“The Earth is cooling?”

That’s right econ101 — a La Nina, and a solar minimum caused Earth to cool in 2007.

2007 got so cold, it tied the the big warm spike in 1998, that was caused in part by a record warm El Nino.

Just ask your biologist,
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jennifer_Marohasy

RFI and Ben: And in your personal vehicle of the future made of an unknown compound, UNOBTAINIUM

——————
heh heh - love that name - UNOBTAINIUM

Print the big green X over the plant!

And give us a thread about earthhour.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

“The only way you can make any significant gains in efficiency in regards to transportation (the single largest carbon emitter in the nation by far) is to reduce weight.”

If rfl saw a $20 bill on a sidewalk, he’d say it couldn’t be real because someone would’ve already picked it up — and he’d leave it there, and walk on by.

http://www.suvsolutions.org/blueprint.html

http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html

If it just weren’t for those darn oil lobbyists preventing Ford Motor Co, Toyota, Honda, and the other auto manufacturers from using these “state-of-the-art” materials and technology on their internal combustion powered vehicles, we would have the 4-fold increase in MPG that Cosmos speaks of.

I know, according to Cosmos, its a vast carbon filled conspiracy to make all cars suck oil. It’s odd that he bought one of those cars though. I wonder which oil company twisted his arm? Exxon, BP, Halliburton?

Or maybe, its the technology that is dependent on oil as its fuel that the consumer, including GASP! Cosmos, demands?

The only way you can make any significant gains in efficiency in regards to transportation (the single largest carbon emitter in the nation by far) is to reduce weight. With available materials (state-of-the-art included), and safety standards maintained, you are dreaming if you think a 4-fold increase is imminent. Keep dreaming though, just don’t expect the rest of us to believe you.

With increasing demand, you will need increasing supply or else the price for energy (electricity from Sunflower included) will continue to increase parabolically. I’ll live with it just like everyone else (that is if I can make it through another freezing winter as predicted by the impeccable Global Warming models).

Collisions?? Just bounce off the other vehicle and keep on pedalling.

Do you enjoy living in the state of denial?

Reagan rolled back CAFE mpg standards in 1985, and the standards have basically been stagnant since then.

Ever thought about the huge air drag of the big steel girder frames under most SUV’s?

We could double the mpg of most vehicles, using available components, materials and technology.
We could quadruple it, with start-of-art materials.

And we are able to build super-insulated homes, for example, with R-60 walls.

Cosmos has a keen imagination when dreaming up ways to maintain his lifestyle simply by theoretically increasing energy efficiency.

Increasing efficiency only means increasing consumption to a point that does not inflict major pain on a consumer’s budget.

Let’s look at the gains in efficiency in the automotive industry to see if oil consumption has declined as cars become more efficient.

The oil shocks of the 1970s — in both price
and availability — spurred improvements in auto
energy efficiency within the U.S. as well as worldwide. On average over the
past 25 years, the typical power train of gasoline fueled automobiles in the U.S. has improved in efficiency by about 1% per year. 1% improvements may not appear to be much, the compound improvement in the typical U.S. automotive engine over 25 years has been about 30%.

So there have been significant improvements
in automobile power train efficiencies over the past couple of decades. But have these improvements translated into any overall reduction in demand for fuel? No. In 2007 motor fuel consumption in the U.S. was high as it has ever been.

So with that, I agree with Cosmos and believe higher end use efficiency is the way to go. I think all cars should be made out of unobtainium. Unobtainium you may have never heard of, but it is as light as a feather and as strong as steel. It takes no gasoline to move it, it simply floats from your house to work with ease.

I think Congress should pass this law now so that we can continue to live the American dream AND save the planet 100 years from now at the same time.

Editors? We are a little late hearing about this.

Thanks again to that op ed writer in Saturday’s Eagle for bringing this to us.

This would be a GREAT topic for a thread! Get the word out as to the event, discuss various ways of conserving energy etc.

Here’s my promise and admission. Admission first - I love college basketball! Promise - If there IS a game at that time I think I can’t miss I will give TWO hours at another time.

That’s next Saturday.

TV on Saturday at that time is dead.

Couples! Spend the time in the dark romantically.

Parents? Learn the name of a star (the ones in the sky) or two and share with your kids.

DO visit that website.

Darn it. Can’t seem to get an active link.

The website is COOL! I’m gonna shut off everything in the house for that hour.

Then, I’m going to very selective in what I swith on again.

Are there “things” in my house that need more than just being turned off. Not trying to be difficult just showing my true lack of knowing. I’ve heard if they’re plugged in they’re drawing some power and don’t know which things or if it’s even true.

Practice conservation daily, and the problem will be greatly diminished.

In fact, take that hour off and go for a ride in your SUV or pick up truck. Burn more energy.

I drive a hybrid. Why doesn’t everybody?

“Off for an hour”

Everybody everywhere should turn off their lights on March the 29th betweeen and 8 and 9 PM.

Check out Phillipa Read’s good op ed and also http://www. earthhour.org.

I’m in. I think I’ll take a walk under the stars while I show the electric company that the consumer can make a difference.

The greatest source of energy we have is the energy we waste.

only if you show ‘em enough money.

build it in outdoor oriented colorado.

You shutting your mouth “saves the world” in more ways than I can count.

Signing off now in order to save the world.

I think ANTI is okay with the health problems and deaths caused by coal plants, unless it causes a whole lot of obvious illnesses and deaths.

ANTI posted March 21, 2008 at 1:22 pm

“Garden City is down wind and people are not dying off left and right or flooding the hospital with health problems related to the plant.“

‘Cost of coal power is rising’
http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics/story/538962.html

All you Global Warming nuts turn out your lights and shut off your PC’s now!

I suspect that it is very difficult to disaggregate the specific health effects of point-source pollutants from non-point or mobile source pollutants. Duh. But that in no way disproves the negative effects of coal-fired power generation.

As for your knee-jerk objection to my former source, who cares? It was fact-based, whether you like the ideological slant or not.

Here’s a Sierra Club fact sheet, with documentation of factual claims. And if you try to pre-emptorily reject it on the basis of an ad hominem fallacy, ANTI, then I win. The only refutation that counts is a refutation ON THE FACTS AND ARGUMENTS THAT ARE PRESENTED AND DOCUMENTED.

“Dirty Coal-Fired Power Plants and Air Pollution
Power plants are a major source of air pollution, with coal-fired power plants spewing 59% of total U.S. sulfur dioxide pollution and 18% of total nitrogen oxides every year.4 Coal-fired power plants are also the largest polluter of toxic mercury pollution5, largest contributor of hazardous air toxics6, and release about 50% of particle pollution.7 Additionally, power plants release over 40% of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, a prime contributor to global warming.8
Smog and Ozone
Power plants are second only to automobiles as the greatest source of NOx emissions.9 When nitrogen oxide (NOx) reacts with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and sunlight, smog (ground level ozone) forms. Of the six major criteria air pollutants regulated by the EPA, NOx emissions have historically been the hardest to control. One of the contributing factors is that NOx emissions from huge dirty coal plants in one region can easily pollute areas hundreds of miles downwind. The American Lung Association estimates that almost half-48% or 140.5 million- of Americans live in areas with unhealthy levels of smog.10

When inhaled, smog can cause a wide range of health problems, including immediate symptoms like shortness of breath, chest pains, wheezing, and increased susceptibility to respiratory problems.11 Smog can also cause many more serious problems like increased risk of asthma attacks and lung inflammation. Recently, scientists concluded that exposure to smog can be deadly. Smog affects everyone, but is especially dangerous for children, the elderly, and those with respiratory problems.

Even our national parks have not escaped the smog and ozone pollution caused by coal-fired power plants. Many parks already experience unhealthy air days, and the problem is getting worse.12 Smog concentrations have increased at 22 of 31 National Park Service monitoring sites since 1990. This persistent ozone pollution can harm plants and vegetation by damaging leaves and disrupting growth.13 Along with other pollutants, nitrous oxides can also chemically alter soil and water, leading to acidification and other serious problems that harm plants and animals.

Particle Pollution and Soot
Coal-fired power plants are also the largest single source of sulfur dioxide (SO2), releasing about 2/3 of the total SO2 pollution each year.14 Sulfur dioxide, which can travel long distances in the atmosphere before falling down to the land, can cause problems on its own as well as when it combines with other pollution to form other dangerous compounds.15 In addition to acid rain (see below), SO2 can combine with nitrogen oxide (NOx) and other particles to form particulate matter, which is sometimes called soot. Particulate matter, which can also be released directly from the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants, is often divided into categories based on the size of the particles-coarse, fine, and ultrafine-but all three are hazardous to your health and the environment.16

Particle pollution is one of the most dangerous air pollutants, and over 64 million Americans are estimated to breathe air that has so much particle pollution that it puts their health at risk.17 Particle pollution can trigger heart attacks and strokes, lead to cardiac arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat), cause respiratory irritation, and worsen asthma. Both short-term and long-term exposure can cause premature death. In fact, particle pollution from power plants in the U.S. leads to over 30,000 deaths each year-a shocking figure when compared to the 17,000 homicides committed each year.18 Cutting power plant emissions by 75% could avoid more than 18,000 of the deaths caused by particle pollution.”

(snip)

“Air Toxics and Mercury
Coal-fired power plants are the largest single man-made source of mercury pollution in the U.S.26, and are the largest contributor of hazardous air pollutants.27 In smokestack tests, coal-fired power plants were found to release 67 air toxics, many of which are known or suspected carcinogens and neurotoxins that can cause development problems, respiratory problems, and aggravate asthma.28

Of these air toxics, one of the most dangerous is mercury. Mercury from coal-fired power plants is released into the air through the exhaust system when coal is burned. The primary exposure for Americans occurs when this mercury falls to the earth and runs into our lakes, rivers, and streams and contaminates the fish.29 Humans can be contaminated when they eat these fish and shellfish. In 2004, 47 states and territories had fish consumption advisories for mercury for at least some of their waters.30

Mercury is a developmental toxin, primarily affecting fetal development.31 In unborn children, it can cause brain damage, mental retardation, blindness, and many other problems. Infants are also exposed to these dangers through contaminated breast milk. While the dangers of mercury are most often associated with women and children, eating fish high in mercury has also been found to put middle-aged men at a greater risk for coronary heart disease.32″

(snip)

“Citations

1. U.S. Department of Energy, “Coal website.” Accessed August 8, 2006.

2. , Joel A., “‘Treading Water’: A Preliminary Assessment of EPA Enforcement During the Bush II Administration.” October 2004. 34 Environmental Law Reporter: 10933-10953.

3. Clean Air Task Force, “No Escape: Can You Really Ever Get Away From the Smog.” 1999.

4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report.” 2003. Appendix A.

5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fact Sheet, “EPA to Regulate Mercury and Other Air Toxics Emissions from Coal- and Oil-Fired Power Plants.” December 14, 2000. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/fact_sheets/fs_util.pdf

6. Clean Air Task Force, “Children at Risk: How Air Pollution from Power Plants Threatens the Health of America’s Children.” May 2002. Available at http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Children_at_Risk.pdf

7. Ibid.

8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005,” April 2007. Based on calculation of CO2 emissions from tables 3-1 and 3-3.

9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “NOx: How Nitrogen Oxides Affect the Way We Live and Breathe.” September 1998. EPA-456/F-98-005. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/noxfldr.pdf

10. American Lung Association, “State of the Air: 2006.” 2006.

11. American Lung Association, “State of the Air: 2006.” 2006.

12. U.S. National Park Service, “Air Quality in the National Parks, Second Edition.” September 2002. Available at www2.nature.nps.gov/air/pubs/aqnps.cfm

13. U.S. National Park Service, “Effects of Air Pollution on Ecological Resources.” Accessed August 7, 2006 at www2.nature.nps.gov/air/AQBasics/ecologic.cfm

14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report.” 2003. Appendix A.

15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “SO2 - How Sulfur Dioxide Affects the Way We Live & Breathe.” November 2000. Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/so2/index.html

16. American Lung Association, “State of the Air: 2006.” 2006.

17. American Lung Association, “State of the Air: 2006.” 2006.

18. Clean Air Task Force, “Death, Disease and Dirty Power: Mortality and Health Disease Due to Air Pollution from Power Plants.” October 2000. Available at http://www.cleartheair.org/fact/mortality/mortalitylowres.pdf

19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Particulate Matter Website.” Accessed August 10, 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/index.html

20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “How Air Pollution Affects the View.” April 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/visibility/pdfs/haze_brochure_20060426.pdf

21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Acid Rain Website.” Accessed August 9, 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/acidrain/index.html

22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report.” 2003. Appendix A.

23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “NOx: How Nitrogen Oxides Affect the Way We Live and Breathe.” September 1998. EPA-456/F-98-005. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/noxfldr.pdf

24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “NOx: How Nitrogen Oxides Affect the Way We Live and Breathe.” September 1998. EPA-456/F-98-005. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/noxfldr.pdf

25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Effects of Acid Rain: Lakes & Streams.” Accessed August 9, 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/acidrain/effects/surfacewater.html

26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA to Regulate Mercury and Other Air Toxics Emissions from Coal- and Oil-Fired Power Plants.” December 14, 2000. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/fact_sheets/fs_util.pdf

27. Clean Air Task Force, “Children at Risk: How Air Pollution from Power Plants Threatens the Health of America’s Children.” May 2002. Available at http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Children_at_Risk.pdf

28. Ibid.

29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Mercury Human Exposure Website.” Accessed August 10, 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/mercury/exposure.htm

30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, “2004 National Listing of Fish Advisories,” September 2005. EPA-823-F-05-004.

31. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, “ToxFAQs for Mercury.” April 1999.

32. American Heart Association, “Mercury, Fish Oils, and Risk of Acute Coronary Events and Cardiovascular Disease, Coronary Heart Disease, and All-Cause Mortality in Men in Eastern Finland.” November 11, 2004.

33. Energy Information Administration, “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004.” December 2005. Report #: DOE/EIA-0573(2004)

34. Population Reference Bureau, “2005 World Population Data Sheet.” 2005.

35. Energy Information Administration, “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004.” December 2005. Report #: DOE/EIA-0573(2004)

36. U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States.” July 2000. Available here.

37. Environmental Information Administration, “U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy Sources 2005 Flash Estimate.” June 2006. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/pdf/flash.pdf

38. U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States.” July 2000. Available here.

39. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers.” 2001.”

http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp#cite9

Are you a trained scientist or medical professional, ANTI? If not, then you are in NO POSITION to draw any inferences, positive or negative, concerning the impacts of coal burning in Garden City or anywhere else. If all you have is anecdotal evidence, you may as well surrender with some dignity intact.