Climate scientists: it's time for 'Plan B'

[STYRBJORN]

OK. Whatever. Ask some of the American evangelicals.

[treecreeper]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

OK. Whatever. Ask some of the American evangelicals.

All I have to hand from my American Brethren is Evangelical Ethics by John Jefferson Davis (P&R Publishing, 1985), which has a chapter on contraception. As I would expect, he makes no objection to condoms used within marriage as this method does not interfere with conceived life. There may be American evangelicals opposed to all contraception but I suspect they are in the minority

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by treecreeper

All I have to hand from my American Brethren is Evangelical Ethics by John Jefferson Davis (P&R Publishing, 1985), which has a chapter on contraception. As I would expect, he makes no objection to condoms used within marriage as this method does not interfere with conceived life. There may be American evangelicals opposed to all contraception but I suspect they are in the minority

With all respect, I don't think we should take this any further. WAB is not the appropriate forum. ATB,

Ric

[treecreeper]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

With all respect, I don't think we should take this any further. WAB is not the appropriate forum. ATB,

Ric

That's fine. I only came into the discussion to clarify the evangelical position on contraception.

Carry on as before

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by animartco

Strybjorn and EEyore, you're at it again aren't you? The terrible twins. Surely burning any form of vegetable matter is the very worst source of energy. It's called bio-fuel and every sensible person knows it is a BAD idea. Reasons A It takes food out of peoples mouths. B It is the worst source of carbon pollution, with the lowest heat to carbon ratio.
However. composting the organic wastage from CROPS to produce methane IS a comparatively GREAT idea.

umm - no, in a word.

short rotation coppice etc is carbon neutral (excepting the very low emmision from harvesting) that is carbon absorbed = carbon emmited so reason b) is absolute balderdash - reason (a) has some merit - but only if land for growing food is in short supply , which it is not in the western world. (yet again a little research on your part would not go ammiss)

Growing biodeisel crops in the tropics is a different fish of kettles, but i dont recall mentioning that as an option

[basquesteve]

I asked
Which reliable renewable energy source does not destroy habitat, or use masses of copper, cement and rare earth metals etc

Originally Posted by eeyore

well short rotation copice doesnt - so long as the area on which it is planted is not otherwise valuable habitat. waste wood burning doesnt, anearobic digestion of sewage to produce methane doesnt (and yes i'm aware that all three of these prodiuce C)2 , but they are all none the less carbon neutral as equal CO2 is absorbed in the production phase.

Are you seriously suggesting European energy requirements will be satisfied by the above

[Digit]

If you discount that answer then the answer to your question is... none!

Roy.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by basquesteve

Are you seriously suggesting European energy requirements will be satisfied by the above

But Steve, you didn't ask for renewable sources that could satisfy European energy requirements. You just asked for ones that "do not destroy habitat, or use masses of copper, cement and rare earth metals etc". Pete has described some and now you've moved the goalposts to include "and can meet European energy requirements". No of course coppicing and the rest can't do that as I'm sure Pete will be only too well aware.

You won't win any debates here by asking one question and then criticising people for failing to answer a completely different question that you never asked in the first place.

Dave P.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by pressld2

But Steve, you didn't ask for renewable sources that could satisfy European energy requirements. You just asked for ones that "do not destroy habitat, or use masses of copper, cement and rare earth metals etc". Pete has described some and now you've moved the goalposts to include "and can meet European energy requirements". No of course coppicing and the rest can't do that as I'm sure Pete will be only too well aware.

You won't win any debates here by asking one question and then criticising people for failing to answer a completely different question that you never asked in the first place.

Dave P.

as dave says - that isnt what you asked

if you want to meet european energy requirements without exacerbating anthropogenic global warming i strongly suspect the answer is going to be multifold a) better insulation in new builds and retrospective insulation etc in older builds to reduce demand, b) education of the public to also reduce demand c) renewable energy sources which work (including heat pump technology, short rotation, biogas digestion etc), and d) nuclear fission to fill the energy gap until such a time as fusion becomes a possibility

course the latter does use a significant amount of concrete etc but the CO2 emmited by building a number of reactors is still significantly less than that emmited by generating from coal powered stations and running petrol/deisel cars/lorries and trains

[basquesteve]

The problem with many of the "Green" sources of energy is storage. The only way forward in my opinion is Large scale water barriers and nuclear power building ridiculous wind farms which will be worn out quickly isn't going to save the planet. Why hasn't Bath used its hot thermal springs for something useful
to stop countries using fossil fuels will be suicidal, with out massive subsidies you cannot create energy free of carbon dioxide.
Britain is on a downward spiral if it does build the Severn Barrage and more nuclear power stations immediately. I understand it cannot create direct electric railways because of the lack of generation where on earth is the power for electric cars coming from
Steve