Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Kobe Treaty

  1. Oct 22, 2003 #1


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    We have some good discussions going on the pros and cons of global warming, so here's a thread for discussion the Kobe treaty on cutting greenhouse gasses. As we recall, the Europeans and third world countries were enthusiastic about it, but opponents raised serious questions of cost/benefit and the US refused to ratify it. Russia is currently discussing ratification.

    What do our panel of experts thinlk?
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 23, 2003 #2
    Hmm. Ill have to do more research on it. Coming from a economic stand point, if the cost are greater then the benefits, I’m against it. Again I somewhat question where we are putting our recourses. While many argue that this is a natural process or that it is a natural process but we are accelerating it with our CO2 emissions, I question the relevancy of spending billions (note: cost to the consumer, taxpayer) on trying to cut emissions when we could spend that money elsewhere trying to prepare our infrastructure and food sources for the inevitable. (note: I’m not a oil man and support complete removal of certain environmental regulations. To tell you the truth, I’m not very fond of the activities of certain oil companies )

    I recently heard a interview done by art bell on coast to coast about this very topic. I tuned in a bit late so I really didn’t get to hear what he thought of it. Is Dr. kaku for cutting our co2 emmisions? Also what is his political affiliation
  4. Oct 23, 2003 #3


    User Avatar

    IMHO, the trouble with such approaches is that the nations expected to be worst hit by any further climate change would tend to be the poorer ones, and hence be less able to adopt a "weather it out" technique. Damage to third world crops, for example, by increased frequency of severe weather conditions, could cause huge humanitarian issues.
  5. Oct 23, 2003 #4
    You could cut the total emssions of the whole planet right now by 75% and that would still be to much. In order to save the planet it would require the reformatting of the all humanity into a new way of life. The life would be basic and consumption would have to go to it's lowest level of food clothing and shelter with few extras. Humanity likes it's candy at any cost and it will cost will be great. The inevitable is on it's way debate all you like, sign treaties with fools, and listen to scientist who know nothing.
  6. Oct 24, 2003 #5
    I’m curious, I must do more research but if we cut the CO2 emissions by 75%, how much time would it buy us and how much would it cost??? Do the marginal benefits supercede the marginal cost?
  7. Oct 24, 2003 #6
    Cost vs Benefit

    Dear Milton,
    I only WISH science and government policy WAS based on cost vs benefit
    analysis! My efforts promoting the Roy Process invention for cost effective
    transmutation of high level nuclear waste has shown the real life ethic IS
    NOT for efficiency....but for the steady siphoning of tax payer money BY NOT
    employing good science! The below article illuminates this:

    DOE Squandered Billions on Useless
    Nuke Waste Technologies
    By Brian Hansen

    WASHINGTON, DC, November 13, 2000 (ENS) - The U.S.
    Department of Energy has "squandered hundreds of
    millions of dollars" since the end of the Cold War
    trying to develop innovative technologies for
    cleaning up the nation's contaminated nuclear weapons
    sites, concludes a Congressional report unveiled last

    The report, "Incinerating Cash," was authored by
    staff members of the House Commerce Committee's
    Republican majority. The committee's Democratic
    did not participate in drafting the report.

    The report charges that the Department of Energy
    (DOE) has wasted much of the $3.4 billion that it has
    spent over the last decade on efforts to develop new
    technologies for cleaning up nuclear weapons wastes.
    Congress ordered the DOE in 1989 to initiate the
    program to address the environmental issues resulting
    from decades of nuclear weapons production.

    The committee's report concludes that the DOE has
    spent hundreds of millions of dollars on technologies
    that "have not proved useful" in the clean up mission.
    Moreover, the "useful" clean up technologies that the
    DOE has produced have not been used effectively by the
    agency or its private contractors, the report found.

    Of the 918 technologies that the DOE has funded,
    just 31 - less than 4 percent - have been deployed
    more than three times at contaminated nuclear weapons
    sites, the report notes. Of the technologies that have
    been deployed, more than half have been used only
    the report adds.

    The report attributes the failure of the program to
    an "ongoing pattern of mismanagement and lack of
    focus" within the DOE's Office of Science and
    Technology, which is implementing the initiative.

    Carolyn Huntoon, the DOE's assistant secretary for
    environmental management, was quick to dispute the
    findings of the Commerce Committee's report. In a
    written statement, Huntoon rejected claims that the
    technology program has not produced results.

    "One out of every five research and development
    projects have resulted in a viable technology being
    used by the department," Huntoon said.

    The DOE's nuclear waste complex consists of 113
    geographic waste sites located throughout the country.
    The DOE recently estimated that it will cost between
    $151 and $195 billion over the next 70 years to clean
    up the complex, not including the $51 billion already
    spent between 1990 and 1999.

    The Commerce Committee's report cited a number of
    case studies in concluding that those costs will not
    be appreciably reduced by the application of
    technologies developed by the DOE's Office of Science
    and Technology (OST).

    Those case studies were based in large part on a
    survey conducted earlier this year, in which several
    large DOE site contractors were asked to describe
    their use of commercially available OST funded

    One DOE site analyzed in the committee's survey was
    the Rocky Flats facility near Denver, Colorado, where
    large quantities of wastes containing plutonium and
    other radioactive constituents must be characterized,
    stabilized, packaged and moved off site. The DOE's
    environmental management program has to date spent
    some $4.9 billion at Rocky Flats, and the agency plans
    to spend another $4.5 billion over the next five years
    to complete environmental cleanup activities by the
    year 2006.

    However, the Kaiser-Hill Company, the DOE's
    contractor at the site, has so far found use for just
    seven commercially available clean up technologies,
    the Commerce Committee's report found. The company
    will likely deploy no more than three of the DOE's
    technologies in the year 2000, the committee's
    survey found.

    "Thus, after 10 years and $3.4 billion spent to
    develop technologies to reduce costs and speed
    cleanup, few [DOE] funded technologies have been used
    for cleanup at Rocky Flats, and few will likely be
    used in the future," the report declares.

    The report also notes how DOE funded technologies
    have been ineffective in advancing remediation
    activities at the Hanford nuclear reservation in
    Washington state, where the cleanup of 177
    underground tanks containing radioactive wastes is one
    of the most expensive and significant long term waste
    management projects within the DOE complex.

    The report notes that Hanford's radioactive tank
    wastes represent a huge potential impact to human
    health and the environment. Hanford's Office of
    River Protection (ORP) spends more than $300 million
    each year for characterization, interim stabilization,
    and resolution of tank safety issues to control the
    approximately 200 million curies of cesium, strontium
    and other radioactive constituents stored in rapidly
    degrading underground tanks.

    Some 30 tanks are known to have leaked in the past.

    Since 1990, the DOE has spent $4 billion on this
    project, and the agency plans to spend $13 billion
    over the next 70 years on tank farm operations. To
    date, the DOE has funded 80 technologies and has
    spent hundreds of millions of dollars at Hanford.

    But the committee's report finds that the
    commercially available technologies funded by the DOE
    have provided "no significant use" for characterizing
    or stabilizing the Hanford tank wastes, nor will they
    do so in the future. According to the CH2M Hill
    Group, the DOE's contractor at the site, none of the
    commercially available technologies have been deployed
    at the Hanford tank farms.

    The report is also critical of the DOE's use of
    taxpayer funded technologies to improve operations at
    the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, where
    radioactive waste is interned in casks hundreds of
    feet below the surface of the desert.
  8. Oct 24, 2003 #7
    Everybody wants a piece of pie and they want it for free. Nothing is for free. It is the law of conservation of matter and energy. We are ants and nothing more, like ants or locust we will consume until there is nothing left and move on. The only difference is that ants and locust do not pullute when they leave and they have been around for millions of years in a balance with nature. We are not. For after we consume, we posion the land, the air the water and the very conciousness of humankind. I have seen the future and it has come to pass. This post is simple inevitable logic.

    So you want to promote clean up of nukes? What about chemicals on a daily basis, sulfur which when combined with the elements creates acid rain which decomposes the rock and posins the waters. The co2, the tens of thousands of man make composites which are all toxic in their decomposition. If not to us directly then to other forms of the natural environment. Mankind will get what it deserves, it is comming and it will be fast and it will be slow. Keep consuming people. Maybe I will take my piece of pie and become an unconcious dam fool.

    Who do you blame? How do you change it? You can't. You are in a car traveling at 1000 miles an hour heading towards a brick wall with no brakes to steering you are in space. If you jump from the car you will go splat to the wall. If you push from the side of the car you will still go splat because you were unconcious for so long enjoying the ride that the wall is to close. The wall is thousands of miles wide. You cannot get clear. So what do you do?
  9. Oct 24, 2003 #8
    What do you do?

    First thing they teach you on your new job in DC.


Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?