in Spain and a post-combustion plant in Germany and the results are unknown at present.
It could cost anything from £30 to £90 a tonne of co2 to sequester with CCS which is a major problem, and will involve some kind of environmental taxation scheme to make viable.
In terms of the point of putting the co2 back in the hole from where it came, this is not what would happen. CO2 can be sequestered in old gas and oil wells and in saline aquafers such as the enormous one under the southern north sea that a study by the tindall Centre has intimated could store 100 years of co2 emissions from all current coal fired power stations in western Europe (theoretically).
The fact is these demonstaration plants should have been set up 10 years ago, and although CCS is a promising technology that could help in the fight of climate change, if real impact is to be made on co2 emissions in the UK far more fundamental action is required.

L.limey

Jon,
Either I didn't write my post carefully enough or you didn't read it carefully enough, but I did not deny the existence of global warming.
What I questioned was whether global warming will be a bad thing, based on the state of the planet 6000 years ago.
I offer what I said in that post for peer review here:
Will the atmosphere hold more moisture as a result of warming up?
Will that moisture result in more rainfall?
Where will that additional moisture come from, will it come from melting at the poles?
Will more rainfall increase the earth's fertility, reduce desert areas?
Will that be a good thing?
Should we fear global warming?
If so, why exactly?
Is there anyone amongst us, scientist or otherwise, who can be scientifically certain about the future, or more specifically, about the nature of the future?

I also offer this as an observation made over the last few years, say about 10.
Travelling overland extensively in Scandinavia I observe the huge amount of farmland under black plastic at the time I travel past. No doubt this isn't the case all year. This would be unknown, say, 50 years ago.
I have read in Spanish newspapers that the amount of Spanish farmland under permanent glass or plastic has been increasing during the past 10 years at record rates, and in my travels in Spain I have observed this also.
These are just two tiny parts of the world where I have observed this.
The specific purpose of this is to absorb the sun's heat radiation, which would otherwise reflect back away from the earth, and use it to warm the earth.
I don't know how much of this goes on in the world, I can only comment on my observations, but I think it is clearly increasing, and is relatively new.

I have read quite a bit about the science of global warming, at least that which, I'm afraid to say, doesn't send me to sleep. But I have never read of any consideration given to the effect of the increased moisture content of warmer air, nor the effects of deliberate attempts made by the farming industry to warm the earth's surface.

It's these sorts of omissions, and there are probably others, that tend to convince me that those who claim that global warming is a bad thing and is man-made are being very selective in their arguments.

As I asked above, would the scientist who can accurately predict the future please step forward.

As lordlimey points out, carbon capture and storage is technically feasible but would cost at least £50 / ton CO2. In reality, imposing a carbon price high enough to prevent CO2 emission from coal-fired power stations would lead not to carbon capture but to replacement of coal by nuclear: the cost differential between coal and nuclear is equivalent to a carbon price of about £10 / ton CO2.

"Jeff Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend recall that, in the early 1980s, this country led the world in clean coal technology, through the fluidised bed plant at Grimethorpe colliery power station in my constituency? That plant was funded by more than 20 countries, including America and Japan. Unfortunately, the facility was closed down by Mrs. Thatcher. Does he agree that this country continues to regret that decision to this day?"

"Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed, and I am sure that all Members here will agree that we want to regain that lead in clean coal technology to take us forward through not only the next few years but the next few decades. The export potential is massive, but it will not happen without investment and prioritising clean coal and carbon abatement technology."...

http://tinyurl.com/2hwzds

"Energy security is becoming a greater issue in the UK every day, especially as our reliance on overseas supplies grows. The Government's own figures show that 70 per cent. of the UK's energy needs will be supplied by gas by 2020, and that 90 per cent. of that will be imported. That will make the UK extremely vulnerable to disruption of supply and it is vital that we have an indigenous capacity for energy creation from a variety of sources, including renewables, clean coal technology and—well, who knows? I think nuclear power deserves a separate debate all of its own. Let us wait and see."

Remember...

Back in the 1980s Thatcher burnt off a lot of the UK north sea gas 20/25 years worth into the atmosphere in order to give tax cuts to get re-elected...

Never forget that...

http://tinyurl.com/4rod94

The whole of the UK energy policy is based on criminality.