Brian,

May be this discussion should move off-line ?

You mention that the Kyoto Protocol is largely flawed, but better than nothing.
This seems to be a judgement call.

It is not unusual for bureaucracies to produce "cures" that are worse than the
problem they are trying to fix.  I would hope that efforts to develop similar
protocols would continue, and that a better plan would result.  Perhaps one
based less on rationing and more favorable to countries with low GWP/GNP.

Karl

> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:35:52 +0200
> From: Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [LF] Article from Circuitree
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Karl
>
> There are a few points I'd like to respond to.
>
> CO2 is the worst "villain" by the sheer quantity involved. Fluorocarbons
> are estimated to represent under 2% of "global warming emissions". But
> they ARE in the Kyoto Protocol and individual nations can reduce them to
> reduce their "ration" of permitted emissions. The choice is up to them.
> Of course, politicians may consider it easier to target PFCs because
> only a few hundred users of PFCs are not worth considering as electors
> for their continuing bonanza, whereas car drivers are another kettle of
> fish and must not be alienated.
>
> Methane emissions are increasing. Enteric fermentation in cattle is a
> minor cause, but growing at 5% per annum (>90% of cattle are feeding on
> natural grassland so low-fermentation feeds is unimportant). More rice
> paddies is much more important (7% per annum). Natural swampland is more
> important again. Gas leaks in transcontinental natural gas pipelines is
> much more significant. Methane levels were constant until the mid 19th
> century, since which time it has doubles from about 800 ppbv to 1750
> ppbv and currently increasing by 10 ppbv/year.
>
> Nuke electricity DOES result in CO2 emissions, albeit only 2 - 3%/kWh of
> fossil fuel generation. This comes from ore extraction, smelting,
> enrichment, transport, recycling etc. Notwithstanding, I believe that
> nuke power is our only available medium-term solution for the quantity
> of energy we will require. Renewables will remain niche sources (hot
> summer weather is often synonymous with anticyclonic conditions, with
> little wind, but everybody wants to switch their air con on then, not
> when winter gales are blowing). I'm not saying that they are useless,
> but they cannot be relied upon as a constant, economic source. Even the
> most constant source, tidal energy, works for only about 15-18 h/day, at
> the whim of the moon. A combined recycling/composting/garbage
> incineration is small fry. In Switzerland, 277 MW generation capacity is
> available in such an ambitious programme, but represents a very small
> fraction of total power requirements. Hydroelectricity is too dangerous
> and polluting (on an average, there have been over 2,000 deaths per year
> from worldwide HE dam failure. The Three Gorges Dam, when it has filled,
> will put in danger over 2 million persons in a city just 20 km
> downstream - plus countless others - in a geologically unstable region.
> Also, it will be the world's largest producer of methane resulting from
> the gigatonnes of vegetation submerged over its 600 km retention lake
> length to a depth of 180 m and the anaerobic decomposition of the raw
> sewage from China's largest city of 27 m population). I've always said
> that I'd rather live next to a good nuke reactor than downstream from a
> major dam :-)
>
> While we are about it, I'd like to debunk trees as a fossil carbon sink.
> It is true that growing trees will photosynthesise some of the available
> CO2 and fix their carbon into the wood, as well as the leaves (from
> which it is released again in 1 - 2 years for deciduous and 5 years for
> coniferous trees). The average life of forest trees is about 30 - 50
> years. What happens then? The tree is cut or falls. Paper may be made
> from it and this will mostly be incinerated or will rot in landfills,
> sooner or later. The wood may be used as fuel or for construction, but
> sooner or later it will revert to carbon dioxide. Worse, attack of
> fallen trunks or trimmings within the forest by fungi and coleoptera
> will transform it into methane. In other words, your "sunk" carbon, no
> matter what, will be in the atmosphere again within a few decades. This
> is not deleting your fossil carbon from the face of the earth: it is
> simply delaying its effect 20, 50 or 100 years. This, along with
> "trading CO2 emissions", is the weakest part of the Kyoto Protocol.
>
> What the Kyoto Protocol guys need is a hammer to yield. The Montreal
> Protocol has a clause that forbids the importation of products
> containing, using, being transported or made with the help of
> ozone-depleting substances, into signatory countries from
> non-signatories. A similar clause in the Kyoto Protocol would be the
> ideal method of bringing large users to heel, as it would stop exports
> from large consumers!
>
> I agree with President Bush that it is largely flawed, but it's a darn
> sight better than nothing.
>
> Brian
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> Leadfee Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree
NOMAIL
> Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases >
E-mail Archives
> Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700
ext.5315
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leadfee Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------