Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Natural gas should be a strategic resoruce (Score 1) 190

We use natural gas in home heating and in ethanol production and in generating electricity, And, with CAFE standards increasing and oil production rising, we are within spitting distance of energy independence. It is hard to see how we could use anything close to half our natural gas production to produce gasoline when it supplies so much in other areas and there is such a small way to go to eliminate oil imports. But, the ability to do gas-to-liquid easily makes an even stronger case for restricting exports of natural gas just as we do with oil and recognizing natural gas as a strategic resource.

As a strategic resource, we should build enough LNG export capacity in the US and enough import capacity in NATO to displace Russian gas supplies, and then let that sit idle. This would be similar to Israel having dibs on our strategic petroleum reserve. Russia would treat our allies much better as natural gas customers if we could take away their market at any time they put the squeeze on.

Submission + - NASA wants your help hunting for asteroids

An anonymous reader writes: Since the early 20th century, astronomers have relied on the same technique to detect asteroids — they take images of a section in the sky and look for star-like objects that move between frames. However, with an increase in sensitivity of ground-based telescopes, it has become increasingly difficult for astronomers to sift through the massive pile of data and verify every single detection. In order to increase the frequency of asteroid detection, including of those bodies that could be potential threats to our planet, NASA has released new software, developed in collaboration with Planetary Resources, Inc., capable of running on any standard PC. The software, which can be downloaded for free, will accept images from a telescope and run an algorithm on them to determine celestial bodies that are moving in a manner consistent with an asteroid.

Submission + - Helping poor countries tackle climate change is affordable (businessgreen.com)

mdsolar writes: Rich countries would not need to spend more than two per cent of their GDP by 2050 to help developing nations cut their carbon emissions, new analysis from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change has suggested.

Developed countries have already agreed to provide an additional $100bn a year by 2020 to help poorer countries reduce their carbon emissions and adapt to the worst effects of climate change.

However, the new study warns significantly more funding will be needed over the coming decades to help poorer nations cope with climate impacts. The report, which has been submitted for peer review to the Climate Policy journal, uses a number of sophisticated economic models to conclude that rich countries would need to give at least $400bn, and as much as $2tr, to the 'global south' each year to help them cope with the demands of tackling climate change.

But it argues that even this massive commitment would not equate to more than one to two per cent of rich countries' GDP.

"The cost to high-income countries, while substantial, is not likely to be prohibitive," the document states.

Comment Moral bankruptcy (Score 3, Interesting) 190

All of the fossil fuels run on science. There is geology and chemistry and pollution control and how to make oil flow in a pipeline. If you school won't invest in fossil fuels, there is a chance you won't consider working for them either. The engineering and science may not get done as quickly and the industry may slow as a result of moral objections.

Comment Re:10 myths about fossil fuel divestment (Score 1) 190

Well #6 says "This argument would have merit if there was much evidence to support it. When, for example, the Guardian asked the Wellcome Trust to give instances where engagement had produced change, it could not. And as campaigner Bill McKibben has pointed out, engagement is unlikely to persuade a company to commit to eventually putting itself out of business. In fact some market regulators, such as in the US, do not allow this kind of engagement. "

Comment This might explain (Score 2) 190

"There have been a handful of successful divestment campaigns in recent history, including those targeting violence in Darfur, tobacco advertising, and others, but the largest and most impactful one came to a head around the issue of South African Apartheid. By the mid-1980s, 155 campuses – including some of the most famous in the country – had divested from companies doing business in South Africa. 26 state governments, 22 counties, and 90 cities, including some of the nation’s biggest, took their money from multinationals that did business in the country. The South African divestment campaign helped break the back of the Apartheid government and usher in an era of democracy and equality." http://gofossilfree.org/what-i...

Comment 10 myths about fossil fuel divestment (Score 5, Interesting) 190

10 myths about fossil fuel divestment are put to the sword here: http://www.theguardian.com/env... Yours is #5. "To sell a stock you have to have a buyer. But the amounts being divested are too small to flood the market and cut share prices, so they won’t be going cheap. Also, the buyers of the stock are taking on the risk that the fossil fuel stocks may tank in the future, if the world’s nations fulfil their pledge to keep global warming below 2C by sharply cutting carbon emissions. If these stocks are risky, then the public and value-based institutions primarily targeted by the divestment movement should not be holding them. The argument that owning a stock gives you influence over a company leads us neatly into the next divestment myth."

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Working...