tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7800828841873738105.post2284871859299476744..comments2023-07-02T06:58:33.737-05:00Comments on WebberEnergyBlog: What if it's too late?Michael E. Webber, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/12416546342365493633noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7800828841873738105.post-964501153918487342009-04-12T23:49:00.000-05:002009-04-12T23:49:00.000-05:00I read your post and I got interested just by the ...I read your post and I got interested just by the question: What if it is too late?<BR/>I recently found this news in the NYTIMES about the OREGONIANS from OREGON, sorry about to be redundant. In this note, they talk about how some families are trying to shrink their per-capita consumption by 80%. This idea might achieve the Swiss project called 2,000 Watt Society. <BR/>If it is not too late, there could be an option to save this World and build a greener society for future generations. This 2,000 Watt projects believes that “The emissions of the future rich must eventually equal the emissions of today’s poor” (Bill Chameides).<BR/>I have tried to find more about this project and basically it seeks to achieve a level in which” each person in the developed world would cut their over-all rate of energy use to an average of no more than 2,000 watts by the year 2050, without lowering their standard of living.” (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology). As Elizabeth Kolbeth mentioned in her column in the New Yorker , this two thousand watts is approximately the current world average rate of total energy use. This compares to averages of around 6,000 watts in western Europe, 12,000 watts in the United States [1], 1500 watts in China, 1000 watts in India, and only 300 watts in Bangladesh.<BR/>I think it is an achievable amount but we must understand that the developing countries need to consume more energy than they do today if they ever want to be fully developed. Countries like Brazil or Mexico which today have low greenhouse emissions and per-capita energy consumptions around 1,700 kw, they will increase their energy demands to meet their development. So in this case, governments should encourage the use of cleaner technologies without jeopardizing their development.<BR/><BR/>Work consulted:<BR/>NYTMES<BR/>NEW YORKER<BR/>SENERMiguel Bacahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00321683250320862929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7800828841873738105.post-38087987413984302722009-04-06T16:00:00.000-05:002009-04-06T16:00:00.000-05:00I just watched the long video titled "Sea Change,"...I just watched the long video titled "Sea Change," and it really opened my eyes. I previously did not see the effects of melting ice, but when it is considered thermodynamically, it really makes the issue more devastating. The ice is currently the buffer for the heat we are creating, but once it is all gone, temperatures will shoot up too quickly for life on earth to withstand. <BR/> It seems that we already have made impacts that nature cannot fix, so the next step we should be taking is to figure out a way to reverse these impacts. If the facts are portraying the future correctly, this step may be the most important discovery to continue life here on earth.Alex Quintanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12744385063520156918noreply@blogger.com