The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered [11]  |  Archives [1] 
 
User: Guest

News  100% width127 postspage 1 of 5

Coal-Powered Poland Refuses to "Go Green". EU Ain't Happy.


jasondmzk    
15 Mar 2012  #1
This is the second time Poland said nie to a plan for cutting carbon emissions; being the only party pooper in the EU to do so, and thus scuttling the whole deal. Why the veto?

Frustrations with Poland are growing in the European Union after the coal-powered nation for a second time blocked the EU's long-term plans for cutting carbon emissions.
As the lone dissenting voice, Poland last week vetoed the EU's road map for emissions reductions beyond 2020, drawing sharp criticism from environmental groups and EU officials.
Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said the EU's executive commission would press ahead with plans for a low-carbon economy despite Poland's objections.

boston/news/science/articles/2012/03/14/poland_out_of_step_with_europe_on_climate
gumishu 11 | 4,851    
15 Mar 2012  #2
because Poland would have to dismantle it's coal powered energy sector and switch to Russian gas and it would cost us bilions and billions - this is one point

the other point is that the whole human CO2 emission driven global warming is a scam and Polish politicians don't believe in it (and it is a scam unless you are a believer)

already agreed part of the deal that was signed in 2008 can possibly raise Polish electricity prices by 100 per cent before 2020 (and the goals are still unrealistic for Poland because there is no way we can have 20 per cent of our energy from renewable sources in this economic climate) - the electiricity bills will start rising already next year and it's gonna be drastic (like 40-50 per cent) - the whole sectors of Polish economy can shut down because of that (like paper and cement production) with people without jobs

btw - the most Co2 emissions in Europe come from transportation - and the richest countries have more per capita emissions from that source than Poland (Germany has even double) and most of these countries are more populous than Poland - the whole agreement specifically targets coal powered energy production and you[ve got your answer
OP jasondmzk    
15 Mar 2012  #3
(and it is a scam unless you are a believer)

soooo.... it's not a scam? I hardly think her politicians knocking the science of global warming is a plus for Poland. As for the expense, I'd think forward-looking Poland would realize it's much cheaper in the long run just to build the gas plants than to keep shoving CO2 underground. Poland has already cut emissions fairly drastically, another twenty percent seems perfectly doable. I'm sensing some contrariness on the part of Warsaw, towards the "greener" nations (read: German/Scandinavian) is more at play, here.
gumishu 11 | 4,851    
15 Mar 2012  #4
it is a scam - 1. human emissions of CO2 consist only a couple per cent of yearly emissions into the atmosphere - (say 3 per cent) - all other emission is natural - one big volcano eruption releases as much CO2 as yearly human emissions - and volcanoes also constantly emit CO2 - CO2 is emiitted from the earth crust in certain areas

2. CO2 in the atmosphere accounts to less than 20 per cent of greenhouse effect in the atmosphere - in certain conditions up to 95 per cent of greenhouse effect comes from water vapour

3. there is no good correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere (as examined in the ice cores from Antarctic and Greenland) and the temperatures during the ice ages (with the events of CO2 levels rising and temperature falling)

4. there is no good CO2 budget evaluation on the earth so far - scientist haven't reliably evaluated ocean CO2 'sink' so far - there are also negative feedbacks in the biosphere against rising level of CO2 - plants grow considerably faster in higher levels of CO2 binding it

5. there is a negative feedback in the earth's atmosphere against warming - this is called clouds which raise earth's albedo significantly - the mean daily temperature in the height of June in Poland under a thick cloud cover can be lower than 10 centigrades while in the full sun it can easily rise above 30 degrees (and a mean temperature throughout the day can be above 20 degrees)
OP jasondmzk    
15 Mar 2012  #5
I'm not going to rehash the global warming debate, and neither should Poland. The established science makes anyone who does look archaic and contrary. The question is why aren't they adopting the regulations, and I give Polish politicos more credit than to think it's something as prosaic as "global warming is a scam".
gumishu 11 | 4,851    
15 Mar 2012  #6
Poland has already cut emissions fairly drastically, another twenty percent seems perfectly doable.

Poland didn't deliberately cut any emissions - the big decrease in emissions from Poland stems from a number of industries shutting down since 1989 (but was approved as emission cuts in Kyoto protocol) - the new European climatic agreement has a much later date as a base to calculate reductions - Poland will have to cut emissions or pay for them (and they are going to be pricey) - either way it will cost Poland A LOT of money -

as for sequestering CO2 in the earth - nobody in the world has done that on large scale so far - you cannot just pump C02 into the ground - you need to have specific geologic structures (like emptied natural gas beds) that are C02 tight enough - these are often hundreds of miles aways from power plants - and power plants exhausts including CO2 are not natural gas in that they are corrosive (the more water vapour is in the exhausts the more corrosive they are and there is no practical fuel on the earth that does not produce water vapour in burning) - the cost of pipelines would be enourmous my friend because they would have to be made from special grade corrosive resistant steel - and as far as I know this kind of steel is not so readily welded)

I'm not going to rehash the global warming debate, and neither should Poland

NO - actually Poland SHOULD voice any doubts there are about CO2 driven global warming and LOUD - somebody HAS TO
peterweg 36 | 2,324    
15 Mar 2012  #7
I'd think forward-looking Poland would realize it's much cheaper in the long run just to build the gas plants than to keep shoving CO2 underground. Poland has already cut emissions fairly drastically, another twenty percent seems perfectly doable

If Shale gas con be produced in sufficent quantity then we will see coal fired plants in Poland, the trick is to get someone else to PAY for these plants. So in a way I think Poland maybe doing the right thing.

it is a scam

Your arguments are crap.
gumishu 11 | 4,851    
15 Mar 2012  #8
you got better arguments? or can you actually void my arguments in other ways than saying they are crap?

btw - I don't argue there is some global warming - if it is measurable how can I deny it - the thing is there is no good proof human made CO2 emissions are responsible
jon357 65 | 13,567    
15 Mar 2012  #9
I hardly think her politicians knocking the science of global warming is a plus for Poland.

It isn't

I'm not going to rehash the global warming debate, and neither should Poland. The established science makes anyone who does look archaic and contrary.

Exactly.

Shale gas

Environmentally dreadful.
pantsless 1 | 267    
15 Mar 2012  #10
NO - actually Poland SHOULD voice any doubts there are about CO2 driven global warming and LOUD - somebody HAS TO

I'm also not going to be baited by you since fact is fact, but apparently you lack the perception to realize that if anything, global warming has been one of the most fiercely debated topics over the past decade, with doubts, concerns and disbelief voiced by people as well as politicians and scientists. So yea, stating that somebody "HAS TO", i.e., meaning that nobody has to this moment in time, say something about doubts over global warming is an outright farce.

So, going back to what jasonmdzk asked, I'm also interested in why Poland is not adopting the regulations as in this day and age you have to look extremely long-term to survive esp. in terms of energy, and Poland looking at its aging and outright archaic coal power plants and saying "woe is me" and complaining that it'll cost a lot of money to replace them are not logical arguments if, again, looking at this problem long-term.

Btw, I'll keep in mind that you stated:

the electiricity bills will start rising already next year and it's gonna be drastic (like 40-50 per cent) - the whole sectors of Polish economy can shut down because of that (like paper and cement production) with people without jobs

As that's just insane on your part.
gumishu 11 | 4,851    
15 Mar 2012  #11
either I missed something or Co2 global warming is fed to us straight into the stomach by all media around - I haven't seen any serious debate (outside the internet)
smurf 39 | 1,994    
15 Mar 2012  #12
1. human emissions of CO2 consist only a couple per cent of yearly emissions into the atmosphere

So we should do absolutely nothing? Just let the chips fall like they may. That's the kinda attitude that got the dinosaurs where they are today. Nonsense attitude. A pre-destination attitude, are you a Calvinist, they think that way too.

CO2 in the atmosphere accounts to less than 20 per cent of greenhouse effect in the atmosphere

Yea, so if we got rid of a 5th of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere it'd be a really really stupid idea. Really? are ya sure? Really?

there is no good correlation

I beg to differ, you provided no links as proof whatsoever, what you're saying is totally unture, even back in the 1800s scientists knew of this.

scientist haven't reliably evaluated ocean CO2 'sink' so far

Maybe not to your high levels, but they've been doing their best and according to this, the oceans have soaked up quite a lot of emissions and it's had a terrible effect on sea life.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html

plants grow considerably faster in higher levels of CO2 binding it

Yea, that's right but what happens when those trees and flowers die? Yea, that's right the CO2 is released into the atmosphere

there is a negative feedback in the earth's atmosphere against warming - this is called clouds which raise earth's albedo significantly - the mean daily temperature in the height of June in Poland under a thick cloud cover can be lower than 10 centigrades while in the full sun it can easily rise above 30 degrees (and a mean temperature throughout the day can be above 20 degrees)

What point are you trying to make here? NOt that I've ever experienced a temp of lower than 10C in June in Poland, but that's neither here nor there, Clouds keep the temps lower during the day & warmer at night, sure a 12 yr old geography pupil knows that, they also know that clouds also reflect sunlight back into the atmosphere but it's being kept in by the greenhouse gases

Ya see the thing is man, that there is no climate change debate, you guys lost, it's over, now just do everyone a favour and separate your trash, burn less coal, walk to the shops instead of driving and help the earth out a bit, it all helps if everyone just does their bit and stops dragging their heels. I know this is Poland and it's the national pastime to complain and drag your heels but you're wasting your breath in the longrun.
Wroclaw Boy    
15 Mar 2012  #13
Your arguments are crap.

crap no less, you really should think before you type a bit more.

I havent made up my mind on the whole humans causing global warming issue, we just cant trust anything they say really. On a personal level ive noticed the tides rise and the winters are not as cold. But the Earth may be on some kind of cycle where by it rotates nearer the sun or any damn thing. Inter galacial period somebody else was saying, so WTF basically.

one big volcano eruption releases as much CO2 as yearly human emissions - and volcanoes also constantly emit CO2 - CO2 is emiitted from the earth crust in certain areas

I also heard an alarming statisitc associated with volcanoes a few years ago. Its really difficult judgiung the scales of these types of things, remember the Kuwait oil fires? i remember watching them and thinking crikey thats must be really damaging the atmosphere but it was a small percentage in the grand scheme of things. Suddam Hussein should have been killed for that alone, what a crime of epic proportions against the planet.

If anything I would have to lean towards the notion that humans are causing the imbalance, the relation between our growth and sudden climate changes cannot be avoided.
Barney 14 | 1,472    
15 Mar 2012  #14
I haven't seen any serious debate

The debate took place during the 1980s and the overwhelming view of the scientific community is that the earth is warming due to human activity.
Babinich 1 | 456    
15 Mar 2012  #15
The EU overrides a sovereign when it comes to that sovereign's well being?

There has been quite a conspiracy surrounding these "facts". What to stop Poland from looking into clean coal? Or nuclear?
gumishu 11 | 4,851    
15 Mar 2012  #16
The debate took place during the 1980s and the overwhelming view of the scientific community is that the earth is warming due to human activity.

in medieval Europe there was a universal agreement between scientists that the Sun was revolving around the Earth
jon357 65 | 13,567    
15 Mar 2012  #17
Actually there wasn't. The notion that the earth orbits the sun was being talked about since the 3rd Century AD, if not earlier and was known to scientists.

Ya see the thing is man, that there is no climate change debate, you guys lost, it's over, now just do everyone a favour and separate your trash, burn less coal, walk to the shops instead of driving and help the earth out a bit, it all helps if everyone just does their bit and stops dragging their heels

Very true. The worst offender over the past 100 years has been ethyl lead used in cars and various industrial processes. That and the vastly expanding human population.
Barney 14 | 1,472    
15 Mar 2012  #18
There has been quite a conspiracy surrounding these "facts".

Care to demonstrate the conspiracy? I haven't heard of any such thing that mesmerises the scientific community as you suggest.

in medieval Europe there was a universal agreement between scientists that the Sun was revolving around the Earth

All agree that the earth is warming mainstream and cranks (that battle was lost), experimentation shows the warming theory to be reliable so the argument is if this warming is man made or not. Grasping at straws and tripping your self up with half truths is doing no good.

for eg, suggesting that the environment self regulates (Oceans sucking up CO2 spewed out by Volcanoes) in the way you hope is just wishful thinking. That neat idea though elegant is directly contradicted by the data so a conspiracy is the only way to explain the logical flaw.
gumishu 11 | 4,851    
15 Mar 2012  #19
if we would get rid of 20 per cent of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere we would probably get an ice age - smurf I understand that you are concerned but I think you overestimate your understanding of things - learn a new thing each day and you will be wiser

Yea, that's right but what happens when those trees and flowers die? Yea, that's right the CO2 is released into the atmosphere

actually smurf - plant matter (cellusose and ligninins, also various waxes and resins) is quite slow to decay - otherwise we wouldn't have any coal today - just go to the forest near you and I can safely guarantee you that the leaves that have fallen 10 year ago are still there for the most part - yes dead plant matter is a HUGE retainer of CO2 - if you don't believe then tell me where did all those heaths and bogs in Britain and Ireland come from - and I can tell you that in some parts of Ireland a good couple of meters of bog formed in about 5 thousands of years - and guess what? - it is mostly carbon - it's nearly a permaments carbon sink

Maybe not to your high levels, but they've been doing their best and according to this, the oceans have soaked up quite a lot of emissions and it's had a terrible effect on sea life.

CO2 emissions in itself are not a huge hazzard to marine life - CO2 is not a direct polutant in the amounts we release (I don't say fossil fuel burning doesn't cause pollution but CO2 is not a pollutant in itself) - marine life has been hit by many other substances we release to the oceans as well as the ecologic imbalances produced (toxic algae blooms) by the phosphorus and nitrogen we deliver to the seas and oceans

So we should do absolutely nothing? Just let the chips fall like they may

over-reacting can be sometimes much more harmful than not reacting smurf (but I believe you are not really ready to recognize it)
jon357 65 | 13,567    
15 Mar 2012  #20
And GDP's are rising, production increasing, the worlld's population is increasing at a horrific rate and the Chinese are now making and producing cars. Sea levels are rising, species are becoming extinct, the world's climate is changing and we have a ticking time bomb.
gumishu 11 | 4,851    
15 Mar 2012  #21
Sea levels are rising,

where?

All agree that the earth is warming

I don't argue with the realization that earth is warming - I argue with a simplistic reasoning that human Co2 emissions are responsible - and I argue with feeding people that idea untill we prove it beyond doubt

for eg, suggesting that the environment self regulates (Oceans sucking up CO2 spewed out by Volcanoes) in the way you hope is just wishful thinking. That neat idea though elegant is directly contradicted by the data so a conspiracy is the only way to explain the logical flaw

i don't claim Earth self-regulates perfectly - I say we don't know enough to be able to judge - judge not by apperances you know - btw that CO2 has been greatly reduced from the atmosphere through natural processes is actually a common understanding among geologists
Barney 14 | 1,472    
15 Mar 2012  #22
I argue with a simplistic reasoning that human Co2 emissions are responsible

The battle to demonstrate that the earth is warming was a long and difficult thing to do as I'm sure you know, the factors involved and their interdependencies are extremely complex.

The battle to demonstrate that it is caused by human activity has also triumphed it’s only a few who don’t accept the science. Discussing with them is like trying to get religious converts, almost pointless except that they are very well funded and fundamentally dishonest polluting the media with junk conclusions.

Edit

that CO2 has been greatly reduced from the atmosphere through natural processes is actually a common understanding among geologists

The Carbon cycle is taught to children.....nothing new there
gumishu 11 | 4,851    
15 Mar 2012  #23
the factors involved and their interdependencies are extremely complex.

and not thouroughly investigated - OK? - and we use simplistic reasonings - like saying Sun revolves around the earth

The battle to demonstrate that it is caused by human activity has also triumphed it's only a few who don't accept the science. Discussing with them is like trying to get religious converts, almost pointless except that they are very well funded and fundamentally dishonest polluting the media with junk conclusions.

the thing is I can safely call you a CO2 warming believer - because you don't know the realities just accept what you are being fed based on some assumptions you made (which you cannot be simply sure of unless you positively make yourself believe they are THE truth)

I am not sure those arguments I have found against the role of human carbon emissions in global warming are perfectly true - but if some (retired) scientist states that there is no good correlation between rapid warmings and coolings in the ice ages and the atmosphere's CO2 contents then I tend to listen to it because I think there is enough poeple with agendas around the world who would want me to believe the contrary
jon357 65 | 13,567    
15 Mar 2012  #24
where?

The population of Kiribati have to leave soon and the Maldives are threatened. Next could be lowland Bangladesh.

i don't claim Earth self-regulates perfectly - I say we don't know enough to be able to judge

Very good that you don't claim that, because you would be wrong. What has been established beyond reasonable doubt is that man-made climate change is a huge threat to life on our planet.
gumishu 11 | 4,851    
15 Mar 2012  #25
The battle to demonstrate that it is caused by human activity has also triumphed it's only a few who don't accept the science. Discussing with them is like trying to get religious converts, almost pointless except that they are very well funded and fundamentally dishonest polluting the media with junk conclusions.

there can be simply other explanations to why the earth is warming - it is enough if there are statistically less clouds in summer months for whatever reason (there may be reasons we don't actually yet know or understand) to produce the observed warming - and pushing one theory is what I call dishonest

The population of Kiribati have to leave soon and the Maldives are threatened. Next will be lowland Bangladesh.

heh - you've seen it or just repeat whatever you hear on the TV? - for one thing Kiribati and Maledives experience the least of tides on the ocean so the rising ocean levels would be pretty obvious there (unless the islands are sinking because of geological processes)

btw if you cared to look the NOAA images show that the extent of ice floes in Davies strait, Baffin Bay and off the Labrador coast this year are biggest in years
jon357 65 | 13,567    
15 Mar 2012  #26
heh - you've seen it or just repeat whatever you hear on the TV? - for one thing Kiribati and Maledives experience the least of tides on the ocean so the rising ocean levels would be prette obvious there (unless the islands are sinking because of geological processes)

I don't have anything as trashy as a TV but I do keep up to date on current events. Here's one of thousands of reports on the effect man-made climate change is having on Kiribati. I'm not sure what you think tides have to do with it, but rising sea levels are all to visible there.

globalpost.com/dispatch/news/green/global-warming/120308/rising-sea-levels-forcing-entire-nation-kiribati-relocate

Man-made climate change and its dangers are an established fact. Poland needs to respond to that as much as any other developed nation.
gumishu 11 | 4,851    
15 Mar 2012  #27
I don't have anything as trashy as a TV but I do keep up to date on current events. Here's one of thousands of reports on the effect man-made climate change is having on Kiribati. I'm not sure what you think tides have to do with it, but rising sea levels are all to visible there.

I am not sure there has ever been any fresh ground water on Kiribati in living memory pal - this is coral - this is low lying - evaporation far exceeds the rainfall - pacificwater.org/pages.cfm/country-information/kiribati.html

and displacement may be caused by drought which leads to lack of drinking water and not serious rising of sea level - but if someone has an agenda they will not disclose facts that don't fit his agenda
jon357 65 | 13,567    
15 Mar 2012  #28
I am not sure there has ever been any fresh ground water on Kiribati in living memory pal

That has nothing to do with it. And also untrue - Kiribati has groundwater. The sea levels are rising. This is a known fact. Unless you know something The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change doesnt ;-)

Are you denying the reality of man-made climate change and its threat to the ecosystem?
gumishu 11 | 4,851    
15 Mar 2012  #29
if sea levels would be rising noticeably it will be easily observed on various piers - I don't think this is what we are seing at the moment - if the rise has been 10 cm in some 20 last years it would have been noticed on the said piers and secondly it wouldn't affect even the likes of Kiribati and Maledives
jon357 65 | 13,567    
15 Mar 2012  #30
if sea levels would be rising noticeably it will be easily observed on various pier

Do you realise how silly that sounds? Why not stand on the end of the pier in Sopot and stare at the tides? The rise in sea level has been observed and is not seriously doubted.

ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-es.html
books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=245

secondly it wouldn't affect even the likes of Kiribati and Maledives

It not only would, but is.

Poland as a developed country has its role to play. Why not be at the forefront rather than lagging behind?

So. Do you deny the reality of man-made climate change?



Home / News / Coal-Powered Poland Refuses to "Go Green". EU Ain't Happy.
Click this icon to move up back to the quoted message. Bold Italic [quote]

 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary and unique username or login and post as a member.