Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop

Set of 11 "Wallnuts" (1 to 11) N/B NEW Anodized colours!!! New "lighter" version. Steve's favourite wired Nuts.  $169.00
15% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 3 of 7. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 128
Author
No More Overseas Travel? - Running out of oil?

Zebedee
26/10/2007
10:00:26 PM
On 26/10/2007 Sabu wrote:
>Am pretty sure that the methane produced by cows (considering the sheer
>numbers of cattle thes days) is immense and is a very large contributer
>to greenhouse gases!
I am pretty sure it's people not cows/sheep that are the main problem.

anthonyk
26/10/2007
11:21:42 PM
On 26/10/2007 Zebedee wrote:
>Whereas your fossil fuel trapped its
>co2 quite a while ago and releasing this into the atmosphere now makes
>a permanent change to the balance.

of course the other question is that all that oil got trapped from a jurrasic type climate, & releasing it again would create a similar climate again, & is that really so bad? ok in the short term for all those (billions?) of people who live near the ocean its not so great, but aside from that the longer term environment probably isn't all that bad. maybe we're even offsetting the gradual onset of global freezing as all the carbon gets locked away in the earth & cools the place down, so by liberating all that carbon we're preventing the gradual demise of the greenhouse effect that keeps the place warm & cosy.

;)
rod
28/10/2007
7:21:44 PM
On 26/10/2007 Zebedee wrote:
>I am pretty sure it's people not cows/sheep that are the main problem.

Agree, without humans where is the need for sheep/cows (especially as we are outcompeting all their predators).

On the climbing front, are the oil ingredients in the gear we use substitutable/recyclable?

BigMike
28/10/2007
10:08:26 PM
On 28/10/2007 rod wrote:
>On 26/10/2007 Zebedee wrote:
>>I am pretty sure it's people not cows/sheep that are the main problem.
>
>Agree, without humans where is the need for sheep/cows (especially as
>we are outcompeting all their predators).

That's like saying, "I'm pretty sure it's people, not cars and power stations, that are the main problem...."


harold
28/10/2007
10:53:30 PM
Zebedee is quite right with the cow thing. Its really basic high school chemistry. CO2 from the air is photosynthesized to grow the grass - cow eats the grass for energy - part of the carbon in the grass is belched out as CH4 (methane), the rest of the the carbon from the grass becomes part of the cow. So out of this cycle - carbon is absorbed out of the air, some of it is returned to the air as methane, some of it becomes a cow. There is no increase in carbon to the atmosphere, actually the opposite is true. The leather in your boots is made of carbon which has been fixed out of the atmosphere via the cow.
If I am wrong and there is a net increase in carbon to the atmosphere via the cow, somebody please tell me where did this carbon come from?

Zebedee
28/10/2007
10:54:27 PM
On 28/10/2007 BigMike wrote:
>On 28/10/2007 rod wrote:
>>On 26/10/2007 Zebedee wrote:
>>>I am pretty sure it's people not cows/sheep that are the main problem.
>>
>>Agree, without humans where is the need for sheep/cows (especially as
>>we are outcompeting all their predators).
>
>That's like saying, "I'm pretty sure it's people, not cars and power stations,
>that are the main problem...."
I reckon your right there. There are to many people on the planet and too many of those that are here are using cars, power stations and livestock products. There are two possible solutions: same number of people and a radical reduction in consumption; or a radical reduction in people and and some reduction in consunption. So what I say is exactly that cars/cows don't produce green house gas emissions people do. (Apologies to the NRA.)

BigMike
29/10/2007
7:47:36 AM
On 28/10/2007 Zebedee wrote:
There are two possible solutions: same number of people and a
>radical reduction in consumption; or a radical reduction in people and
>and some reduction in consunption. So what I say is exactly that cars/cows
>don't produce green house gas emissions people do. (Apologies to the NRA.)

It'd be hard to personally engineer a radical reduction in people without being arrested.

But it is easy for you to radically reduce your own consumption of certain things that produce vast amounts of greenhouse gases.

Check it out:

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2062484.ece



Organ Pipe
29/10/2007
10:03:18 AM
A couple of points I recall from Mr. Gores film that really surprised me were:

1) A third of the CO2 entering the atmosphere globally comes from deforestation / clearing of the land. Not just the burning of orgainic matter, but when you leave soil uncovered it oxodises and carbon that was in the soil bonds with oxygen in the air and forms CO2.

2) Another third comes from the U.S.A.!

Zebedee
29/10/2007
7:22:54 PM
On 29/10/2007 BigMike wrote:
>On 28/10/2007 Zebedee wrote:
>It'd be hard to personally engineer a radical reduction in people without
>being arrested.
Come on you're not trying hard enough. Pol Pot, Stalin; not arrested, not a day in jail. Just Do It.

BigMike
30/10/2007
11:37:34 PM
On 28/10/2007 harold wrote:

>If I am wrong and there is a net increase in carbon to the atmosphere
>via the cow, somebody please tell me where did this carbon come from?

Hopefully the link I provided suggested a few answers regarding the many problems with cows.

I'm wondering if luxury car adverts are going to start to tell us that the leather seating option is a great way to reduce greenhouse gases....

IdratherbeclimbingM9
31/10/2007
8:00:22 AM
We could always bring back leather climbing britches, or ye olde leather waistband (back protector), for waist belays ...
Setha
31/10/2007
3:31:49 PM
"Oil reserves are expected not to last past 2050 even if we curbe our growing use of it. So when it runs out what will our slings be made of, or our harnesses and ropes?"

Hemp!

let the wheel spin.
rod
31/10/2007
6:52:15 PM
On 29/10/2007 Organ Pipe wrote:
>2) Another third comes from the U.S.A.!

Oz is way up there on the per capita stats.

cruze
1/11/2007
8:45:29 AM
On 31/10/2007 Setha wrote:
>"Oil reserves are expected not to last past 2050 even if we curbe our growing
>use of it. So when it runs out what will our slings be made of, or our
>harnesses and ropes?"

I would be less concerned about your slings, harnesses and ropes and more concerned about the pharmaceuticals that we use to prevent, treat and cure disease and promote general well-being. Many, if not most, of the starting materials used in organic synthesis are derived from crude oil. [I assume most people know that organic chemistry and organic veggies are a world apart in terms of their use of the word 'organic']

From what I can gather, I don't think that the relevant fractions of crude oil are in short supply - or will be in the foreseeable future.

anthonyk
1/11/2007
12:34:49 PM
On 1/11/2007 cruze wrote:
>From what I can gather, I don't think that the relevant fractions of crude
>oil are in short supply - or will be in the foreseeable future.

yep. i think there's plenty of it around, but it'll become a lot more expensive when its no longer riding on the back of the petrol industry

cruze
1/11/2007
1:38:39 PM
On 1/11/2007 anthonyk wrote:
>On 1/11/2007 cruze wrote:
>>From what I can gather, I don't think that the relevant fractions of
>crude
>>oil are in short supply - or will be in the foreseeable future.
>
>yep. i think there's plenty of it around, but it'll become a lot more
>expensive when its no longer riding on the back of the petrol industry
>
Even so if the infrastructure is still there to fractionate the oil, and the demand is still there to produce synthetic chemicals, I still think that the cost of the actual pharmaceuticals themselves is rarely dictated exclusively by the ingredients - more the Marketing and R&D. (and yes I realise that R&D expenditure is partially reliant on the cost of the chemicals themselves).

jackb
1/11/2007
1:57:38 PM
I said "Oil reserves are expected not to last past 2050 even if we curbe our growing use of it"

Cruze said "From what I can gather, I don't think that the relevant fractions of crude oil are in short supply - or will be in the foreseeable future."

If you add up the estimated amounts of crude oil reserves (that that can be extracted in an economical way) and devide it by the worlds current yearly consumption. Then you get a date at somewhere between 2040 and 2050. I think that is a foreseeable year.

This doesnt take into account future discoveries of oil reserves. Unfortunately the last major discovery of an oil reserve was by a norweigen company. The amount they found would last for ten days at the current rate the world consumes oil. In the past decade or so there hasnt been a larger discovery.

Even if more is found the estimated time our reserves would last doesnt take into account the growing demands for oil which would bring this date down into the 2030's.

This info comes from "the Solar Economy" by Dr Hermann Scheer . He is responsible for pushing the German government in the direction of renewable energy.

cruze
1/11/2007
2:06:36 PM
On 1/11/2007 jackb wrote:
>I said "Oil reserves are expected not to last past 2050 even if we curbe
>our growing use of it"
>
>Cruze said "From what I can gather, I don't think that the relevant fractions
>of crude oil are in short supply - or will be in the foreseeable future."

The relevant fractions I was referring to are those fractions used to make such synthetic products as pharmaceuticals.

Do your (or the German's) figures refer to the current consumption of organic materials for use in Pharmaceuticals? I wouldn't have thought so. Otherwise by your reasoning in 50 years we will be back to pre-19th century medicine with life expectancies probably of the same order.

Zebedee
1/11/2007
2:33:10 PM
On 1/11/2007 jackb wrote:
>If you add up the estimated amounts of crude oil reserves (that that can
>be extracted in an economical way) and devide it by the worlds current
>yearly consumption. Then you get a date at somewhere between 2040 and 2050.
>I think that is a foreseeable year.
>
>This doesnt take into account future discoveries of oil reserves. Unfortunately
>the last major discovery of an oil reserve was by a norweigen company.
>The amount they found would last for ten days at the current rate the world
>consumes oil. In the past decade or so there hasnt been a larger discovery.
>
>Even if more is found the estimated time our reserves would last doesnt
>take into account the growing demands for oil which would bring this date
>down into the 2030's.
>
>This info comes from "the Solar Economy" by Dr Hermann Scheer . He is
>responsible for pushing the German government in the direction of renewable
>energy.
I don't think it is very meaningful to estimate the time when we will run out of oil. The law of supply and demand will dictate an ever increasing cost and an ever decreasing demand such that we won't "run out" but rather will be unable to afford. This may mean that the pills and what not will still be made if they represent a sufficiently profitable use for oil.

EJ
1/11/2007
5:25:12 PM
One of the key points that I don't see alot of discussion about is the transfer of Carbon from the long term (geologic) carbon cycle into the short term carbon cycle. For instance, buried hydrocarbons in the form of oil and coal etc have been buried for millions of years and are more or less stable. By burning the oil/coal we are releasing it into the atmosphere and adding the pool of carbon available for processes in the short term carbon cycle.

It bothers me that various companies/governements think that by planting trees they are offsetting their carbon emissions. For example a local car company is offering a total carbon neutral car, through a carbon offset program. There is no feasible way that I know of currently that is capable of taking carbon from the short-term cycle and returning it to the geologic cycle.

So by all means plant trees, we certainly need them. But don't do it under the pretense that its "fixing" the problem. Both cows and grass cycle carbon fairly rapidly. So the cows and grass problem is largely related to the short term carbon cycle.

 Page 3 of 7. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 128
There are 128 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints