Blog action day points to progress at Copenhagen in December
Today, October 15, 2009, is blog action day focused on the issue of climate change. So far it involves 10,884 blogs, 13 million readers, and most of the nations of the world. As readers of this blog known, nuclear energy is a carbon emission free source of base load power. In this blog post, readers are offered some climate-related news on progress, or the lack of it, in dealing with the global crisis.
350 parts per million is what many scientists, climate experts, and progressive national governments are now saying is the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere. We are already well past that number as any polar bear looking for an ice flow knows all too well.
For all of human history until about 200 years ago, our atmosphere contained 275 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Parts per million is simply a way of measuring the concentration of different gases, and means the ratio of the number of carbon dioxide molecules per million other molecules in the atmosphere. 275 ppm CO2 is a useful amount—without some CO2 and other greenhouse gases that trap heat in our atmosphere, our planet would be too cold for humans to inhabit.
So we need some carbon in the atmosphere, but the question is how much?
You can learn more and find out ways to have your voice heard at the web site 350 which has a wealth of information on this global issue. Here's their video. Tweet your participation to #350ppm
# # #
2 comments:
Two billion of the world's people are without electricity and are energy starved. A significant amount of the carbon put into the atmosphere in India is from small cooking fires.
The world needs more energy that the poor can afford. We should attempt to avoid energy waste while raising the living standards of all peoples in the world by producing more, not less, energy.
The energy that is scalable and cheaper than coal to burn is nuclear energy. Thorium fuel in Molten Salt Reactors produce less waste and is more proliferation resistant than conventional nuclear.
Nuclear energy is far more logical than dirty coal power plants.
Basing the argument on the need to reduce CO2 makes a lot of sense, public relations wise.
Privately, we need to be able to admit that the science behind CO2 catastrophe is very shaky. But for public consumption we need to play up the danger, as both Al Gore and Stephen Schneider recommend.
Post a Comment