Talk:Low-carbon economy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Low Carbon, or Low Carbon Dioxide?

I see many references here, and in popular media, to reducing CARBON. What is wrong with diamonds, graphite, and fullerene? Isn't CARBON DIOXIDE the problem, not carbon? Don't we mean we want to limit the burning of carbon-containing compounds, rather than "reduce carbon emissions" ? Saying "too much carbon is bad" (when we mean to say "too much carbon dioxide is bad") is like saying "my basement was flooded by a wave of oxygen" (when I meant to say, "...a wave of water"). I wish the media would stop talking about carbon this and carbon that. At least talk of carbon COMPOUNDS. Stop misrepresenting carbon. What has it ever done wrong (other than team up with oxygen, I suppose)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.142.66.132 (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Boo 70.117.147.27 (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Really, a Low Greenhouse Gases Economy . Carbon dioxide equivalent gases are greenhouse gases. --Mac (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
We don't really produce any diamond emissions. That I know of at least. If you've seen them I'd like to know where the crystals land. Calling it a low carbon economy makes sense given the terminology of laypeople. It's quite prevelent in the chemical engineering field as well, when your talking about emissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.138.140 (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing NPOV

Thanks for adding links, citations and references. I am removing the NPOV maintenance tag which I had added. Jerry lavoie 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Low carbon economies and economic efficiency

The statement "A low-carbon economy is not as economically efficient (cost-effective) as a high-carbon economy." in the introduction seems contentious. Is it not referring to a cost-effective evaluation which may not take full account of environmental costs (to both present and future generations) and benefits in terms of wellbeing or happinness? Would it be a fair comparison anyway? Is it being suggested that there is somewhere an actual low carbon economy that has progressed beyond the emergent stage which can be assessed? Philralph 08:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A low carbon economy is efficient. Nuclear power gives France the cheapest electricity in all of Europe. [1] Grundle2600 (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Low-Carbon (Dioxide) Economy is Hypothetical

Throughout this entire article, it is said that the "Low Carbon Economy" WILL do or be things rather than "would" do or be things. This betrays an unneeded and unwanted opinion on the part of the writers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tybalt1212 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's real. France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. This is good for its economy, as the country has the cheapest electricity in all of Europe. [2] Grundle2600 (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the previous commenter was referring to sentences like: "In the low-carbon economy, such operations will use more water conservation methods such as rainwater collection, water cisterns, etc and they will also pump/distribute that water with on-site renewable energy sources (most likely wind and solar)." The writer presents this as an inevitable shift in the way that the world is going to work. It might be more fitting to explain how water conservation methods could reduce carbon emissions (if someone can find suitable sources to back that up).Robert impey (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Low carbon economy

the definition presented in the article reads "A low-carbon economy is an economy in which the growth of carbon dioxide emissions from the use of carbon based fuels (coal, oil and gas) is halted and then significantly reduced.[1]"

Without being critical, I would just like to point out that the reference [1] does not support this definition. The reference page does not define the term explicitly or implicitly.

Secondly, the wording of the defintion could be structured better. By definition, "halting" the growth of carbon dioxide emissions means reducing the growth to zero. How does one "significantly reduce" growth beyond that point?

Lmclarty (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defense of Nuclear Power Unjustified

"A low-carbon economy might be brought about through the use of energy efficiency measures...and the substitution of renewable energy sources for fossil fuels and nuclear power (Note: nuclear power does not emit any greenhouse gases. [1], [2], [3]), including transport electrification. Also proposed - as a method for mitigating global warming - is a direct quota on global fossil fuel production.[5]

Whilst many in the traditional "environmentalist" movement are skeptical of the use of nuclear power, citing concerns over issues such as the long-term disposal of radioactive waste, the majority of scientific opinion is that the use of nuclear energy is one important option which must be kept on the table, given its large potential to displace highly greenhouse-gas intensive fossil fuel based energy generation systems, given the potential for grave consequences as a result of anthropogenic forcing of climate change."''

The second and third paragraphs in my view are taking on a defense of the feasibility of nuclear power, and in my view this is UNACCEPTABLE due to the fact that the first section is a description of what a LOW-CARBON economy is...

Furthermore the sentence which states: "A low-carbon economy might be brought about through...the substitution of renewable energy sources for fossil fuels and nuclear power"... clearly does not make any reasonable sense. How can a low-carbon economy be brought about, by substituting renewable energy FOR fossil fuels.

As well, Nuclear Power is NOT a zero-carbon emitting energy producer. The mining, production and transport of un-used and used nuclear fuel produces greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the long-term disposal of nuclear waste is a SERIOUS problem now. Currently there is no long-term(10,000+years) High-level nuclear waste repository in use anywhere in the world. The chances of Nuclear Meltdown is improbable, but real as evidenced by the Swedish Forsmark incident in 2006 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5241780.stm )

The merits and negatives of Nuclear Power are broad and have NO place in the first section, this clearly damages the neutrality of the article.

Krishyaanis (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Low-carbon energy

What about low-carbon energy and technologies ?. --Nopetro (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)