Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: NikosR on August 27, 2007, 08:23:14 am
-
I have not seen the book so I cannot tell if the photography depicted is implied as photojournalistic or artistic work (if a clear distinction between the two can exist).
But if it is the later, surely an artist can present his vision of the scene in front of him in whatever way he deems appropriate. If 'beautification' is a valid form of expressing one's vision, surely the opposite should hold true as well.
Or not?
PS. I take Michael's word that the picture mood is indeed due to heavy image manipulation and not due to choice of time, season or lighting conditions. My comment above would have been the same even if Michael's observations were not accurate.
-
I, too, haven't seen the book (so I can offer an unbiased comment ).
From Michael's report, it seems that the "message" of the book is essentially, "this is a beautiful place in danger of being destroyed by global warming." If that's the case, it would seem counterproductive to choose a visual style that shows Antarctica as ugly.
Am I the only potential reader who is less likely to be persuaded to want to preserve an ugly place than a beautiful one?
I'm sure glad I've seen some of the grand images by Michael, Jeff, and the others so I have at least a smidgeon of an idea just how stunning Antarctica is.
-
I, too, haven't seen the book (so I can offer an unbiased comment ).
From Michael's report, it seems that the "message" of the book is essentially, "this is a beautiful place in danger of being destroyed by global warming." If that's the case, it would seem counterproductive to choose a visual style that shows Antarctica as ugly.
Am I the only potential reader who is less likely to be persuaded to want to preserve an ugly place than a beautiful one?
I'm sure glad I've seen some of the grand images by Michael, Jeff, and the others so I have at least a smidgeon of an idea just how stunning Antarctica is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135761\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Huh?
Based on a few words and one picture how can anyone make such a comment?
I personally find the cover image to be rather nice. Would I be bummed if I went to AA and saw the scene differently than this cover? Hell no! Just look at Ansel's work for a similar treatment. Clearing Storm is a prime example: a straight print is dull and with no life. Frankly, after viewing many of the online images from the most recentt LL AA trip I found many to be dull and with no life. There was one photographer (I would have to dig back to find his collection of images) that moved me. Most others did not.
I will trust the general assessment that the book is political and that the images have been "tweeked", not necessarily for that sake, but most likely for an artistic view point. Fine. I like the one image that I have seen. Sorry that it doesn't fit the reviewer's vision of AA.
Ken Gehle
-
It is bloody hot; I´ve just come back from sitting on a hotel terrace at the edge of the sea talking to a chap who I last saw when I lived in Scotland 27 years ago. Looking out at the bay we could see an aquatic carpark of a zillion ski boats and sailing craft. The smog from summer tourism and its human causes hung like a death shroud over the whole scene: the dreaded Cokin tabac filter for real.
Do the few remaining bits of Earth that have been safe from man for so long really need to be visited now? I have no answer to that - only a gut reaction that smacks of the no good will come from it syndrome... hope I´m wrong but I fear the worst.
Rob C
-
The cover photograph doesn't look more manipulated than most landscape photographs since the days of Velvia and Polarizer filters. To a large degree most of the American nature photography I see online and in print these days looks heavily Photoshoped.
As for Antarctica showing the decline of the human race and its relationship to the biosphere, I wish Michael could see the symbolism of his "expeditions" down there... What a monument of human decadence.
-
If "Antarctica – The Global Warning" were, strictly speaking, a coffee table book of landscape photographs of Antarctica, I would agree with Micheal's critique. But it isn't, and it makes no pretense of being that--even the title says as much. It's a polemic on the dangers of global warming that uses manipulated photographs to create the impression of a grim and bleak environment and instill fear and outrage in the reader. On that level I would argue that it succeeds very well. This is not a feel-good book of pretty pictures. It's purpose is not to have the reader appreciate the beauty of Antarctica. This is a piece of environmentalist propaganda, produced to "preach to the choir" of like-minded individuals so that they might find justification to feel even more incensed than they already are. Whether you agree or disagree with the point it is trying to make is another matter entirely, but do not mistake this for a traditional artsy book of landscapes.
I have not seen the book so I cannot tell if the photography depicted is implied as photojournalistic or artistic work (if a clear distinction between the two can exist).
But if it is the later, surely an artist can present his vision of the scene in front of him in whatever way he deems appropriate. If 'beautification' is a valid form of expressing one's vision, surely the opposite should hold true as well.
Or not?
PS. I take Michael's word that the picture mood is indeed due to heavy image manipulation and not due to choice of time, season or lighting conditions. My comment above would have been the same even if Michael's observations were not accurate.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
If the book was just presented as art for arts sake, then manipulation of the photographs would not be much of a concern for most. That is part of art.
However, when you make a presentation that says in effect "look at these photographs and see what a huge problem we have here" then you are in some sense acting as a bit of a reporter and have a responsibility to present things as they are. If the problem is a huge as some say it is, reality and facts should be enough to make the point.
I think the problem with photography in relation to global warming is that while you can show some glaciers melting over time with photographs, you can't show or prove man is the cause and you can't show that the temp warming by a few degrees is a bad thing. I can show photographs of the remains of plants and animals that have been frozen in the far north for many thousands of years. They show the earth was much warmer at one time than it is now. And, that temps have fluctuated in the past much faster that they are now. Long before man was here. I photograph in places like Yosemite that were carved by glaciers. Those glaciers melted long before the first car was driven or the first factory let out smoke. In the White mountains of California the treeline was much higher thousands of years ago than it is now. The only way this is possible is if it was much warmer back then. Again, before man spewed out co2 into the atmosphere. Not conclusions but simple facts. Those photographs from the far north, Yosemite and the White mountains cannot show you why the earth was warmer at one time or why it got colder. And, those photographs cannot tell you that the earth is better off warmer or colder. All those photographs can show is at one time the earth was much warmer than it is now (pre man) and was much colder than it is now (pre man).
If you are trying to make a statement about a situation you think is real, I am dubious of the argument if you have to embellish the facts and not let reality stand on its own. If you are trying to tell me something is real, then show me that reality. I am always open to, and appreciate that.
-
The cover photograph doesn't look more manipulated than most landscape photographs since the days of Velvia and Polarizer filters. To a large degree most of the American nature photography I see online and in print these days looks heavily Photoshoped.
As for Antarctica showing the decline of the human race and its relationship to the biosphere, I wish Michael could see the symbolism of his "expeditions" down there... What a monument of human decadence.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135784\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What has to be appreciated (and obviously isn't) is that Antarctica is about the size of the United States. With the exception of a few scientific stations and a few hundred transient people the continent of devoid of humans. The expedition and tourist ships cruise along the coast and land a couple of times a day at specified locations that have been agreed upon by international treaty. Before disembarking boots are washed in an antiseptic bath so as not to contaminate the flora and fauna. Landings are limited to about 2 hours, so there is no human waste left behind, not even urine. Expedition staff have an extremely strong environmental consciousness, and indeed most of them are scientists and researchers trying to earn some additional money and return to the continent any way they can.
My experience is that without exception the people that go on these trips have a highly developed sense of responsibility and appreciation for the environment. A great many are members of The Nature Conservancy and The Sierra Club, as I am.
I also know that quite a number of photographers who have come on my trips follow up with doing slide shows, presentations to schools and clubs, helping people understand the fragile ecology and importance of Antarctica.
So "svein". I don't know who put a pickle up your butt, but your phrase "What a monument of human decadence.
is simply wrong headed, not to mention obnoxious.
-
Any idea when the images in the book were shot?
I happen to visit regularly some alpine areas in Japan and could make these places look just about any way I want. They are just so different from one season to another, even from one week to the next, or from one day to the next.
Did the guy visit Antartica several times?
There is no way I can comment on the actual motivation of the photographer obviously, but isn't there a possibility that:
1. Antartica really looked like that when he was there,
2. He finds it more beautiful darkish?
I would personnally find the cover image to be at least as beautiful and moving as many of the nice photographs taken during the LL expeditions that were posted on the web.
Just my 2 cent.
Regards,
Bernard
-
my 2 cents.....
I’m sure Michael's interpretation is right, the principal purpose of the book is to make a political statement through art. Not the first time, nor the last. If art is anything, it’s to express a point of view. Be it, there-are-no-words beauty of a landscape or the soul-wrenching horror of war.
However, I’m surprised at the level of indignation at what amounts to a marketing ploy* by the photographer/publisher, albeit heart felt.
*Marketing Ploy: The photographer and publisher are trying to market an idea: “The polar regions of the planet are in trouble, and your neighborhood is next.”
-
seems to me if he did it for political or any reason other than an art rendition,, and that is accepted, you would also be accepting the manipulation of other journalism photogrpahers that are manipulated such as the photogrpaher who manipulated the war photographs in lebanon to make the explosions look bigger than they were.....since he is trying to make a political point, that would be journalism in my view and non manipulated documentation should be presented.
just my pov
-
I tend to agree with Michael here that a distinction has to be made between artistic honesty and artistic dishonesty. Deliberate spin in order to conform with a political agenda is plain dishonest.
I'm sure we've all had the experience of taking a shot of a scene that inspired us or moved us in some way, only to find later that the normally processed image just lacks whatever it was that motivated us to take the shot. So we try hard to manipulate the image, increase the saturation, darken the sky, whatever, in an attempt to get the image to express the mood we originally felt.
Is it likely that Sebastian Copeland, the author of these photos, felt a mood of despair and desolation when taking all the shots displayed in this book? If he did, then I suppose it is fair and honest for him to 'smash the quarter tones', as Michael describes it, in order to recreate this mood of despair which he possibly saw in every scene, but unlikely.
In a sense, to broaden the discussion, we only have ourselves to blame. As a species, we seem unable, generally, to take a course of action simply because it's right, because the facts support it, because it's the sensible thing to do. We need to be cajoled and frightened before we will make any radical change to our behaviour or lifestyle. So it is with global warming. (No need to mention Iraq here, so I won't).
There is definitely a political spin in full force in many parts of the world with regard to the causes of global warming. The only certain thing is that the warming is taking place. Greenland is gradually becoming a place as warm and hospitable as it was in the days of the Vikings. I believe some farmers are getting bumper potato crops there.
Whether or not any attempt on our part to reduce greenhouse gasses will be sufficient to reverse the trend is far from clear. The previous warming which peaked in the Middle Ages was obviously not caused by man-made greenhouse gasses, but if it had been, one can't help wondering if the following 'Little Ice Age' would have taken place.
-
Well, he's Orlando Bloom's cousin (who went with him on the shoot) which may explain all the "excitement" surrounding the book (and the hype). He (Sebastian Copeland ) has just been named "Best Photographer of the Year" in the book catagory of the International Photography Awards (and the book isn't even out yet).
He has aYouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0IQ6o7MHWw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0IQ6o7MHWw) where he talks about the trip (not so much about the book itself).
I saw the vid and he saw the same sorts of scenes we saw the last two trips (at least the vid looked about the same). But, I suspect he needs a tutorial on Camera Raw or Lightroom (hopefully is WAS shooting raw) and needs to learn how to soft proof. I would not at all be surprised that the book repro sucks...blues are a REAL hard color to repro in CMYK...and if he didn't know what he was doing making the seps, well, you saw the cover...
:~)
-
Art with a political statement is not journalism. Nor should the artist feel any obligation to depict a scene with an objective eye. Do the words artistic license ring a bell? Pablo Picasso’s “Guernica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_(painting)),” which hangs in the United Nations building, is one famous example.
After looking at YouTube, I think the photos would be more interesting if he opened up the shadows. The photos look flat to me.
-
Historical information about the earlier causes of global warming are interesting, but not really any justification for ignoring today´s evidence.
Look, I drive a car too, it´s 1800cc and allows me to speed over the limit of 120kph in Spain or 130kph in France, for as long as there is gas in the tank. Why does anybody need more than two litres of engine, pray tell?
Ego, my man, effin ego!
Rob C
-
Historicasl information about the earlier causes of global warming are interesting, but not really any justification for ignoring today´s evidence.
Look, I drive a car too, it´s 1800cc and allows me to speed over the limit of 120kph in Spain or 130kph in France, for as long as there is gas in the tank. Why does anybody need more than two litres of engine, pray tell?
Ego, my man, effin ego!
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135933\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rob,
It's not so much a matter of ignoring the evidence but correctly identifying the causes of the change. The climate is always in a state of change, gradually getting either warmer or colder, drier or wetter.
We appear to be into a phase of gradual warming which probably would have happened without the industrial revolution, but which has probably been augmented by additional man-made carbon dioxide. However, there seems to be some uncertainty as to the precise effect of the additional greenhouse gasses that we produce. Some experts think that solar activity has a more significant effect on climate than anything we do and that far more carbon dioxide is produced by volcanos and earthquakes than our factories and cars produce.
Nevertheless, even though there's no complete consensus of opinion on such matters, it would seem to be irresponsible to do nothing.
Interestingly, Professor James Lovelock who's had many years of experience working on this problem, now thinks we've already passed the point of no return. The trend is firmly in place. It's politically impossible for us to stop contributing to the quantity of greenhouse gasses already in the atmosphere. Tinkering around the edges will solve nothing and we cannot expect China and India to stop improving their living standards. They all want 2 litre cars just like you.
If we'd used our uranium resources 30 years ago to produce more atomic energy and spent vastly more funds researching atomic fusion power, which is essentially limitless, then we might have stood a chance. As it is, I think we might have blown it.
If you're smart, you'll emigrate to Greenland. That's a large continent that seems to have a promising future .
-
I saw the vid and he saw the same sorts of scenes we saw the last two trips (at least the vid looked about the same). But, I suspect he needs a tutorial on Camera Raw or Lightroom (hopefully is WAS shooting raw) and needs to learn how to soft proof. I would not at all be surprised that the book repro sucks...blues are a REAL hard color to repro in CMYK...and if he didn't know what he was doing making the seps, well, you saw the cover...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135908\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So what you're saying, Jeff, is that these photos from Sebastian Copeland might not be a result of a political spin to exaggerate the effects of global warming, but just lousy processing and printing .
-
Ray
Greenland: the new fronier. No, it´ll be the new Australia, the perfect place for dumping our prison overspill.
The mystical East sure is mystical. On the one hand, we have the millions working in sweatshops for a dollar a month so´s we can buy clothes that fall apart BEFORE the first wash yet, oddly, the other hand is raised to expose the same millions about to invest in their first 4x4s. India, where the city streets are full of the homeless and women live in cribs, à la New Orleans of the jazz age, with no greater purpose in life but to service the tourists and the one-anna richer local males we also have this great, suddenly affluent population with Jaguars on their minds.
If you want to find dubious reporting and tub-thumping of the most cynical kind, then how about casting a glance at our western apologists first, at our ´stars´of stage and screen and loudspeaker, the same idiots that snort their new-found wealth and early health into oblivion. I refrain from including politicians, because with them, the tiltle already defines the animal.
I was interested to read in The Sunday Times this weekend the views of a North Vietnam soldier thanking Mz Fonda for her efforts on behalf of the North; they sussed out that with the weakness of self-doubt in the West, all they had to do was hang on in there a while longer and victory would be there on a plate. How true! Funny thing, history: Mercedes owns Chrysler, the UK car industry is rusting on the block and if you can´t buy the right BMW you look at the Lexus.
A slight meander from global warming, perhaps, but seismic changes in world balance nonetheless. Volcanoes we can do little about and I´m told that eruptions of those as well as the fallout from crashing meteors in the Gulf of Mexico helped us into one of our earlier acts of climate imbalance. This may or may not be true and the weather might indeed be cyclical and for ever beyond our control, but there is nothing but good sense in doing our best to eliminate our own contributions.
As the saying goes: when you find yourself trying to clamber out of a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging.
Rob C
-
So "svein". I don't know who put a pickle up your butt, but your phrase "What a monument of human decadence" is simply wrong headed, not to mention obnoxious.
Obnoxious, maybe - one man's spiritual journey is another man's decadence - but not entirely wrongheaded. I'm sure everyone involved exercises the utmost care for the local environment, but that doesn't change the fact that the 13,000 miles of flying plus ship operations emits several tons of CO2 per person, contributing to global warming impacts on Antarctica (and everywhere else) that will ultimately dwarf whatever harm weeds and waste might do. One can hope that photography will contribute to awareness that helps to mitigate the problem, but I don't see how one can venture there without at least considering the darkly ironic "it became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it" aspect.
To put that into perspective, the 5200 pounds of CO2 emitted by a flight from Chicago to Ushuaia is roughly comparable to the difference between switching from a Chevy Suburban to a Subaru Outback, or from the Subaru to a Prius. It's also roughly equal to the per capita emissions of China, and twice that of India. You could probably buy carbon offsets for the trip for under $100, and the high end of estimates of damage to global welfare from that much CO2 is under $1000.
-
Tomfid & svein-frode, are you trying to make the point that travel is bad for the environment and is therefore wrong, and that all right-thinking people should spend their lives sitting at home and never leave their village? I hope not, because travel is one of my greatest joys in life and I would hate to have to give it up because some people think it's bad and "decadent".
Besides, without travel, I wouldn't have interesting things to photograph (I know that's not true of all people, who may be happy to photography their kids and their back yard, but it's true for me), so I wouldn't even be here participating in this forum.
Lisa
-
To put that into perspective, the 5200 pounds of CO2 emitted by a flight from Chicago to Ushuaia is roughly comparable to the difference between switching from a Chevy Suburban to a Subaru Outback, or from the Subaru to a Prius. It's also roughly equal to the per capita emissions of China, and twice that of India. You could probably buy carbon offsets for the trip for under $100, and the high end of estimates of damage to global welfare from that much CO2 is under $1000.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you don't spend your money on a trip to the Antartic, what do you have in mind that you could spend it on that would be less environmentally harmful? If you leave the money with the bank, the bank will probably invest it in a factory in China which burns dirty Australian coal. If you spend it on expensive designer clothes, you are just helping to support the energy guzzling life style of fashion designers with fancy European names who own half a dozen luxury cars and live in big mansions.
If you buy a new camera.... well, what can I say. There's a whole raft of different industries involved in the production and assembly of camera components, all of which use heaps of energy.
The facts are, our civilization is totally dependent upon energy. Nothing moves without expenditure of energy. Nothing is bought which does not represent an expenditure of energy, and the amount of energy associated with anything you buy is generally proportional to the price you pay for it whether it's a trip to the Antartic or a life-time's supply of ice cream.
There's a misconception in the U.K that cheap apples from Chile and cheap lamb from New Zealand are associated with greater emission of greenhouse gasses because of the long distances these products have to travel by diesel operated ships before they reach the British consumer. Whilst it's true that one component of the total production cost, transport from Chile or New Zealand to British shores, is quite energy intensive, there are other parts of the production process that are more economical and therefore less energy intensive to a greater degree.
How could they sell these products at a cheaper price if this were not true? New Zealand can not only produce lamb more efficiently than the U.K farmer, with less consumption of energy, but so much more efficiently that they can even ship it across half the globe, sell it at a lower price and still make a profit.
-
Rob,
It's not so much a matter of ignoring the evidence but correctly identifying the causes of the change. The climate is always in a state of change...
We appear to be into a phase of gradual warming which probably would have happened without the industrial revolution, but which has probably been augmented by additional man-made carbon dioxide. However, there seems to be some uncertainty as to the precise effect of the additional greenhouse gasses that we produce. Some experts think that solar activity has a more significant effect on climate than anything we do and that far more carbon dioxide is produced by volcanos and earthquakes than our factories and cars produce.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You can't claim ignorance as to cause, then assert that warming probably would have happened without the industrial revolution. By doing so, you favor a postulated unknown natural cause over a known cause (greenhouse gases) that fits the data quite well. If such an unknown cause existed, it would be measurable by now, because the observed warming exceeds known forms of internal natural variability (e.g., el Nino) and there are no external forces of sufficient magnitude affecting climate. There is no significant trend in solar output, orbital changes favor cooling (over 1000s of years), and volcanic CO2 is a trivial contribution to the atmosphere over decadal time scales.
-
My experience is that without exception the people that go on these trips have a highly developed sense of responsibility and appreciation for the environment. A great many are members of The Nature Conservancy and The Sierra Club, as I am.
I also know that quite a number of photographers who have come on my trips follow up with doing slide shows, presentations to schools and clubs, helping people understand the fragile ecology and importance of Antarctica.
So "svein". I don't know who put a pickle up your butt, but your phrase " is simply wrong headed, not to mention obnoxious.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135846\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am sorry I come across as obnoxious, but I live in the Arctic and am close to the changing environment up here. What is taking place isn't much different from the Antarctic climate changes, although there is discovered a lot more pollution in fish and wildlife up here.
I am sure you have the best intentions and that the expeditions themselves doesn't pose direct harm to the environment. But air travel (to and from South America) is one of the worst strikes against the environment a single individual can do.
I am sure that slide shows and books created from photographers such as you create some awareness of the problems down there, but in all honesty, and with sincere intentions, I have to ask if you are not rationalising to overcome some degree of guilt, or being over confident in the effect of such efforts? Information from NASA, and other scientific organisations doing research down there are already reaching many people. Such organisations also report directly to governmental institutions, which in the end have the real power to do something.
It is my personal opinion that the greatest act of environmental care you could do is reduce travelling to a minimum, in addition to other obvious measures such as reducing shopping and use of energy. Local pollution is now becoming a global problem. The symbolism of practicing environmental concern is far more inspirational than someone preaching about it. While few can claim to be perfect, it’s worth making an effort to reduce hypocrisy to a minimum.
Why do I bother at all? Well, it’s quite simple. Emission of greenhouse gases in other parts of the world is messing up my back yard. It is rapidly changing the environment in which my relatives, neighbours and fellow citizens are going to live. Whatever happened to the nature photography mantra “Leave only footprints”?
-
If you don't spend your money on a trip to the Antartic, what do you have in mind that you could spend it on that would be less environmentally harmful?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135989\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's quite silly to claim that all economic activity is created equal. You could spend the money on insulation or efficient lighting, for example - the energy and carbon embodied in those is far less than what they save, so emissions would go down instead of up. Travel is one of the most energy intensive things you could do with the money.
However, it is tough to determine the relative merits of other options. Fortunately, we don't have to - just put a price on carbon, and let the market sort it out.
Tom
-
You can't claim ignorance as to cause, then assert that warming probably would have happened without the industrial revolution. By doing so, you favor a postulated unknown natural cause over a known cause (greenhouse gases) that fits the data quite well. If such an unknown cause existed, it would be measurable by now, because the observed warming exceeds known forms of internal natural variability (e.g., el Nino) and there are no external forces of sufficient magnitude affecting climate. There is no significant trend in solar output, orbital changes favor cooling (over 1000s of years), and volcanic CO2 is a trivial contribution to the atmosphere over decadal time scales.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not asserting anything, just repeating the different views of scientist who know far more about these matters than I do. There are reputable scientists who are of the view that solar activity is a more powerful driving force of climate change than man-made carbon emissions. At least one Russian scientist claims that the global climate will start cooling around the middle of this century as a result of cyclical changes in solar activity which will come into play.
There are statistics of sun spot activity which corollate very well with temperature fluctuations as far back as records were kept (over 100 years I think), up to 1998. However, since 1998 there has been a marked deviation from this pattern, possibly (probably - how would I know) as a result of a delayed reaction to a build-up of man-made greenhouse gasses.
James Lovelock, renowned British scientist and author of the Gaia hypothesis takes a very pessimistic view. He thinks it's now too late.
The fact is, there's a plethora of different views out there but I sense also a lot of pressure on scientists to sing the same tune for the sake of funding and to create the appearance of unanimity and certainty which perhaps doesn't really exist.
-
Tomfid & svein-frode, are you trying to make the point that travel is bad for the environment and is therefore wrong, and that all right-thinking people should spend their lives sitting at home and never leave their village? I hope not, because travel is one of my greatest joys in life and I would hate to have to give it up because some people think it's bad and "decadent".
Besides, without travel, I wouldn't have interesting things to photograph (I know that's not true of all people, who may be happy to photography their kids and their back yard, but it's true for me), so I wouldn't even be here participating in this forum.
Lisa
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135978\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lisa -
I'm making the factual argument that your travel (and mine) has side effects that will in all likelihood harm others and destroy things I (and probably you) love. What you do with that information is up to you as far as I'm concerned. My pot is too black to criticize your kettle.
If we (globally) don't do something to change the incentives surrounding carbon emissions, we'll get a bad outcome. But the choices are hardly black and white - if the cost of travel included some assessment of its side effects, those who wished could still fly, and others would find less carbon-intensive modes or destinations.
Tom
-
It's quite silly to claim that all economic activity is created equal. You could spend the money on insulation or efficient lighting, for example - the energy and carbon embodied in those is far less than what they save, so emissions would go down instead of up. Travel is one of the most energy intensive things you could do with the money.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not as silly as you think. Insulation and efficient lighting cost an initial outlay of money (call it energy units). The object of the exercise is to eventually save money on fuel bills. You won't do it in the first few years. Energy-saving light bulbs cost about 10x the price of conventional bulbs, presumably because it takes more energy to manufacture them. If you eventually succeed in recovering the cost of the insulation and efficient lighting through reductions in your fuel bill, you will be wealthier than you otherwise would be and will presumably spend the saved money on other energy-consuming items. If not, you will probably save the money with a financial institution who will invest it in some other form of environmentally polluting economic activity.
Where's the net saving in energy?
-
I'm not asserting anything, just repeating the different views of scientist who know far more about these matters than I do. There are reputable scientists who are of the view that solar activity is a more powerful driving force of climate change than man-made carbon emissions. At least one Russian scientist claims that the global climate will start cooling around the middle of this century as a result of cyclical changes in solar activity which will come into play.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136001\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For every scientist who holds that view there are probably 10 to 100 others who don't. Your Russians, presumably Mashnich and Bashkirtsev, have very few adherents - 1 citation on scholar.google.com vs. 20 to 80 for various Solanki papers. Solanki writes in one article that, even if solar variability explained all climate variation prior to 1970, it could explain no more than 50%, probably less than 30%, of the signal through 1999.
There are statistics of sun spot activity which corollate very well with temperature fluctuations as far back as records were kept (over 100 years I think), up to 1998. However, since 1998 there has been a marked deviation from this pattern, possibly (probably - how would I know) as a result of a delayed reaction to a build-up of man-made greenhouse gasses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136001\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The solar record may correlate with temperature somewhere over that period (Armagh Observatory anyone?) but it also has been observed to correlate with the stock market. The correlation with the global record, whether temperature or tree rings, is tenuous enough to be the subject of ongoing argument. In any case, that's irrelevant, because cyclical sunspot activity around a fairly constant mean output can't explain the recent temperature trend.
The fact is, there's a plethora of different views out there but I sense also a lot of pressure on scientists to sing the same tune for the sake of funding and to create the appearance of unanimity and certainty which perhaps doesn't really exist.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136001\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do you sense this by talking to scientists, or by reading State of Fear? Let's be realistic about the incentives here ... any US scientist who produced hard evidence questioning anthropogenic global warming would be handsomely rewarded under the current administration. More importantly in the long run, he'd get the glory of being right, which is the real prize in science. Banking attracts sheep; science attracts black sheep.
Tom
-
I'm not going to enter the carbon debate, but I do agree about the air travel. I have read that aircraft are one of the largest contributors, and thus air travel does have a harmful effect on the environment.
On the other hand it is, I believe, a net contributor to human trade and understanding, Frankly, if air travel were discontinued our civilization as we know it would collapse. Some might say this is a good thing, but not me.
Regrettably there is no known technology that can replace the hydrocarbon fueled jet engine, and unless there is some radical technology breakthrough we as a society are faced with some tough choices.
In the meantime, we all do (or don't) what we can to ameliorate our carbon footprint. For some people this will mean curtailing travel. For some it's a necessity, for other a luxury. There are certainly no easy answers.
Michael
-
It's not as silly as you think. Insulation and efficient lighting cost an initial outlay of money (call it energy units). The object of the exercise is to eventually save money on fuel bills. You won't do it in the first few years. Energy-saving light bulbs cost about 10x the price of conventional bulbs, presumably because it takes more energy to manufacture them. If you eventually succeed in recovering the cost of the insulation and efficient lighting through reductions in your fuel bill, you will be wealthier than you otherwise would be and will presumably spend the saved money on other energy-consuming items. If not, you will probably save the money with a financial institution who will invest it in some other form of environmentally polluting economic activity.
Where's the net saving in energy?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136006\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The embodied energy in light bulbs is quite small compared to their lifetime power consumption, as is true for most energy intensive devices (cars, power plants). The extra cost is primarily capital, labor, and materials, which each have their own embodied energy, but overall energy breakeven happens much sooner than economic breakeven, hence the savings.
Your growth rebound effect argument hinges on the assumption that whatever you save from an energy efficiency free lunch will be reinvested in activities that are just as energy intensive as what you were doing before you started saving, which is exceedingly unlikely, especially as a whole economy starts moving in the same direction.
Consider a different choice: spend $5000 to fly to a remote region, vs. spend $5000 on a fancy bike and ride around your local countryside. Either way, there's no revenue stream hence no rebound effect, but the carbon emissions are vastly different.
Tom
-
So all in all, the new book IS having an effect.
Rob C
-
So all in all, the new book IS having an effect.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136030\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What book ?
-
as a particpant on one of Michaels expeditions, i wont need to see the book,, i have seen the area in living color, and grande color it is. Its a spectacular place, dont need some al gore type to put up hyped dreary picutres to try and ruin it,,,and discourage others from enjoying the beauty of it.. How much gas, airline fuel, boat fuel waste etc did he use to get his shots, or did he kayak down from usuhaia after he canoed down from buenos aries and lived of the land....i often find it interesting that the al gore types say its ok for them to go to these places, violate the premises they want you to avoid, photo/video it, turn it to a book or dvd, and make money/prestige on it. Seems a hypocrascy to me. One would have to be living in a cave to not realize there are changes on the earth. are they all man made? are they all natural? or combo? there are two sides of the science, and scientist each calling each other wrong. So in my mind, i do a little to alleviate my contribution, and dont feel guilty when i decide to see what the other parts of the earth have to offer. You think Al Gore does,, i think not,
-
I'm not going to enter the carbon debate, but I do agree about the air travel. I have read that aircraft are one of the largest contributors, and thus air travel does have a harmful effect on the environment.
On the other hand it is, I believe, a net contributor to human trade and understanding, Frankly, if air travel were discontinued our civilization as we know it would collapse. Some might say this is a good thing, but not me.
Regrettably there is no known technology that can replace the hydrocarbon fueled jet engine, and unless there is some radical technology breakthrough we as a society are faced with some tough choices.
In the meantime, we all do (or don't) what we can to ameliorate our carbon footprint. For some people this will mean curtailing travel. For some it's a necessity, for other a luxury. There are certainly no easy answers.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136017\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is all I ask of my fellow human beings. Be informed, know the consequences of your actions and act accordingly. It is only oneself one has got to be proud of.
I don’t see the issue of air travel as black and white. There is no need to put an end to aviation altogether. It has made the world a smaller place, for better and worse. But as knowledgeable, educated and relatively wealthy individuals, I believe we have a stronger moral obligation to act responsible to make the world a better place.
This is probably not the time and place for such an exchange of opinions, but I did feel that you were throwing stones inside your glass house with that book review. You reach a lot of people with your otherwise insightful writing. It does make you a powerful individual in many ways… I’m going to leave it at that.
-
re: Bangladesh -- The Ship-Breaking Yards (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/ship-breaking.shtml)
Perhaps the most powerful image I’ve ever seen is this:
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-27-bangla/chain_A1C5531-thumb.jpg)
An excerpt of Michael’s narration follows. I agree with every word. And Michael was right to comment on the human condition of these people. One would have to have the sensitivity of an ice-ax to see the Ship-Breaking Yards as merely an interesting photographic opportunity without considering the world politics that permit these conditions to exist.
MR> One of the main reasons that the yards at Chittagong have been the center of this activity is that in Bangladesh labour is very cheap (the work of dismantling the ships is all done by hand) and there are few if any environmental or worker's protection laws.
I wouldn't be the bleeding-heart liberal that I am if I said that I wasn't affected by the sight of hundreds of workers climbing over these hulks without any of the safety equipment that we would consider a necessity. No hard-hats, no safety boots, no restraining harnesses, and so on. There are no statistics kept on accidents, so it's impossible to say what the record is, but just a brief look around is enough for one to know that the working conditions found there would give an OSHA inspector instant cardiac arrest.
I am not a social activist. I went to the yards with my workshop's members to simply photograph what I knew to be one of the world's most fascinating locations for unique images. But, I was deeply affected by the working conditions at Chittagong, as I was with the fact that this incredibly poor country still has child labour, and numerous other social ills, at least by the standards of advanced western countries.
There are organizations that are working with the people and government of Bangladesh to address these ills, and though it isn't the intent of this photo essay to grind any axes, maybe in its own small way it will draw the world's attention to this distressing situation.
Well done. Well said.
p
-
When the best defense of your actions you can raise is -a- Al Gore types do it too, and -b- sh!t happens, you know you're in trouble. In my mind, the real hypocrisy is to profess to love a beautiful place, yet be unwilling to lift a finger to avoid damaging it, or even to inform oneself deeply about the scientific and social issues.
Tom
-
For every scientist who holds that view there are probably 10 to 100 others who don't. Your Russians, presumably Mashnich and Bashkirtsev, have very few adherents - 1 citation on scholar.google.com vs. 20 to 80 for various Solanki papers. Solanki writes in one article that, even if solar variability explained all climate variation prior to 1970, it could explain no more than 50%, probably less than 30%, of the signal through 1999.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136014\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is not reasonable to expect the layman to spend the many years required studying environmental science and climatology in order to assess the merits of different interpretations of the data.
I merely point out that there are differing points of view. I would also point out, from my own personal experience, that I have observed that meteorologists often get local predictions of weather change wrong (ie. the weather forecast). Ask them to predict weather patterns a few weeks or months in advance and they can get it very wrong.
It would not surprise me if the predictions for global climate change 10, 20 and 50 years into the futue, from the current crop of scientists singing the same tune, also turn out to be inaccurate and even way off the mark. I understand a lot of these predictions are based on computer models from very incomplete data.
The best argument for taking action now, despite our apparent inability to grasp the whole picture and understand all the causes, effects and consequences of our contribution to greenhouse gasses, is that nothing is lost if the scientist predictions turn out be largely wrong, but something might be gained if their predictions prove to be accurate.
However, as I've mentioned before, one of the most well known authorities in environmental science, Dr James Lovelock, believes it's already too late.
-
The embodied energy in light bulbs is quite small compared to their lifetime power consumption, as is true for most energy intensive devices (cars, power plants). The extra cost is primarily capital, labor, and materials, which each have their own embodied energy, but overall energy breakeven happens much sooner than economic breakeven, hence the savings.
Tom,
There are certain new technologies that are spectacularly efficient compared with the old technology. The energy saving light bulb which produces significantly less heat is one of them and I'd expect you to recoup the higher initial cost of such bulbs within a year or so, provided they are used several hours a day.
This is why we've legislated in Australia to phase out the old-fashioned filament bulb which produces far more heat than light. Nevertheless, heat is often required to warm up your living room in winter, so one has to presume that those who live in cold climates who are using energy efficient light bulbs which generate less heat will have a proportionally higher heating bill in winter.
I think the fundamental point I'm making, which you seem to have missed, is that the only major impact we can possibly have on slowing down this current warming phase we are into is to simply stop pouring carbon dioxide, monoxide, methane etc into the atmosphere, and we simply can't do that because there'd be a world-wide depression far greater than the 1929 economic collapse.
It's not enough to just create ways of using our existing energy supplies more efficiently, from coal and oil powered electricity generators, power plants and motor cars etc. We actually have to change the ways we produce base load electricity and stop driving cars which burn gasoline and stop travelling in planes which use oil based aviation fuel.
We simply can't do it because our economic prosperity is totally dependent upon the cost of energy and the efficiency with which we use that energy. In an expanding and growing economy, the energy savings resulting globally from the widespread use of a more efficient form of lighting (the energy saving light bulb) will not have the effect of shutting down power stations, but rather that same amount of saved energy will be used elswhere, on other development projects.
The power stations spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere will continue doing that. If they are sending less electricity to you (because of your more efficient lighting), they'll be sending more electricity somewhere else. This is the nature of economic growth.
There are hundreds of new coal-fired power stations in the planning stage, around the world, most of them in China and India. They are needed, in part to produce energy efficient light bulbs.
-
"In my mind, the real hypocrisy is to profess to love a beautiful place, yet be unwilling to lift a finger to avoid damaging it, or even to inform oneself deeply about the scientific and social issues."
Sounds like yo want the world to stop to me. People are gonna go to these places,,like it or not,, Maybe if people do go and appreciate them, more efforts to protect whats there can be made, . You want to disparage people to go visit beautiful places, or try to make them feel quilty for it. No one has given definitvie data as to what needs to be done to reverse the trends, lots of ideological stuff that sounds good but no bite or teeth,, even the scientist argue, so depending on whether you believe al gore as th mouthpiece for the end of the world and his pov or the other sides less dramatic pov is your option. I ride a bike when i can, i avoid using weedeaters and gas mowers, all two strke units, and can put as much pollution in the air in one hour as a car can in a 24 hour day, they may be small and simple efforts to alleviate stresses on my enviroment, but at least i try,, so there is no hippocrasy here, Chief!
-
Boy, if ever a topic managed to polarise (really, no pun intended) opinion this one is it! Unfortunately, even this one sems to have been hi-jacked by the unthinking and yes/no arguments that terminate good discussion.
As for the ship-breakers: they only exist because they have nothing more lucrative to do; if they weren´t doing it we´d have an even greater amount of pollution lying around the globe. Never forget: one man´s ceiling is another man´s floor, as the man sang.
I shall withdraw now.
Rob C
-
Global warming? I'm doing all I can to fight global warming, but just how much can one person do? I turn my air conditioner on full blast and open my windows to help cool down the neighborhood. It's not much but if all my neighbors did the same we might be able to make a measurable difference. Whenever I use the stove I shut the windows to keep from warming the outside environment, but I doubt that my neighbors take similar care.
The big problem is automobiles. Even with the air conditioning turned up all the way and the windows open I'm probably still putting more heat into the environment than cooling but , hey, I've got to get around.
George Deliz
-
One of the biggest problems with "environmentalism" is that is really grew up in the sixties, and its most spectacular advocates and opponents were more skilled in public relations than in science; and that has continued. In the US, the left seized upon environmentalism as a cause, and the right reacted by denying that anything was wrong. As a result, you have a situation in which the right has propagandized people who work with natural resources to believe there's nothing going on, and that the pinkos just want to take your jobs (mining, timber, building pickups) because they hate rednecks. The left has taken a delight in scare stories, to the point that many people no longer pay attention -- they've heard all that before. Remember, those of you old enough, the books that predicted international triage, where we'd have to bar traffic with Africa and India, and just let those people starve to death, because there was no possible way to feed them...in 1980?
One incident in particular contributed to a massive load of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that was Jane Fonda's film "China Syndrome", combined with the Three-Mile Island nuclear accident, which happened within a few weeks of each other. Those two things combined killed nuclear energy in the US for what will be at least two generations -- and guaranteed that we'd be burning more and more oil and coal. We could now be building extremely safe and sophisticated third-generation nuclear plants, and if we insisted that all cars be hybids and plug-chargeable, we could have cut pollution probably by 80 percent. Here in Minnesota and across the border in Ontario, houses are being built that cost only a few hundred dollars to heat, because so little energy is used. Those lightbulbs and similar technology could do the same. Basically, we need engineers and scientists, not PR people.
This Antarctica book is just another example of that kind of PR that people have become immune to. Frankly, if I'd seen it in a bookstore, I wouldn't even have looked at it, because I know what it's going to be. But I do read Nature and Science, and the articles I see there genuinely worry me.
It's not so much at the PR guys are either right or wrong, by the way, it's just that you know they are lying, and manipulating, and hustling you -- that they don't as much about the truth as they do "winning." Most people don't like that feeling of being hustled. Just want a few friggin' facts...
JC
-
One of the biggest problems with "environmentalism" is that is really grew up in the sixties, and its most spectacular advocates and opponents were more skilled in public relations than in science; and that has continued. In the US, the left seized upon environmentalism as a cause, and the right reacted by denying that anything was wrong. As a result, you have a situation in which the right has propagandized people who work with natural resources to believe there's nothing going on, and that the pinkos just want to take your jobs (mining, timber, building pickups) because they hate rednecks. The left has taken a delight in scare stories, to the point that many people no longer pay attention -- they've heard all that before. Remember, those of you old enough, the books that predicted international triage, where we'd have to bar traffic with Africa and India, and just let those people starve to death, because there was no possible way to feed them...in 1980?
One incident in particular contributed to a massive load of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that was Jane Fonda's film "China Syndrome", combined with the Three-Mile Island nuclear accident, which happened within a few weeks of each other. Those two things combined killed nuclear energy in the US for what will be at least two generations -- and guaranteed that we'd be burning more and more oil and coal. We could now be building extremely safe and sophisticated third-generation nuclear plants, and if we insisted that all cars be hybids and plug-chargeable, we could have cut pollution probably by 80 percent. Here in Minnesota and across the border in Ontario, houses are being built that cost only a few hundred dollars to heat, because so little energy is used. Those lightbulbs and similar technology could do the same. Basically, we need engineers and scientists, not PR people.
This Antarctica book is just another example of that kind of PR that people have become immune to. Frankly, if I'd seen it in a bookstore, I wouldn't even have looked at it, because I know what it's going to be. But I do read Nature and Science, and the articles I see there genuinely worry me.
It's not so much at the PR guys are either right or wrong, by the way, it's just that you know they are lying, and manipulating, and hustling you -- that they don't as much about the truth as they do "winning." Most people don't like that feeling of being hustled. Just want a few friggin' facts...
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136249\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Why is Greenland named Greenland?
Why is Global Warming based on "consensous" rather than scientific fact (which is based on scientific study)?
Why does Al Gore have the only "Company" from which you can purchase carbon credits?
-
It is not reasonable to expect the layman to spend the many years required studying environmental science and climatology in order to assess the merits of different interpretations of the data.
I merely point out that there are differing points of view. I would also point out, from my own personal experience, that I have observed that meteorologists often get local predictions of weather change wrong (ie. the weather forecast). Ask them to predict weather patterns a few weeks or months in advance and they can get it very wrong.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136082\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
There are different opinions about everything. Science is mostly built on models that remain only true until they are replaced by another model with which a significant majority of scientists agree.
To my eyes, the consensus on climat change doesn't have to include all the scientists on earth to become just as "true" as the law of universal gravitation.
I strongly advise that you read the book called "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" if you haven't done it yet.
It is interesting to note that most people see in the progress of technology (say... ditigal cameras) a proof that science does actually know how the world works. The truth is more complex and - unfortunately - a lot less re-assuring. These things work and improve all the time because they are built using building blocks created by man in order to behave according to the mathematical models we have defined. In other words we created a game like lego, and are able to create the small car per the manual. It looks like magic if you don't know lego.
Another point worth understanding is that out limited mental abilities are not able to really understand at a macro level the actual causes-consequences relationship that drive the output of a complex system behaving according to rules we didn't create ourselves (like... climat). Simulation is mostly aimed at prediction but does only help macro level understanding up to a certain point.
There is often no garantee that the cause of a complex phenomenon can be identified with a simulation that reproduces the phenomenon. The only things we can really do is to change the input parameters of the models, and these parameters are typically a sub-set of the real world influences that have been selected as a result of assumptions about their relevance.
In other words, the lenght of my nose could influence global warming more than CO2, but most of the scientists decided not to include my nose as an input parameter of their models. They will therefore be unable to realize the sad truth that gobal warming would not be a problem had my nose been shorter.
Where I trust these guys to be probably reasonnably close is that my nose does probably not impact global warming much, but many expereiences have shown that CO2 does.
WE will never have perfectly closed models, but we have never had. Only an endless propaganda about the virtues of progress and the perfection of science and technology has led people to believe that science holds the truth. It has never been the case, and will probably never will. However statistics influence our lives, and plays here as well. Having 90% chance to be correct on global warming cannot be said to be less credible that most things we base our lifes on.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Environmentalism and 'ists
For those old enough to remember the United States in the post war boom 1950-60s, you’ll recall you couldn’t breath the air. Smoke stacks belched plumes of acrid unfiltered crap into the air day and night. I grew up on the Hudson River near Albany, New York. The Hudson and it’s tributaries were open industrial sewers. Visible chemical pollution, raw human waste, and anything people didn’t want went into the river. The air and water within 100 miles of any industrial area was an environmental disaster. Michael will remember when Lake Ontario was a toxic waste dump.
The United States passed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts in the mid-1960s. And they worked. It’s taken 30 years but over time the air, lakes and streams recovered from the onslaught. It happened because of a few enlightened, energetic environmentalists tilting at windmills. Without the environmental movement unbounded capitalism would have bright orange neon signs in front of the Grand Tetons that say: Eat At Joes, No Vacancy, and Condo For Rent.
Yes, there have been excesses in the environmental movement. Trivial compared to the greater good done. Ansel Adams (and other great landscape photographers) were the original environmentalists. They showed the public what’s worth saving. Or put another way, what could be lost. Politics and photography are old friends.
btw.. I earn my living as a nuclear engineer working in the commercial nuclear power business. Business has been slow these last 25 years. But things are looking bettter.
-
There are different opinions about everything. Science is mostly built on models that remain only true until they are replaced by another model with which a significant majority of scientists agree.
Bernard,
I agree. There are. What counts is the accuracy of the prediction. At the most fundamental level of quantum phenomena there is a degree of uncertainty which even Einstein found very disturbing, "God does not play dice".
However, we've come to grips with that uncertainty. We can assign degrees of probability to the behaviour of photons, for example. We know that, on average, a certain number of the photons arriving at our camera's sensor during a photographic exposure will 'misbehave' and be seen as noise in the image. We can apply a mathematical formula that describes and predicts what that number will be.
In most fields of science we have an established a working body of theories and principles which seem to serve us well. There will always be differences of opinion at the cutting edge of development in any particular discipline, but in the case of global warming the science seems to be as sound as the science of economics, sometimes referred to as the 'dismal' science because predictions are often so far out.
To my eyes, the consensus on climat change doesn't have to include all the scientists on earth to become just as "true" as the law of universal gravitation.
It's very dangerous to judge the truth of something based on the number of people who believe it. I agree there's a certain comfort in being part of the herd. But I also agree with John Camp here. There appears to be political interference going on, but perhaps that's necessary and unavoidable. If you are fighting a war, you need public opinion with you or the war is lost before it's begun. Dissenters have to be sidelined.
In Australia we've had a very successful 'right wing' government for the past 10 years or so, that has focussed on economic development and labour reforms. They've taken the view (until recently) that the greenhouse effect (in relation to man-made gasses) is not proven. It's a convenient position to take because there seems to be no doubt that any serious tackling of this issue is going to result in serious economic dislocation. The more gradual the transition to cleaner forms of energy, (in order to avoid economic catastrophe) the less effective the results will be in slowing down global warming.
It's really a Catch 22 situation. Do what's required now and as quickly as possible, and the results could be economic depression and dislocation.
Ignore the warnings and continue development at 8% in China and India and 2-4% in countries already developed, then the economic devastation resulting from future climatic catastrophes could be as bad or worse.
It is interesting to note that most people see in the progress of technology (say... ditigal cameras) a proof that science does actually know how the world works. The truth is more complex and - unfortunately - a lot less re-assuring. These things work and improve all the time because they are built using building blocks created by man in order to behave according to the mathematical models we have defined. In other words we created a game like lego, and are able to create the small car per the manual. It looks like magic if you don't know lego.
Another point worth understanding is that out limited mental abilities are not able to really understand at a macro level the actual causes-consequences relationship that drive the output of a complex system behaving according to rules we didn't create ourselves (like... climat). Simulation is mostly aimed at prediction but does only help macro level understanding up to a certain point.
Agreed! To end on a cheerful note, let's all hope this consensus of so-called scientific opinion on climate change is wrong .
-
Eirik the Red coined the name "Greenland" in 985 or 986 C.E. because he thought that people would be more apt to pull up stakes and settle there if the place had an inviting name. It was probably the first sleazy real estate ploy in recorded history, and initiated a tradition that is still thriving today.
-
Eirik the Red coined the name "Greenland" in 985 or 986 C.E. because he thought that people would be more apt to pull up stakes and settle there if the place had an inviting name. It was probably the first sleazy real estate ploy in recorded history, and initiated a tradition that is still thriving today.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We have a stretch of coast north of Brisbane called the'Sunshine Coast'. It's very up-market but the fact is, it rains more often there than in surrounding areas. There was some relief from the drought recently with a few days of moderate rain, except on the Sunshine Coast were it poured down causing substantial flooding.
-
To all of you talking about science there seems to be a great lack in actual knowledge of what science is and isn't. Maby you should take som time to read a real book insted of inventing your own distorded versions of it. Even a wikipedia search might clear up a few things.
It looks like most of you haven't read the actual IPCC report either. It is probably one of the best and most thorough scientific reports ever published in the history of human kind. Before being so opinionated about it, I suggest you take some time to actually read it and add a few inteviews with the leading scientists working on the report and how it has developed over the years.
-
Global warming? I'm doing all I can to fight global warming, but just how much can one person do? I turn my air conditioner on full blast and open my windows to help cool down the neighborhood. It's not much but if all my neighbors did the same we might be able to make a measurable difference. Whenever I use the stove I shut the windows to keep from warming the outside environment, but I doubt that my neighbors take similar care.
The big problem is automobiles. Even with the air conditioning turned up all the way and the windows open I'm probably still putting more heat into the environment than cooling but , hey, I've got to get around.
George Deliz
You crack me up, George. Thanks for improving my day!
Lisa
-
To all of you talking about science there seems to be a great lack in actual knowledge of what science is and isn't. Maby you should take som time to read a real book insted of inventing your own distorded versions of it. Even a wikipedia search might clear up a few things.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136378\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why don't you enlighten us as to what the heck you are talking about. All the books I read are real.
-
It looks like most of you haven't read the actual IPCC report either. It is probably one of the best and most thorough scientific reports ever published in the history of human kind. Before being so opinionated about it, I suggest you take some time to actually read it and add a few inteviews with the leading scientists working on the report and how it has developed over the years.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136378\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Here's an extract from the summarry of that report for policy makers, from Wikipedia.
On the issue of global warming and its causes, the SPM states that:
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid
20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
Footnotes on page 4 of the summary indicate very likely and likely mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment", are over 90% and 66% respectively.
Let's examine that statement. There's a 90% likelihood that over 50% (ie. most) of the unequivocal warming of the climate is due to man-made gasses.
That sounds to me very much like a 50/50 situation at best. About half of the warming that is taking place could be attributed to man-made gasses. It could be more, say 60/40, but we don't really know.
There's scope for a high degree of error there, I'd say.
-
There's scope for a high degree of error there, I'd say.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136440\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can say with very little error that if you put a single loaded cartridge in a six-shooter and spin the cylinder for a couple of minutes, there's very close to one chance in six that you will blow your brains out if you play Russian Roulette one time. (This ignores certain tiny changes in odds brought about by the loadded chamber being heavier than the others, mechancial wear, poor spinning technique, etc.)
One chance in six means that you're reasonably safe playing Russian Roulette -- but those are not odds that I would take.
If there's a 50-50 chance that greenhouse gases will extensively damage the ecosystem, I suggest it would probably be a good idea to do something about them...just in case. Or even if it's 20-80. And in spite of the possibility of error.
JC
-
Ray, let me with the best intentions in mind, ask you this hypothetical question: If you could gamble with your children’s future with a 50% chance of things unfolding naturally (no upside – status quo) and a 50% chance that they’d face misery, would you do it?
As for science I will add a few thoughts:
1) Science is a system of knowledge based upon verifiable evidence. This mechanism assures that false knowledge will be discarded at some point. Much like a house of cards, science needs a solid foundation to develop. If the foundation is crap, the house of cards will soon collapse.
2) There is a big difference between theory and hypothesis.
3) Science and scientists don’t claim to have all the answers. Scientists perform observations in a systematic and controlled manner, then publish their findings before a committee of other scientists in the same field. How these findings are being interpreted and concluded from must not be confused with the actual science.
The IPCC reports are based upon observations from close to 3000 of the leading climate scientists in the world. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the IPCC reports are extremely conservative. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be. Then, when all is settled among the scientists, the politicians sweep in and seek to excise from the summaries anything that threatens their interests. Strongest opposition to the science have come from the US, Russia, China and Saudi Arabia. I guess their interest in censoring the report is entirely coincidental.
What’s interesting isn’t the current estimates, but how they have developed from the first IPCC report back in the 1980s. How someone isn’t frightened by the picture that is being developed is beyond me. I’m not one of those who need to knock myself in the head with a hammer to know that it hurts.
-
Well, in response to John Camp and Svein-Frode,
If there's a 50-50 chance that greenhouse gases will extensively damage the ecosystem, I suggest it would probably be a good idea to do something about them...just in case. Or even if it's 20-80. And in spite of the possibility of error.
I don't know where I've written that I think we should be doing nothing about this.
What I'm trying to say is, it looks like the problem is too hard for us and that it's going to be a case of too little too late. In which event, let's hope that the authors of the IPCC report have got it wildly wrong as sometimes the meteorologists do with regard to local weather forecasts.
The problem as I see it is, we can't achieve anything without expenditure of energy. If the current sources of energy are mostly coal, oil and gas, as they are in most countries, France being one of the few exceptions with a high proportion of its energy coming from nuclear power, then even the construction of non-polluting power stations such as windmill farms, nuclear power plants, solar reflectors and heaters, photo-voltaic cells etc. are going to require that existing (dirty) power plants work flat out until the transition is made.
However, that in itself is not an insurmountable problem. The old power plants could be gradually phased out as new, clean ones come on stream.
The problem is the cost of that new clean energy. Our prosperity is dependent upon the cost of energy and the efficiency with which we use that energy. Are we able to increase the efficiency of all our appliances (on average), and make sufficient savings by reducing wastage, to offset that unavoidable increase in the cost of energy from windmill farms.
If we can't, then our material standard of living will fall and/or the poverty of undeveloped nations will continue or get worse.
A 20 watt energy-saving lightbulb produces as much light as a 100 watt conventional, tungsten filament light bulb. If we could replicate that increase in efficiency with other appliances such as vehicular transport, air travel, bull dozers, dumpers and prime movers etc, then we'd be home and dry.
What’s interesting isn’t the current estimates, but how they have developed from the first IPCC report back in the 1980s. How someone isn’t frightened by the picture that is being developed is beyond me. I’m not one of those who need to knock myself in the head with a hammer to know that it hurts.
A recent survey of public opinion in Australia rated global warming as the number 1 concern, greater than terrorism in fact. However, if we tackle this problem in a manner which results in a severe economic downturn, then I would expect that high rates of unemployment would be the number 1 concern.
-
Sounds hard. Lets not try.
-
The problem is the cost of that new clean energy. Our prosperity is dependent upon the cost of energy and the efficiency with which we use that energy. Are we able to increase the efficiency of all our appliances (on average), and make sufficient savings by reducing wastage, to offset that unavoidable increase in the cost of energy from windmill farms.
If we can't, then our material standard of living will fall and/or the poverty of undeveloped nations will continue or get worse.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Cost of energy is only relevant as long as there are consumers. There is no business to do on a death planet.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Global warming? I'm doing all I can to fight global warming, but just how much can one person do? I turn my air conditioner on full blast and open my windows to help cool down the neighborhood. It's not much but if all my neighbors did the same we might be able to make a measurable difference. Whenever I use the stove I shut the windows to keep from warming the outside environment, but I doubt that my neighbors take similar care.
The big problem is automobiles. Even with the air conditioning turned up all the way and the windows open I'm probably still putting more heat into the environment than cooling but , hey, I've got to get around.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
George,
There are probably some people who will that your post on the first degree!
Nonetheless, why don't you open your fridge?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The problem is the cost of that new clean energy. Our prosperity is dependent upon the cost of energy and the efficiency with which we use that energy. Are we able to increase the efficiency of all our appliances (on average), and make sufficient savings by reducing wastage, to offset that unavoidable increase in the cost of energy from windmill farms.
The problem is just a bit more complex than that.
That 'old energy' is not all that cheap and getting more expensive by the day. We're somewhere close to 'peak oil' and natural gas is being used up at a very high rate. High quality, easy to extract coal is less available. High quality nuclear fuel is a declining commodity.
Wind is very price competitive at this moment. Solar is declining in cost and should become quite affordable in a short number of years. (There have been some major advances in solar that are finding their way to the market.)
Of course the best payback is in conservation, but even if we are too stupid to pursue that route we will find ourselves using 'green' power in the near future simply for financial reasons.
Conventional fuel will continue to increase in cost.
Sunlight will not.
-
Sounds hard. Lets not try.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136473\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mr P, once again I have to salute your way of saying things.
Rob C
-
George,
There are probably some people who will that your post on the first degree!
Nonetheless, why don't you open your fridge?
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136488\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You obviously haven't thought this through. If I opened my refrigerator all my food would spoil and I would have to take my car out and drive to a restaurant at least once a day and maybe twice a day on weekends. As I have already pointed out the heat from the car's engine is too much for the car's air conditioner to compensate. On the other hand if the auto manufacturers were to put bigger air conditioners in their cars....
George Deliz
-
That 'old energy' is not all that cheap and getting more expensive by the day. We're somewhere close to 'peak oil' and natural gas is being used up at a very high rate. High quality, easy to extract coal is less available. High quality nuclear fuel is a declining commodity.
Bob,
Rising costs of energy are not good for the economy whatever the reasons for the rising cost. It's clear to me that the solution is nuclear power, breeder reactors and eventually nuclear fusion power. These are the only sources of energy sufficient to solve the global problems of an evolving species that is eventually going to populate other planets.
As I mentioned before, economic prosperity is dependent upon cheap energy in conjunction with efficient machines. Windmill power is only competitive when the wind blows. The amount of land required for a good size windmill farm capable of generating as much power as one small nuclear power plant, is huge; hundreds of square kilometres. Such farms are only economically feasible in windy places which are often remote and far from power transmission lines. The cost of new transmission lines reduces their competitiveness and is a cost which is often ignored when price per KWH is mentioned, as well as the cost of the real estate.
When I talk about such matters I often get the impression that people just don't see the connection between energy costs and prosperity. There are no exceptions. Ancient civilisations became prosperous as a result of cheap energy in the form of unpaid slave labour. Our current prosperity is in large part due to the low wages paid to workers in China and other developing countries. A low paid worker can be considered, from a purely economic point of view, as an efficient machine. A widget made in Australia takes more energy to manufacture than the same widget in China using the same machinery, not necessarily because the cost of the fuel to run the machinery is cheaper in China, but because the lifestyle of the average Chinese worker requires less energy.
We can solve this problem if we in developed countries all lower our material standard of living, but personally, I'd rather we build atomic power stations so we can all become wealthy without exacerbating the greenhouse effect.
-
You obviously haven't thought this through. If I opened my refrigerator all my food would spoil and I would have to take my car out and drive to a restaurant at least once a day and maybe twice a day on weekends. As I have already pointed out the heat from the car's engine is too much for the car's air conditioner to compensate. On the other hand if the auto manufacturers were to put bigger air conditioners in their cars....
George Deliz
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You see, Bernard, there's method in George's madness .
-
You see, Bernard, there's method in George's madness .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136666\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do you realize how many energy problems we could solve if we sent somebody to George's house to kill him? Of course, we'd send the assassin by bicycle. 8-)
JC
-
Bob,
Rising costs of energy are not good for the economy whatever the reasons for the rising cost. It's clear to me that the solution is nuclear power, breeder reactors and eventually nuclear fusion power.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136664\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I read, I think in Nature, that fusion power is at least 50 years in the future. And that it has *always* been fifty years in the future, right from the time it was first conceived, more than 50 years ago. And that a growing number of scientists think it will *always* be 50 years in the future.
I think breeders are the answer, and that technology can finds ways to dispose of waste (Magnetic accelerators that boosts waste into the sun? Ultra-reliable heavy-lifting rockets that could boost hundreds of tons of the stuff into the sun on every shot? There are possibilities.) In fact, I think we have the technoloogy now to do it, but it would dislocate too many powerful interest groups. The real question is whether we will overcome those interests in time to keep the planet habitable by humans -- it's not obvious that we will see the tipping point before it gets here. For all we know, we've already passed beyond it. Doom may take a little time...
George Carlin, the comedian, has a funny routine in which he makes the point that nothing we do will save the planet. The planet doesn't need to be saved, because the planet isn't going anywere. WE may be, but the planet will be just fine, whether or not we're on it.
JC
-
Perhaps it would be best to play the cards that we've got on the table.
And how about we play an honest hand?
Blasting nasty stuff into space, future technologies that might clean up our messes, some major breakthrough 50+ years in the future - how about we leave that science fiction for the science fiction books?
If it happens to come true, then great!
But maybe it won't, which makes it a bad choice for plugging the current leak in the boat.
What we have right now is (basically) maxed out hydro, the end of cheap oil, not a lot of high grade coal that can be easily mined, a lot less natural gas than we would like to have, and a rapidly depleting supply of first grade nuclear fuel.
We also have more solar radiation hitting the earth that we can possibly use. And some proven ways of utilizing it. And we have the ability to conserve.
If we're smart (IMHO) we'll increase conservation measures, continue to build new wind farms, increase the number of solar panels on the rooftops of houses that suck power on hot afternoons, and increase the funding needed to bring 'right now' technological advances into production.
Or we can allow the greedy bastards to rip off our tax money by funding new nuclear plants and turn our food into ethanol. (Ever look into the real cost of producing nuclear or corn juice? Puts the $7,000 toilet seat in a new light.)
(BTW, Ray, you might want to research what is happening in Europe with wind power. New high voltage DC transmission lines are being built, energy storage is being created by pump up/generate down reservoirs in Finland. Europe is creating one big grid and the wind is generally blowing somewhere.
Additionally the towers for wind farms take up very little land. Midwestern US farmers are readily renting small chunks for tower bases and farming around them. And Europe is doing a lot of offshore installation where winds are more reliable.
Stuff is happening.)
-
I read, I think in Nature, that fusion power is at least 50 years in the future. And that it has *always* been fifty years in the future, right from the time it was first conceived, more than 50 years ago. And that a growing number of scientists think it will *always* be 50 years in the future.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=136680\")
John,
That point of view seems neither optimistic nor logical. How many lots of 50 years have we been working on this problem? Trying to emulate and control the nuclear processes going on in the sun, that powerhouse that supports all life, is no mean feat.
As a matter of interest, funding for contstruction of a US$12 billion experimental nuclear fusion power plant at Cadarache in France was approved almost a year ago. It's expected to be in operation by 2016 and should be capable of sustaining an output of 500MW for a continuous period of about 8 minutes, using just 1/2 a kilogram of fuel.
Check out the Wikipedia entry for more information. [a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER[/url]
-
(BTW, Ray, you might want to research what is happening in Europe with wind power. New high voltage DC transmission lines are being built, energy storage is being created by pump up/generate down reservoirs in Finland. Europe is creating one big grid and the wind is generally blowing somewhere.
Additionally the towers for wind farms take up very little land. Midwestern US farmers are readily renting small chunks for tower bases and farming around them. And Europe is doing a lot of offshore installation where winds are more reliable.
Stuff is happening.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136692\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bob,
Clearly we should take advantage of whatever conditions are favourable to the production of alternative forms of energy. I'm sure we could get by (in developed countries) with a combination of tidal power, wind power, photovoltaic power, solar heaters, ethanol from canesugar etc etc.
However, I'm dubious about the true cost of many of these forms of alternative energy supplies which seem to rely heavily upon government subsidies.
On the 2 occasions I happened to come across a windmill farm whilst travelling around in Australia, the wind seemed only sufficient to very slowly turn the blades of just half the windmills. The others weren't moving at all. Coincidence perhaps.
The first shot is of a small farm close to the coast of southern Australia, near Melbourne. The second is in northern Australia, high on the Atherton Tablelands, shrouded in mist. These great monolithic structures are quite impressive when one first encounters them, but the locals seem to get upset by their drone and what some consider a visual pollution. They also tend to kill a lot of birds and attract rats that feed off the dead birds.
No need to criticise the artistic merit of these shots .
[attachment=3127:attachment] [attachment=3128:attachment]
I understand you need a minimum 2 acres of land per windmill to reduce interference but I've seen figures as low as 5 per square kilometre. I checked through Google the state of windmill power in Finland. As of 2006 the total power generated in that country from wind is a mere 85MW from a total of 96 farms. Don't know what area of land those 96 farms cover, but it must be huge.
How does that compare with the 500MW to be generated from just one experimental nuclear fusion reactor, albeit for just 8 minutes at a time?
-
...
However, I'm dubious about the true cost of many of these forms of alternative energy supplies which seem to rely heavily upon government subsidies.
On the 2 occasions I happened to come across a windmill farm whilst travelling around in Australia, the wind seemed only sufficient to very slowly turn the blades of just half the windmills. The others weren't moving at all. Coincidence perhaps.
The first shot is of a small farm close to the coast of southern Australia, near Melbourne. The second is in northern Australia, high on the Atherton Tablelands, shrouded in mist. These great monolithic structures are quite impressive when one first encounters them, but the locals seem to get upset by their drone and what some consider a visual pollution. They also tend to kill a lot of birds and attract rats that feed off the dead birds.
I understand you need a minimum 2 acres of land per windmill to reduce interference but I've seen figures as low as 5 per square kilometre. I checked through Google the state of windmill power in Finland. As of 2006 the total power generated in that country from wind is a mere 85MW from a total of 96 farms. Don't know what area of land those 96 farms cover, but it must be huge.
How does that compare with the 500MW to be generated from just one experimental nuclear fusion reactor, albeit for just 8 minutes at a time?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136824\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Europe is linking itself into one big grid. Finland is not a wind production site, it's a storage site. They've got the 'up high' reservoirs for storing extra energy for peak needs.
At the end of '06 Germany had >21,000 MW of installed wind generation capacity. Spain had >15,000 and the rest of Europe was contributing an amount in excess of 15,000 MW. That's getting close to 50,000 MW and the rate of installation is accelerating.
Wind is not, as far as I can tell, relying on governmental subsidies. Nuclear requires huge governmental financial support to get on line. There are tremendous "hidden" costs with nuclear. Wind is being built with private money. Folks with deep pockets see profit.
Bird death. The Netherlands did a study and found that if wind farms are properly sited and properly designed the bird death per tower is approximately 5 per year. An insignificant number. That many wipe out on my house windows each year.
Altamont, one of the first wind farms which is located just east of San Franciso, is (or at least was) a major bird killer. It was located in a major raptor area (and I think migration route) and the mills had a very high rotation speed. I believe that the heads have been changed out for slower rotating ones, but it's still not a good location.
We now know much more about design and siting. Off shore is excellent for minimizing bird death.
I believe that the land required per tower is more like a quarter acre. The actual portion of that acre used for the tower is quite small. All the land not required for the actual footprint can still be farmed/grazed.
Noise is no longer an issue. Old units were noisy but the newer ones are quite quite. One has to get very close to them (basically inside the wind farm) in order to hear them. I expect moving to drastically longer and much slower blades had a lot to do with that.
And the experimental reactor at Cadarache?
That's just an experiment. It's not a power generation facility that is scheduled to come on line. The people setting it up are hoping that they can get it to run for 400 seconds. And the experiment is expected to start in 2016.
If, if, if, ... then we might expect less expensive electricity from fusion in 2030? 2040? (The Russians are projecting 2030, but other folks seem skeptical.)
So for now until 20x0 how about we play the cards dealt? I'm not sure that it would be wise to sit around twiddling our thumbs while waiting for a 'perfect' answer. Best to piece together the partial fixes we have so that we don't have to pack a billion or two people into high rises in Greenland.
-
Wind is not, as far as I can tell, relying on governmental subsidies. Nuclear requires huge governmental financial support to get on line. There are tremendous "hidden" costs with nuclear. Wind is being built with private money. Folks with deep pockets see profit.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=136835\")
Well, Bob, this might just be a contest of whose information sources are the most reliable. I think the least reliable source for facts on nuclear power would be from the anti-nuclear mob.
You might like to have a look at the following site on the true costs of wind power:
[a href=\"http://www.mnforsustain.org/windpower_schleede_costs_of_electricity.htm]http://www.mnforsustain.org/windpower_schl...electricity.htm[/url]
Here's an extract:
Thus far, the US DOE, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the wind industry and other wind advocates have shown little interest in providing citizens, consumers and taxpayers with complete, objective information on true costs – possibly because such information would call into question many of their promotional activities.
And again this from the Royal Academy of Engineering:
In a report published on 10March, the UK-based Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) reveals that electricity from offshore wind farms, currently the most viable renewable source, will cost at least twice as much as that from conventional sources.
The independent study, commissioned from international energy consultants PBPower, puts all energy sources on a level playing field by comparing the costs of generating electricity from new plants using a range of different technologies and energy sources.
The cheapest electricity will come from gas turbines and nuclear stations, costing just 2.3p/kWh, compared with 3.7p/kWh for onshore wind and 5.5p/kWh for offshore wind farms.
"This may sound surprising," said RAE vice president Philip Ruffles, who chaired the study group, "especially as we have included the cost of decommissioning in our assessment of the nuclear generation costs. The weakness of the UK government's energy white paper was that it saw nuclear power as very expensive. But modern nuclear stations are far simpler and more streamlined than the old generation - the latest are only about half the size of SizewellB - and far cheaper to build and run."
In the case of wind energy it is also necessary to provide back up capacity for when the wind does not blow. In this report, the RAE says it has been rather generous with the wind generation figures - assuming a need for about 65percent back-up power from conventional sources. The RAE has previously called for even higher back-up, more like 75to80percent. Even so, the cost of back up capacity adds 1.7p/kWh to the costs.
http://www.engineerlive.com/european-proce...ectricity.thtml (http://www.engineerlive.com/european-process-engineer/environmental-solutions/2113/debating-the-true-cost-of-wind-power-electricity.thtml)
The concepts of nuclear fusion inspire me. Just 1kg of nuclear fusion fuel (deuterium/tritium) should theoretically provide as much power as 10,000 tonnes of coal.
-
Well, Bob, this might just be a contest of whose information sources are the most reliable. I think the least reliable source for facts on nuclear power would be from the anti-nuclear mob.
Or just the opposite might be true.
When I check pro-nuclear sites the cost figures sometimes do not include the cost of decommissioning, often do not include the cost of waste storage, and generally do not include the cost of financing the plant during construction. (The last component is very significant.)
The pro-nuclear 'mobs' are probably those with a financial interest in getting more nuclear plants built. Would any of us be surprised to find that greedy people shave data to make their position more attractive/acceptable?
Anti-nuclear 'mobs' are more likely to include all of the costs. And it's not too likely that they are going to lie as that would be easily discovered and the resulting damage to their reputation would be significant.
I'm going to bet that the most reliable source is going to be a rough average of the numbers given by nuclear-skeptical groups. The least reliable numbers are likely going to come from agencies trying to get more plants constructed.
--
The concepts of nuclear fusion inspire me. Just 1kg of nuclear fusion fuel (deuterium/tritium) should theoretically provide as much power as 10,000 tonnes of coal.
Yes. Sounds great. As does the car that runs 100+ miles on a teacup of water.
But neither are proven yet. (I do expect fusion to become a viable power source in the future. But that doesn't help us now. Perhaps a few decades from now....)
--
Now, let's look at something that has been demonstrated. 40% efficient solar panels.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Alexander Karsner today announced that with DOE funding, a concentrator solar cell produced by Boeing-Spectrolab has recently achieved a world-record conversion efficiency of 40.7 percent, establishing a new milestone in sunlight-to-electricity performance. This breakthrough may lead to systems with an installation cost of only $3 per watt, producing electricity at a cost of 8-10 cents per kilowatt/hour, making solar electricity a more cost-competitive and integral part of our nation’s energy mix.
US Department of Energy (http://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm)
Producing solar electricity at ~$0.09 per watt is a very big breakthrough. The time when we need more electricity is on hot afternoons in hot climates.
Placing panels on rooftops in Arizona, Baghdad, and whatever's hot in Austrailia means that we won't have to build plants of any type for those peak needs. And we can avoid the extra cost of transmission lines.
(Additionally, the extra power on cool sunny days can flow back into the existing grids.
And there's another approach using a different material for the panels that has also produce 40% efficiency.)
--
True cost of wind?
Don't have time to dig it out right now. So how about we apply a common sense approach?
Right now there are huge numbers of new towers being erected all around the globe. There would be even more, but the factories producing the turbines are maxed out.
There are almost no new nuclear plants being built in most of the world.
We know that most/all nuclear plants require enormous governmental cash inputs before they can be built.
Some (most?) wind farms are being built with private/corporate money.
If those statements are correct then I would surmise that the 'true cost' of wind is significantly lower than the 'true cost' of nuclear.
--
Again, let's play the cards we have. Not the cards that we might get in a future deal.
And don't forget the oh, so useful wild card. Conservation.
-
BTW, that MFS site on wind cost does push the price as high as possible. For example, they include the cost of backup generation.
That would be valid only if we were considering using wind as a 'sole' source, rather than part of the larger mix. That larger mix would include existing nuclear, hydro, solar (and new solar), natural gas, coal, etc.
The real discussion is what we should use for new production. And whether it would be financially feasible to take some of the dirtiest plants off line with cleaner replacement.
I've done a bit of searching and just can't find a single source that looks at all the production methods with the same critical eye. (I've emailed someone who is involved in financing wind in Europe to see if he has a source.)
-
We use a lot of wind power in Minnesota, and while it is more expensive than coal or oil generators, the cost is somewhat competitive and is getting better. But wind power is like solar -- it works best in certain areas, and only when the sun shines or the wind blows. I do think that nuclear will become the biggest piece of the puzzle; and perhaps fusion someday.
But the biggest question is whether we will get rid of the pollution quickly enough: China is already a disaster area and the energy demands there are continuing the skyrocket, particularly the demand for cars. And India is just coming on-line with that China-like demand. These people will not be denied their intention to live as well as the energy-soaked people in the West.
I personally think things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.
JC
-
Just for fun, let's try a little something....
The average US household uses about 8900 kW hours per electricity per year.
That's about 24 kWh per day.
Let's assume that the sun shines and wind blows about half the day (on a large scale grid). So we would need to store about 12 kWh to get past the down times.
A golf cart battery will store about 1 kWh of usable power. Twelve golf carts would get the average house through the dark/windless times. Buying in bulk should get the price down to about $100 per battery, or about $1,200.
Golf cart batteries have a 5-7 year life so using the lower figure brings the annual cost to ~ $240 or $20 per month.
So we could create 'low tech' lead acid storage for about $20 per household. Not exactly a huge sum.
Of course lead acids are not what would get used. There are much more efficient batteries. And there would be some additional costs such as storage, mainenance and conversion from DC to AD, but that should give people some rough idea.
It's not like storage is some insurmountable problem.
We wouldn't need to rely 100% on battery storage.
We could change our usage of hydro to backup status. Keep the water in the reservoirs until needed rather than do a 24/7 drawdown.
We could use our existing 'cleaner' coal generators for backup/peak production.
IMHO it's time we got past the "there's no way to do it with wind/solar" mentality. It could, I think, be done. Perhaps not done cheaply enough to switch for purely economic reasons. But if we had to....
-
Just for fun, let's try a little something....
The average US household uses about 8900 kW hours per electricity per year.
That's about 24 kWh per day.
Let's assume that the sun shines and wind blows about half the day (on a large scale grid). So we would need to store about 12 kWh to get past the down times.
A golf cart battery will store about 1 kWh of usable power. Twelve golf carts would get the average house through the dark/windless times. Buying in bulk should get the price down to about $100 per battery, or about $1,200.
Golf cart batteries have a 5-7 year life so using the lower figure brings the annual cost to ~ $240 or $20 per month.
So we could create 'low tech' lead acid storage for about $20 per household. Not exactly a huge sum.
Of course lead acids are not what would get used. There are much more efficient batteries. And there would be some additional costs such as storage, mainenance and conversion from DC to AD, but that should give people some rough idea.
It's not like storage is some insurmountable problem.
We wouldn't need to rely 100% on battery storage.
We could change our usage of hydro to backup status. Keep the water in the reservoirs until needed rather than do a 24/7 drawdown.
We could use our existing 'cleaner' coal generators for backup/peak production.
IMHO it's time we got past the "there's no way to do it with wind/solar" mentality. It could, I think, be done. Perhaps not done cheaply enough to switch for purely economic reasons. But if we had to....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136952\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bob,
I sense a few serious flaws in the above argument. First, you don't seem to have considered what the rest of the world is doing and the difficulty of imposing our moral standards on other peoples who are striving like mad to achieve a decent material standard of living.
Capitalism, commerce, global trade, 'the free market' etc, work best through a process of finding the competitive edge. Manufacturing has been in decline in Western countries for decades because it's been found that it's cheaper (often very much cheaper) to manufacture products in developing countries like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China and India. And of course, this process has resulted in some of those Eastern countries becoming more developed than some countries in the West.
I have no doubt it would be 'technologically' possible for us to devise ways of getting almost all (if not actually all) our energy needs from renewable resources, in Europe, Australia and North America because we have the advantages of cheap, manufactured goods form Asia.
The real crunch would come when we had to manufacture are own products (in the West) using energy only from wind and solar power, tidal power and ethanol etc. How would such products compete on the global market?
Do you think we could use the same approach as sellers of organically produced food? Do your bit for the environment! Buy our lead/calcium batteries! They are 4x the price of batteries made in China but at least you know they are made with clean energy.
Doesn't that make you feel good, despite your relative poverty resulting from the purchase of expensive goods?
It would be interesting to get a viewpoint from those in charge of supplying the US armed forces. Do they think it would be possible to maintain America's military superiority on Wind, Solar power and ethanol.
-
Or just the opposite might be true.
Bob,
Each of us will take on board what makes sense and seems credible. I've generally found the anti-nuclear crowd to be too much influenced by fear and ignorance. They seem to have a purely emotional stance and seem prepared to use any argument however fallacious and incorrect to further their ends.
Nevertheless, they could serve some useful purpose as a sort of watchdog. They have a right to their misinformed point of view.
When I check pro-nuclear sites the cost figures sometimes do not include the cost of decommissioning, often do not include the cost of waste storage, and generally do not include the cost of financing the plant during construction. (The last component is very significant.)
Yes, Sometimes. But the independent report issued by the Royal Academy of Engineers, that I referred to in my previous post (did you read it?), did take all these costs into consideration.
Anti-nuclear 'mobs' are more likely to include all of the costs. And it's not too likely that they are going to lie as that would be easily discovered and the resulting damage to their reputation would be significant.
The anti-nuclear mob will do more than include all the costs. They will exaggerate the costs, use worst-case examples, make comparisons of new green technology with old, obsolete nuclear technology. Furthermore, they will use the reverse tactics when costing 'green' technology, omit essential ingredients of the real cost, use best-case examples (where the wind blows every day) and generally use any argument however implausible when preaching to the converted.
There are almost no new nuclear plants being built in most of the world.
That sound like the sort of statement one would expect from the anti-nuclear lobby.
Here are some facts (true or false) in the form of a few tables, which you might like to peruse at your leisure. To summarise, over 30 reactors world-wide are under construction as at August 2007 and 223 new reactors are in the planning stage. There's even one under construction in Finland and another in the planning stage there. Perhaps someone from Finland could vouch for the veracity of this.
There also seems to be a lot of misinformation about the scarcity of uranium. It would appear there's enough to keep the economy chugging along till nuclear fusion becomes a reality, wouldn't you say?
PROVEN Uranium reserves worldwide: about 4 million tons (current consumption rate of U worldwide is 60 000 tons per year => proven reserves at 80-130 $/kgU these proven reserves are enough for 65 years of use at the current consumption rate)
ESTIMATED Uranium reserves worldwide: about 16 million tons (current consumption rate of U worldwide is 60 000 tons per year => proven reserves at 80-130 $/kgU these proven reserves are enough for 265 years of use at the current consumption rate)
NON-CONVENTIONAL Uranium reserves worldwide (i.e. uranium contained in phosphates): an ADDITIONAL 22 million tons (representing an additional 365 years of use)
Uranium dissolved in sea water: about 4 billion tons (but more difficult and costly to retrieve)
Therefore, leaving aside the U in sea water, the total ESTIMATED + NON-CONVENTIONAL uranium reserves are enough for more than 600 years of use at current consumption rate using today's reactors and at a cost less than 80-130$/kg U (about twice today's spot price).
[attachment=3137:attachment] [attachment=3138:attachment] [attachment=3139:attachment]
-
Bob,
I sense a few serious flaws in the above argument. First, you don't seem to have considered what the rest of the world is doing and the difficulty of imposing our moral standards on other peoples who are striving like mad to achieve a decent material standard of living.
Capitalism, commerce, global trade, 'the free market' etc, work best through a process of finding the competitive edge. Manufacturing has been in decline in Western countries for decades because it's been found that it's cheaper (often very much cheaper) to manufacture products in developing countries like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China and India. And of course, this process has resulted in some of those Eastern countries becoming more developed than some countries in the West.
I have no doubt it would be 'technologically' possible for us to devise ways of getting almost all (if not actually all) our energy needs from renewable resources, in Europe, Australia and North America because we have the advantages of cheap, manufactured goods form Asia.
The real crunch would come when we had to manufacture are own products (in the West) using energy only from wind and solar power, tidal power and ethanol etc. How would such products compete on the global market?
Do you think we could use the same approach as sellers of organically produced food? Do your bit for the environment! Buy our lead/calcium batteries! They are 4x the price of batteries made in China but at least you know they are made with clean energy.
Doesn't that make you feel good, despite your relative poverty resulting from the purchase of expensive goods?
It would be interesting to get a viewpoint from those in charge of supplying the US armed forces. Do they think it would be possible to maintain America's military superiority on Wind, Solar power and ethanol.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136969\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Let's start by taking ethanol off the table. As far as I can at this point in time it doesn't make sense. Growing corn to make ethanol takes more energy input than one gets in terms of output.
Future (science fiction at this point in time) stuff using algae, bio-engineered crops, whatever might work. But none of that is available right now.
Then - best to not treat the rest of the world, the developing world, as if they are naive dummies who are not aware of global warming and the effects that it is likely to have on them.
Take India, for example. If/when the glaciers in the high Himalayas dry up and if/when winter snow pack disappears the big rivers in India dry up for months at a time. There are millions and millions of people who depend on that river water for life.
Or China. Do you not appreciate the desertification problem that is currently occurring in China and the programs that they have underway to attempt to slow/stop the loss of habitable land? They've got a billion people to feed and a dwindling amount of land on which to grow their crops.
China has massive pollution problems as a result of burning coal for energy. They are starting to realize the health costs of pollution and looking for ways to come to grip with the issue.
Both countries are working on alternative energy supplies. India has some major wind farms. (Been there. Seen a few.)
--
BTW, the US military is very active in areas such as biodiesel and alternative energy sources for field use. They can see the petroleum crunch coming.
-
Bob,
Each of us will take on board what makes sense and seems credible. I've generally found the anti-nuclear crowd to be too much influenced by fear and ignorance. They seem to have a purely emotional stance and seem prepared to use any argument however fallacious and incorrect to further their ends.
Nevertheless, they could serve some useful purpose as a sort of watchdog. They have a right to their misinformed point of view.
Yes, Sometimes. But the independent report issued by the Royal Academy of Engineers, that I referred to in my previous post (did you read it?), did take all these costs into consideration.
The anti-nuclear mob will do more than include all the costs. They will exaggerate the costs, use worst-case examples, make comparisons of new green technology with old, obsolete nuclear technology. Furthermore, they will use the reverse tactics when costing 'green' technology, omit essential ingredients of the real cost, use best-case examples (where the wind blows every day) and generally use any argument however implausible when preaching to the converted.
That sound like the sort of statement one would expect from the anti-nuclear lobby.
Here are some facts (true or false) in the form of a few tables, which you might like to peruse at your leisure. To summarise, over 30 reactors world-wide are under construction as at August 2007 and 223 new reactors are in the planning stage. There's even one under construction in Finland and another in the planning stage there. Perhaps someone from Finland could vouch for the veracity of this.
There also seems to be a lot of misinformation about the scarcity of uranium. It would appear there's enough to keep the economy chugging along till nuclear fusion becomes a reality, wouldn't you say?
[attachment=3137:attachment] [attachment=3138:attachment] [attachment=3139:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There are three groups, IMO. The pro-nuclear, the anti-nuclear, and the nuclear skeptical. I tend to dismiss the second group, the anti-nuclear, who seem to not understand some of the issues.
I find myself in the 'nuclear skeptical' group. I place quite a bit of importance of not leaving a big mess for future generations to clean up.
And I don't trust the figures that come out of the pro-nuclear group. (The anti- group doesn't produce much in terms of numbers.)
I hadn't read the Royal Engineers pdf (you linked a wind summary, not the report unless I missed that). I looked it up and gave it a quick read. I really need to print it out in order to read carefully and my printer is down at the moment.
A couple of things that I didn't see in their cost analysis of nuclear - cost of long term storage and cost of capital.
They do include capital needed for construction but ignore the cost of that capital during the construction process. This is a very significant number. A very large amount of money has to be spent up front, long before energy begins to flow.
Add the cost of capital funds and the numbers change, the spread between wind and nuclear shrinks.
And I'm not sure that they factored in the cost of another Chernobyl. Low probability it might be. But expensive it well may be.
I lived a few miles downwind from Rancho Seco which had to be shut down due to very poor construction/maintenance. Another Three Mile Island/Chernobyl narrowly averted.
And I pass Humboldt Bay nuclear every time I go to town. They delivered the fuel rods before someone discovered that the plant had been built right on top of an active fault. The rods are still there in the pool.
At least some of them are. They can't find one.
Nuclear is nasty stuff. And people are human. We can talk about safe design, but then we get brought up short by stuff like the problems in the 'Big Dig'.
(BTW, wasn't there a leak in the last few days in a plant somewhere?)
My preference is to rely on nuclear as little as possible.
--
That "223 in the planning stage" can be misleading. There are an awful lot of 'plans' that don't get past the "I've got an idea" stage. Lots of plans in the US at the moment but very few places that are willing to allow a nuclear plant in their back yard.
--
BTW, there's a new problem with nuclear which hasn't been included in the mix.
When the weather gets hot you've got to shut the damned things down.
They need a source of cool/cold water and we've seen plants go off line this year when the local water became too hot. Better factor that in.
Add backup production costs for nuclear?
--
As for supply, I can't make heads or tails of it (at this time of night). The numbers seem all over the place. There are some very optimistic numbers which assume that we'll find all sorts of the stuff when we get busy looking. And there are non-optimistic numbers that project supplies not keeping up with demand.
Sure wish I could identify a trustworthy source for summary numbers.
-
Let's start by taking ethanol off the table. As far as I can at this point in time it doesn't make sense. Growing corn to make ethanol takes more energy input than one gets in terms of output.
In Australia we use sugar cane to make ethanol. Considering we have a chronic shortage of water over here, you are probably right. It doesn't make much sense in the long run.
Windmills, however, do make sense for 'creating' water. We have some very efficient windmills in prototype stage, in Australia, whereby the energy created by the rotating blades is used to refrigerate the blades, or more specifically, refrigerate veins and channels in the blades to a degree that condenses some of the ever-present water vapour in the atmosphere.
With sufficiently cheap energy, such refrigeration windmills could be made very economically so that people even living close to a desert could get a continuous supply of water, sufficient for all domestic needs with just one such windmill on their roof.
Then - best to not treat the rest of the world, the developing world, as if they are naive dummies who are not aware of global warming and the effects that it is likely to have on them.
When you are starving, degraded and living in a state of hoplessness, arguments about global warming have little meaning.
Take India, for example. If/when the glaciers in the high Himalayas dry up and if/when winter snow pack disappears the big rivers in India dry up for months at a time. There are millions and millions of people who depend on that river water for life.
This would be a major, major problem if our energy supplies developed to the point where they were all green. It is sometimes predicted that future wars may revolve around scarcity of water. There's really no scarcity of fresh water at all, in reality. It falls freely from the sky and lies, in certain parts of the globe, in large lakes (or icebergs), unused and untapped.
The only scarcity is the enrgy required to pump it or transport it to where it's needed. Currently China is building a huge water pipe, several metres in diameter, to carry water from the Yangtse river and dams to Beijing. That's the sort of project that requires energy with a capital E, not windmill power with a small w.
We have a similar situation in Australia where the heaviest rainfalls often occur in parts where the population is sparse. One part of the country suffers from a drought whilst another part of the country suffers from extreme flooding, swollen rivers and a great outpouring of fresh water into the sea.
We can't solve such problems with windmill power.
Or China. Do you not appreciate the desertification problem that is currently occurring in China and the programs that they have underway to attempt to slow/stop the loss of habitable land? They've got a billion people to feed and a dwindling amount of land on which to grow their crops.
With energy you can do anything. The world is your oyster. China is innovative enough to do whatever is required. With sufficient energy you can build platforms out to sea, grow crops on the roof-tops of city buildings and skyscrapers, bring water from where it's plentiful to where it's scarce. You can even irrigate the deserts with ice bergs towed from the antartic, with nuclear powered ships of course.
There's too much parochial thinking going on with this issue. Let's expand our ideas and think 'big'.
-
Let's get back to the main point. At least the point that the author was addressing.
Global warming.
(I'm dropping out of the 'how much does wind/nuclear cost. I'm not an expert and so far can't identify a data source that I trust.)
Our planet is most certainly warming. Is it human caused and or is it caused by some so far unidentified 'natural' event that will prove to be temporary? We don't know for sure. Sure at the 100% level.
But we've got an awful lot of data that suggests that it's us and the vast, vast majority of people who study these sorts of things think that it's likely us.
The very conservative bet is that it's likely us and if we don't do something then there are going to be millions and millions and millions more people who fit this description.
When you are starving, degraded and living in a state of hoplessness, arguments about global warming have little meaning.
And let me add - when you've got thousands of starving people dying outside your walled community (or starving conveniently out of your sight) then the arguments will also have little meaning.
It will be too late.
Now, some of us are selfish enough that we won't give a damn. We'll continue to drive our monster SUVs, buy huge side by side refrigerators and do all the other things that increase CO2.
And some countries will not (at least in the short term) step up to the plate and work on the problems inside their borders. Those problems that spread to the entire globe.
But does it make sense to take the stance that "I'm not doing anything unless everyone else does it too?"
Seems like that would be shooting ourselves in the foot.
-
And I'd like to get back to the original reason for this thread - Michael's review of the book.
Last winter I traveled in Laos for a couple of weeks with a friend who has no background in photography. She likes to look at pictures, but her use of a camera has been to snap pics of friends and family with little regard for the image quality, only the content.
I'd be snapping away and she'd (sometimes) make a comment about how 'ugly' that particular place was.
Later she looked at my pictures and said something to the effect of "Oh, I see what photographers do. They take ugly looking places and make them look good."
That left me wondering about how motivation drives our shots. I enjoy visiting 'trash heaps' and looking for interesting shots. I go to 'dirty' parts of the world and look for beauty to photograph.
Perhaps Michael and others like him do the same. "Light's no good today. Let's play cards. Let's wait until we can get some stunning shots...."
It's no secret that good photographers pay a lot of attention to when conditions are going to be best for shooting that 'stunner'.
Perhaps the author's pictures were driven by his desire to see what bad is/might be happening to our world.
Perhaps he didn't set out to create 'bad impressions', to mislead us.
Perhaps he just shot what he felt.
Perhaps he didn't bother shooting on days during which the light was extraordinary and made the place seem 'better than it is'.
Just thinkin'....
-
The problem is the cost of that new clean energy. Our prosperity is dependent upon the cost of energy and the efficiency with which we use that energy. Are we able to increase the efficiency of all our appliances (on average), and make sufficient savings by reducing wastage, to offset that unavoidable increase in the cost of energy from windmill farms.
How much does power from wind turbines cost? What is the credible back of the envelope cost per megawatt of installed wind turbine power?
-
How much does power from wind turbines cost? What is the credible back of the envelope cost per megawatt of installed wind turbine power?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=137120\")
If you can believe the U.K. based Royal Academy of Engineering, it's at least twice the cost of coal, gas and nuclear fission.
[a href=\"http://www.engineerlive.com/european-process-engineer/environmental-solutions/2113/debating-the-true-cost-of-wind-power-electricity.thtml]http://www.engineerlive.com/european-proce...ectricity.thtml[/url]
-
Perhaps Michael and others like him do the same. "Light's no good today. Let's play cards. Let's wait until we can get some stunning shots...."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137062\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Uh no...I've NEVER seen Michael play cards...
I've seen him make his best efforts to get to a good place to shoot and then shoot regardless of the conditions. You may walk into a place with the expectations of one thing but leave with entirely different (and equally valid) results–if you shoot. The one sure fired way of making sure you DON'T get the shot is not take the shot...
Naw, I'm still leaning towards the fact the original shooter didn't get the images "right" in post.
-
Let's get back to the main point. At least the point that the author was addressing.
Global warming.
Our planet is most certainly warming. Is it human caused and or is it caused by some so far unidentified 'natural' event that will prove to be temporary? We don't know for sure. Sure at the 100% level.
But we've got an awful lot of data that suggests that it's us and the vast, vast majority of people who study these sorts of things think that it's likely us.
Let's get back to the IPCC report. There's a strong degree of certainty that most of the warming is attributable to us. If we assume that is correct, it follows that global warming will continue whatever we do. The only influence we could have is in slowing down the rate of warming.
Even if we imagine the impossible, that we could completely cease all further emissions of greenhouse gasses, our contribution to those gasses already in the atmosphere, which are causing most of the warming, is still going to hang around for a long time.
Now, some of us are selfish enough that we won't give a damn. We'll continue to drive our monster SUVs, buy huge side by side refrigerators and do all the other things that increase CO2.
In Australia, the drivers of these SUVs and other huge, gas-guzzling Totota 4x4s, are often small ladies taking their kids to school. They drive them because they feel safer in the event of an accident. The vehicles are high off the ground, built like a tank and have a huge front bumper bar to sweep away kangaroos that might get in the way.
However, let's suppose that you could persuade this insecure lady to pack her brood into a 1.5 litre Hyundai Getz bubble car, for the sake of the environment. She would then free up some wealth. She'd have more money to spend elsewhere.
How can we (or she) be sure that the freed up funds are not spent in a manner equally injurious (and perhaps even more injurious) to the environment. Perhaps she decides to build an extension to the house to accommodate an expected increase in family size. Perhaps the excavators that dig the clay to make the bricks are even greater polluters than the SUV. Perhaps the furnace that fires the clay to make the bricks is also a greater polluter than the SUV. Perhaps the builder who travels a hour each day for 3 months and carries his gear in a small truck also causes more harm to the environment than the SUV.
So this lady, who feels she has made a great sacrifice for the sake of the environment can now hold her head up high? Perhaps we are deluding ourselves.
But does it make sense to take the stance that "I'm not doing anything unless everyone else does it too?"
It may not be a recommended stance if we want to seriously tackle the global warming problem, but it certainly makes sense. No individual and no government wants to put itself at an economic disadvantage in relation to its neighbours by increasing the cost of its own energy, a cost which is fundamental to economic prosperity.
Governments can steer people in a particular direction with a range of inducements and penalties; tax breaks and subsidies for clean energy resources; implementation of carbon credit schemes etc, and that is already being done.
Is it enough? Probably not. Can we do more without taking the economy into a recession? Who knows!
-
Hello.
I'd quite like to comment on what the original poster started. He made a statement about the review that was given for the book.
I obviously haven't read the book but I have read the review and also have seen the image of the front cover.
My comments are based solely on reading the review and seeing the image.
I have been here in the Antarctic for 2 years now, I have another 6 months to go before I leave. I have lived on the Peninsular through a summer and a winter and have lived much further South for a summer and I'm just coming out of a long winter and into a summer again.
I always struggle with self proclaimed experts on any subject and often I live by the rule that if I don't actually know what I'm talking about then I should probably shut up. The image on the front cover is of a view that I have hundreds of pictures of, deep blue/black sea with brash ice and heavy skies, it's like that on the peninsular for a large proportion of the time. Of course in the height of summer when people sail down for there couple of weeks of expedition it is usually glorious sun, blue skies and amazing ice-burgs and wildlife. Even if you have been here a few times on your little trips you can't possibly have an idea of what it's like here and it would seem slightly arrogant to think that you would have!
After 2 years here I have come up with the following; the Antarctic is incredibly harsh, it's cold, dark and can be very dangerous, it's also incredibly beautiful. In the last 9 months I have had 115 days with no sun at all, -47 temperatures and winds that it's almost impossible to stand up in. Of course I'm coming into summer now and we will soon have 24hr daylight and white as far as you can see but like I said, it's not the whole story.
The guy who made the book may well have manipulated his images to give a darker more edgy feel to Antarctica but for what it's worth, the image in the front cover is far more realistic to me than pictures of brightly lit floating ice-burgs and blue skies, regardless of how much merit they have as photographic images.
Thanks.
Mat.
-
mat,
The photograph on the cover is lovely. The photograph on the cover is very evocative of what Antarctica can look like. But a book with several hundred photographs all of which have the same tonalities and colour does not in my opinion provide a balanced view of Antarctica.
Look at the book. Either intentionally or through incompetence (I can't be sure which) every tonal value below mid-gray is compressed dramatically. Imagine a histogram with almost nothing below 100. That's the book. That's not reality. That's not Antaarctica. Not for hundreds of images in a row, clearly taken at different times of year in different types of weather and at different locations.
Michael
-
That's the book. That's not reality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137192\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Seems to me that Mat says that that IS reality, at least for most of the time - and I'm inclined to take the word of someone who's lived in a place over the word of someone who's just visited.
-
I have no doubt about Matt's experience with Antarctica. And true, I've never been there in winter.
But, that doesn't change anything to do with the book, which he admits to not having seen. So while you're willing to give him credence because he has more experience with the place, why not do the same with me and the book. I have it. I've seen it. He hasn't.
The issue is simple really. The book is a polemic. It tells a story with a single focus. It does not provide a balanced view, and therefore while it likely will accomplish it's intended task it should not be looked at by anyone as being a realistic representation of Antarctica with all of its faces.
That's all I've been trying to say. Look elsewhere for the full story.
Michael
-
It does not provide a balanced view, and therefore while it likely will accomplish it's intended task it should not be looked at by anyone as being a realistic representation of Antarctica with all of its faces.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139109\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've yet to see a photo book that represents anywhere realistically, showing all the faces of the subject. If I saw one I probably wouldn't want to buy it.
-
By the way, there are articles which say that the ice mass on the eastern half of Antarctica, which comprises 85% of the total ice mass, is increasing.
And this is in Nature, which is a highly-regarded scientific publication:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/050516-10.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/050516-10.html)
So while the western half (where most of us western hemisphere folks go -- to the peninsula) go is calving big chunks... it's getting it back on the eastern side (if only because of increased precipitation from the warmer temperatures).
Still... worth a read.
And are we going to start this "carbon credits" thing again complaining about the people taking the flights to Antarctica? Again it's one freaking flight out of 10,000 flights per day.
-
Copeland's photos (at least on the website) look fantastic to me. The use of normal & wide angle perspectives are refreshing and give a more interesting insight into the geography. The tones look varied... there are some sunny day shots.
The Vignetting is sometimes a bit much though.
He is apparently the recipient of the International Photography Awards prize for "Photographer of the Year - Books Category" and has also been invited to speak at the UN in October.
If his work is a more correct representation perhaps a retraction would be wise.
Here is the website:
Antarctica - A Global Warning (http://www.antarcticabook.com/)
-
i just looked at the site,, i remeber the sun shining every now and then,, that whole thing is just dark and dreary,, it just wasnt that way when we were there,,,, so i will side with MR on this one,,
-
I've never been to Antartica but my experience as a landscape photographer is that the many landscapes I have seen and photographed all had different moods, aspects and appearances. In other words, the same landscape looks different depending on the time of day or year, on the weather pattern, or on the photographer's emotional response.
I have only seen the images from the book on the website, but from that basis it would appear that Antartica is different from all the landscapes I have seen in that it has only 1 aspect: dreary...
-
I love the look of these photos. I don't think they are dreary. Stark, sure, but not dreary.
-
Since it seems we are right on track again as far as the original message in this thread is concerned and since I'm the OP and my original PS. was partly addressed by an 'eye witness' full-time Antartica resident, may again rephrase my question?
Since when an artistic book needs to be realistic (to whose eyes?), or present nature in ALL its many facets and aspects, or appear not to suffer from ANY amount of post manipulation?. Furthermore, would all the images, photo galleries and collections we've seen by Michael and Co of their photo trips to Antartica fit in the above description? Are they more realistic, more representative and less manipulated?
PS. I'm quoting from the postscript to the MR article:
'If you would like to see and photograph for yourself what Antarctica is really like, you may wish to join my third Antarctic photographic expedition, now scheduled for mid-January, 2009'.
Really?
-
Hello.
I'd just like to clarify the points I made, I think I was pretty open about the fact that I had only seen the cover, I will have a look at the web site though.
My comments were not directed at the technical criticisms of the photographs themselves, I am a not a professional photographer, I was more bothered by the fact that someone who has sailed down the peninsular a couple of times in the height of summer feels qualified to say what Antarctica is really like. I obviously fully accept any criticism leveled at the image made by a professional, if they are all altered in order to put across a point of view then the artistic merits should be on a very personal level surely, technical aspects can obviously be commented upon by experts.
I have a couple of thousand Antarctic photographs, a large majority show heavy skies, stark contrasts, none have been manipulated because I don't know what I'm doing!
The Antarctic is a very stark place, I think everyone is aware of that, we have hundreds of Antarctic books here in our library, hardly any show a true representation of what it is like to live here, if photographers fill a book with beautiful blue skies, stunning ice burgs, fluffy baby seals they are entering into a form of manipulation no different from the guy who only chooses dark and sombre images, some may say that the guy with the dark images has created a book intended to start conversations, prompt action maybe, it could also be said that the book filled with the fluffy images is designed to raise more money than awareness.
Just my thoughts obviously.
Mat.
Halley Research Station.
Brunt Ice Shelf.
-
Youtube has a few videos archived that feature photographer Sebastian Copelands
images and commentary regarding his Antarctica experience.
It's clear he's an activist but I don't think that diminishes his photographic vision regardless
of whether we agree or disagree with his politics and accompanying video content
certainly doesn't suggest poor post processing skills.The low cloud ceiling is evident in
much of the video.
Search with the keywords: Antarctica and Copeland. Specifically look for a clip
called Antarctica:a global warning
I have still only seen the cover image in reference to his book but would be curious to know
if the imagery featured in this video reflect the content of the book.
Seems like a pretty well balanced cross section of images to me and,personally,I'm more
responsive to the darker,more somber content
Also for a longer winded address check out:
http://definitivespace.zaadz.com/blog/2007...astian_copeland (http://definitivespace.zaadz.com/blog/2007/9/great_lecture_from_sebastian_copeland)
Mark
-
PS. I'm quoting from the postscript to the MR article:
'If you would like to see and photograph for yourself what Antarctica is really like, you may wish to join my third Antarctic photographic expedition, now scheduled for mid-January, 2009'.
Really?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140376\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Subtle us a brick to the head, eh.
-
Subtle us a brick to the head, eh.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140574\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sometimes sublety is overrated. Like sarcasm, it can miss people that have $$$ to pay
That said, I went on the last Antarctic trip. A couple comments:
1) It is TOTALLY worth it. It's a beautiful place; the scenery and wildlife are peerless
2) It's absolutely not as gloomy and dreary as the picture set I saw from that book on the site. I don't know if he only showed gloomy shots, or he only shot on gloomy days, or he got 6 weeks of bad weather, or he forgot that when you shoot snow and ice you have to dial in like 1 to 1 2/3 stops of positive exposure compensation to keep your snow from looking grey. Going with instructors like Michael and crew could have maybe given him some pointers
-
2) It's absolutely not as gloomy and dreary as the picture set I saw from that book on the site.
I think that AntarticMat above has comprehensively answered to this one in his two posts. I have no reason not to believe a full-time resident vs. the occasional summer visitors. Even if the conditions in MR's visit were the prevailing conditions (which they obviously aren't), I'm sure that many of MR and Co pictures do purposefully overstress some aspects of the landscape, as most traditional landscape photography does.
But I have to ask again: Does it really matter?
I hate to say this, but I'm starting to get the nasty feeling that MR's comment on the book was fundamentally driven by self interest.
-
I hate to say this, but I'm starting to get the nasty feeling that MR's comment on the book was fundamentally driven by self interest.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140617\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Or maybe, just maybe, mind you, the motivation was a love for the art of photography and a strong appreciation for Antarctica. Combine these, and for me this book becomes offensive.
I can only repeat – a stand-alone photograph which shows Antarctica looking like it was shot on a bleak, overcast day and then underexposed by two stops can be art. But a book with a hundred or more such photographs is simply propaganda.
Enough said.
Michael
Ps: As for what that self interest might be... I'm stumped. My new Antarctic workshop sold-out 90% in less than 24 hours to previous attendees and those on the waitlist, so it isn't as if I needed to generate some controversy to sell tickets. The remainder sold out the balance in a few hours after first posting, and there are now more than 30 people on a new waitlist.
Gee, here's an alternative thought. Maybe I actually believed what I wrote, without an underlaying nefarious motivation. What a concept!
-
Or maybe, just maybe, mind you, the motivation was a love for the art of photography and a strong appreciation for Antarctica. Combine these, and for me this book becomes offensive.
I can only repeat – a stand-alone photograph which shows Antarctica looking like it was shot on a bleak, overcast day and then underexposed by two stops can be art. But a book with a hundred or more such photographs is simply propaganda.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140650\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"Offensive"? - oh, puhleeze - how precious can we get? I recommend that anyone tempted to comment further just re-read Mat's posts. If you have some reason to think that what he says is not true, then go ahead and present the evidence. Until then, which is the propaganda - a book of dreary photos or a few web pages with sunny icebergs?
-
Actually pulling Raw weather data from the weather stations more then proves Mat's view of the weather. Lots of the stations claim to have only around 75 days a year that are not 80%+ overcast AND have any sunlight at all. With near total darkness for 6 months a lack of clouds doesn't really help for photography much of the year.
Oh well.. I'm glad this Michael's article on Copeland's work raised such a stink here.. I might not have heard of the book otherwise.. I'm definitely buying it now!
-
Actually pulling Raw weather data from the weather stations more then proves Mat's view of the weather. Lots of the stations claim to have only around 75 days a year that are not 80%+ overcast AND have any sunlight at all. With near total darkness for 6 months a lack of clouds doesn't really help for photography much of the year.
Oh well.. I'm glad this Michael's article on Copeland's work raised such a stink here.. I might not have heard of the book otherwise.. I'm definitely buying it now!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140777\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"Near total darkness for 6 months?"
Someone needs to learn about daylight. 6 months of the year they have AT LEAST 12 hours of sunlight (see the definition of "equinox").
Also note that a the most visited part of Antarctica (the upper tip of the peninsula) is north of the Antarctic circle which means it never gets 24 hours of night. The sun comes above the horizon, if only for a bit.
In the week we were along the peninsula we saw sunshine a few times (more on the east side than the west). I simply cannot imagine he could have been there 6 weeks and have had no sun.
-
Going with instructors like Michael and crew could have maybe given him some pointers
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is Michael an instructor? Does he give shooting pointers?
-
I was referring to the combination of weather & amount of daylight.
If you've got a clear day but no sunlight.. you're not going to take any bright and sunny pictures.
If you've got 24 hours of daylight (summer) but it's overcast.. no bright and sunny pictures.
Go look at the weather data, any trip is rolling the dice.
-
It's absolutely not as gloomy and dreary as the picture set I saw from that book on the site. I don't know if he only showed gloomy shots, or he only shot on gloomy days, or he got 6 weeks of bad weather, or he forgot that when you shoot snow and ice you have to dial in like 1 to 1 2/3 stops of positive exposure compensation to keep your snow from looking grey. Going with instructors like Michael and crew could have maybe given him some pointers
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I had a look at his his professional photography site and I hardly think he needs any pointers in photography from some photo geeks who are more concerned with maximising dynamic range and how ACR is coded, rather than simply taking good photos.
BTW you seem to have forgotten that for large parts of the years there is little or no light. So six weeks of gloomy 'days' is very easy to guarantee in Winter.
It's funny how Antarctic Mat, who is actually based there, seems to think Michael's pretty pictures are equally unrepresentative as in his experience, it can be very grim.
-
Gee, here's an alternative thought. Maybe I actually believed what I wrote, without an underlaying nefarious motivation. What a concept!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140650\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I believe you completely on that point. You simply stated what you thought and it seems very consistent with what you have written over the years.
But where your reasoning falls flat on it's face is you try and bring your objective/technical head to something completely subjective.
You said this in your opening paragraph.
"My first response on glancing at the dust jacket was, what a somber scene to choose for the cover."
My response was more positive - 'What a great image to reflect the title/book'. Personally I like his work, I had a look at his website, he's not exactly an untalented photographer. But to someone like yourself who loves perfectly exposed, perfectly printed images, his work simply won't float your boat. But then you make the mistake of trying to be rational about his pics. They aren't to your taste, his vision is different from yours and I'm very glad there are people who aren't so hung up on 'perfect' imaging. It gets very boring after a while. I have photography books that are full of images that too many current photographers would decry and laugh at for their poor technical prowess, but what great pictures they are.
Or maybe, just maybe, mind you, the motivation was a love for the art of photography and a strong appreciation for Antarctica. Combine these, and for me this book becomes offensive.
Offensive! what hyperbole. Besides I think Sebastian Copeland's images + book will have a more positive effect than your photos from there. Don't forget he's batting on the same side as you, just because he's taking different sorts of pictures from your 'pretty' shots doesn not in any sense make his work offensive. As mentioned above by Antarctic Mat, your images are no more representative that Sebastian's, so are your images offensive?
-
I had a look at his his professional photography site and I hardly think he needs any pointers in photography from some photo geeks who are more concerned with maximising dynamic range and how ACR is coded, rather than simply taking good photos.
Okay then.
BTW you seem to have forgotten that for large parts of the years there is little or no light. So six weeks of gloomy 'days' is very easy to guarantee in Winter.
It's funny how Antarctic Mat, who is actually based there, seems to think Michael's pretty pictures are equally unrepresentative as in his experience, it can be very grim.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140952\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm perfectly well aware that for parts of the year there is little or no light in Antarctica. Again, this is subject to where you are in Antarctica (perhaps read up on what the Antarctic circle is, and how it affects daylight).
Also perhaps you should read the site where he notes that he went to Antarctica in February 2006 (when there are most certainly NOT days with "little or no light"). He notes also that he returned to the ice in 2007, without specifying the dates... but I doubt it was July 2007 when it's dark, or he wouldn't have had time to publish the book.
I didn't travel on the guy's itinerary. So I can't say first-hand whether he encountered 6 weeks of purely gloomy weather. We didn't have perfect weather on our trip, either, but I can present one exhibit from a shot I took the first day we landed on the Antarctic Peninusula, on Brown Bluff:
(http://blloyd.smugmug.com/photos/132047647-L.jpg)
Now this is the eastern side of the peninsula so it tends to have weather that's nicer in general, as I understand.
You know what else is interesting... the picture of Mr. Copeland "photographing" has him against a sunny, blue sky:
(http://www.antarcticabook.com/images/author-main.jpg)
Interesting, no?
-
I'm still mystified by the idea that a book of photographs of a place should represent exactly what that place is like. I have a book of photos of Iceland by Daniel Bergmann. I love the book, but I don't think anybody would suggest it is a statistically accurate portrayal of Iceland (there are no shots of rain, for example). I have a book of photos of Kate Moss, taken by people who are paid big bucks to make her look as good as possible. That's art. That's photography. Why is this book any different?
-
I'm still mystified by the idea that a book of photographs of a place should represent exactly what that place is like.
...
Why is this book any different?
If you're using images to "raise global warming awareness", you're moving out of the scope of photography-as-art, and into photojournalism. If the photos were simply presented as beautiful images from Antarctica, nobody would care about manipulations or toning or whatever. But since they're being presented in a documentary context, the ethics of photojournalism come into play, and it is reasonable to expect and demand that the images actually represent the subject in a reasonably accurate manner. The type of manipulations done to these photos would be unacceptable in most newspapers; they create a misleading impression that heightens the urgency of the author's premises at the cost of the truth.
-
There's too much vitriol here, and what irks the most is that much of it is from people that have neither seen the book nor been to Antarctica. Taking positions on a subject with which one has no experience is all too easy on the net. It simply becomes positioned debate, all fury and no substance.
So, on that note, I'm done.
Please try and refrain from personal attacks. These and insults will be promptly deleted. Reasoned debate by people who have at least seen the book in question are welcome. Unsubstantiated rhetoric isn't.
Michael
Ps: The jacket photo of Copeland obviously taken on a sunny day made me chuckle. I hadn't noticed it before. What more needs to be said?
-
If you're using images to "raise global warming awareness", you're moving out of the scope of photography-as-art, and into photojournalism.
...
The type of manipulations done to these photos would be unacceptable in most newspapers; they create a misleading impression that heightens the urgency of the author's premises at the cost of the truth.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141200\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In what way do these images impact the story on global warming? They are, as far as I can judge from the website, fantastic images that give a strong impression of what Antarctica is like. That impression is not, according to Mat, misleading. They may not be to your taste, or to Michael's taste - so be it. But they are not deceiving in any way as regards an argument on climate change.
-
It would be interesting if someone (MR?) would put the article in question and this thread to Mr. Copeland's attention and invite a response? I, for one, would be interested to read what he has to say about the matter.
-
I haven't seen the book in person: I've only been able to look at the gallery of images on the website so far. There are some images with brighter areas, but mostly it's fairly subdued. The obvious work on them (I was going to say "Photoshopping" but I'm not supposed to use that word ) including things like vignetting do indicate that this is a deliberate decision, but it doesn't strike me as "wrong".
I haven't seen the Real Thing yet, but even then I don't expect that I will see it in all its moods. The website certainly hasn't offended me in that way, but maybe the book might be different.
Incidentally, with all the processing that's been applied to these images I'm amazed that no care seems to have been taken to get the (flat) waterline horizontal in these images. As the website's gallery progressed through the images I in fact found the "horizon" tilting to and fro quite unsettling. But then I know I'm hypersensitive to this in photos...
Lastly, I thought it interesting that the Antarctica photos in John Paul Caponigro's gallery (http://johnpaulcaponigro.com/gallery/) from the last L-L trip are predominantly dark/sombre.
-
Okay then.
I'm perfectly well aware that for parts of the year there is little or no light in Antarctica. Again, this is subject to where you are in Antarctica (perhaps read up on what the Antarctic circle is, and how it affects daylight).
I'm well aware of that fact, assuming otherwise in the manner you do is simply patronising. I have a background Astonomy and Geology BTW.
Also perhaps you should read the site where he notes that he went to Antarctica in February 2006 (when there are most certainly NOT days with "little or no light"). He notes also that he returned to the ice in 2007, without specifying the dates... but I doubt it was July 2007 when it's dark, or he wouldn't have had time to publish the book.
Not sure what your point is really as this July in the UK it rained constantly. Normally the hottest and [I think]nearly the driest time of year. Weather like mileage varies. Every quite locally. In Whitby today the weather was mostly bright and sunny, in nearby Middlesborough it was anything but.
I didn't travel on the guy's itinerary. So I can't say first-hand whether he encountered 6 weeks of purely gloomy weather. We didn't have perfect weather on our trip, either, but I can present one exhibit from a shot I took the first day we landed on the Antarctic Peninusula, on Brown Bluff:
Now this is the eastern side of the peninsula so it tends to have weather that's nicer in general, as I understand.
You took a picture in sunshine, when you were in one small part of the very large Antartic Continent. So what, it not like it proves anything of significance anyway? "Hey look I took a picture in Thailand and this proves the pictures taken in China are rubbish."
You know what else is interesting... the picture of Mr. Copeland "photographing" has him against a sunny, blue sky:
Interesting, no?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140980\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not really, as there are pictures taken by Sebastian shown in the TV presentation, where it looked pretty sunny to me. Which seems to be completely overlooked in the pointless ranting. And even if he did take a picture when the sun was shining, he may not have used that image in the book. It may even have been a posed picture. Quite common with portraiture, you know.
But even if the weather was fine and he was there in summer, the sun does set and the weather varies and quite possibly, the more dramatic pictures were done nearer to sunrise/set than noon. Midday usually makes for uninteresting landscape images, hence a lot of stuff is shot where the sun is lower.
None of any of this really matters anyway as it's simply a book of one person's personal interpretation of a place. Just as your and Michael's images are simply your interpretation.
-
Lastly, I thought it interesting that the Antarctica photos in John Paul Caponigro's gallery (http://johnpaulcaponigro.com/gallery/) from the last L-L trip are predominantly dark/sombre.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141362\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And very good too.
Not too mention undermining some of the arguments above.
-
I think that the axes have now been ground fine enough on this one.
This topic is now closed.
Start a new one if you wish, but this time solely on the merits of the arguments, not centered on personal attacks and insults.
Michael