First post and http://pddpapers.livejournal.com both updated with one of Krypton's papers and one of my own. I'll try and get the Chomsky one up tonight or tomorrow.

If anyone else would like to submit a paper, you can either post it here or email pddpapers@gmail.com and I'll get it up when I can (email might make me work faster since sometimes I miss seeing this thread's updates).

Cheers.

___________________

First college paper ever...with wikipedia references!!!

THESIS: On November 21, 2006, the United States, European Union, China, India, Russia, Japan, and South Korea signed a 12.8 billion dollar pact called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), to be built in Cadarache, France (Charlton, 2006). Since, World War II, fission power has dominated our nuclear fuel technology with little research going to fusion power. ITER is the 'Manhattan Project' of fusion power. Scientists predict that if successful, up to 20 percent (Charlton, 2006) of the world's energy could come from fusion powered reactors by the end of the century. The success of this project will provide unlimited energy for the entire world, little radioactive waste, and will unite the world's industrial powers toward a common goal for humanity.

------------------------------------------------------------------

ITER: The Experimental Fusion Reactor

On November 21, 2006, the United States, European Union, China, India, Russia, Japan, and South Korea signed a 12.8 billion dollar pact called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), to be built in Cadarache, France (Charlton, 2006). Since, World War II, fission power has dominated our nuclear fuel technology with little research going to fusion power. ITER is the 'Manhattan Project' of fusion power. Scientists predict that if successful, up to 20 percent (Charlton, 2006) of the world's energy could come from fusion powered reactors by the end of the century. The success of this project will provide unlimited energy for the entire world, little radioactive waste, and will unite the world's industrial powers toward a common goal for humanity.

Unlimited Energy

During the 20th century, the average worldwide temperature rose 1.1ºF ("Global Warming," 2006). This may not sound like much, but the consequences are plain to see and include: A reduction in ice packs in the arctic regions, contributing to a rise in sea levels; a gigantic ozone hole over the Antarctic continent that continues to grow larger year by year allowing more ultraviolet radiation through the atmosphere; and storms are growing stronger and stronger as more heat is trapped in the atmosphere, resulting in natural catastrophes like Hurricane Katrina. The supply of fossil fuels is gradually wearing away so that by 2200 ("Fossil Fuel," 2006), the earth will have none left.

A commercially viable fusion reactor would solve our global warming problem, because it has the potential to be the next main source of power. The reactor will run on hydrogen isotopes just like the sun, which at extremely high temperatures and pressures causes the isotopes to combine and form helium ("ITER," 2006). This fusion results in a release of energy millions of times greater than the conventional burning of coal ("Fusion Power," (2006). If we can find a viable way to synthesize hydrogen fuel without releasing any greenhouse gases, then we will have achieved a use for an incredibly powerful energy potential never before seen.

Radioactivity & Wastes

The world has been haunted by nuclear fission accidents such as the sinking of the soviet submarine K-19, the Chernobyl explosion, and 3-Mile Island just to name a few. The design of ITER will help to eliminate this nuclear risk. The reactor design is called Tokamak ("Tokamak," 2006). It is shaped like a donut, and its components generate a powerful magnetic field that confines the plasmic reactions to the reactor core. Essentially, a tokamak provides equilibrium for an artificial sun. Magnetism never fails, so with this safe-guard, fusion reactors will prove much safer than conventional fission reactors.

All fission reactors produce radioactive wastes. The half-life of uranium-235 ("Uranium," 2005) is 704 million years. It is highly radioactive, very dangerous, and difficult to eliminate. The United States is currently constructing an underground radioactive waste site under the Yucca Mountains in Nevada ("Yucca Mountains," 2006), and is expected to cost between 50 and 100 billion dollars. Compare that to the 12.8 billion dollars ITER costs. Since the half-life of uranium is so long, the tunnel will eventually run out of room. Even worse, it will continue to release radioactive emissions for eons to come. The United States as a government may not last that long, so there is threat of depreciation in maintenance due to government collapse. ITER would change that because its fuel is much less radioactive. In fact, the radioactivity of fusion fuel would be equivalent to coal ash ("Fusion Power," 2006) within only 300 years, compared to the millions of years fission fuel would take to do the same thing.

Union of Industrial Powers

Much like the international space station, the ITER project will be an international research conglomerate uniting all the scientific knowledge of the entire world towards a common goal. This movement towards global cooperation stems from member nations not wanting to take on the financial burdens (Charlton, 2006) of such a project alone. Globalization is forcing even the richest of nations to work together because new technology is becoming increasingly more expensive. So expensive, that any one nation is not willing fund such projects.

It is because of the success of the industrialized world that we find ourselves in the situation of potential environmental catastrophe and energy depletion. Fortunately, these nations have realized this and have put forth a plan that will allow for the further success of the global economy. Failure in this aspect will result in a downfall of civilization as we know it.

Conclusion

As promising as fusion power is, we will not see it in practical use for at least another 40 years (Charlton, 2006). The most interesting thing is that these scientists are essentially creating an artificial sun in a controlled environment, and then using the energy produced from this star to provide power for our use. If one were to discover a reusable energy source other than the ones we currently use, it would be one of the greatest developments of the 21st century. That is why the future of the entire planet rests on the shoulders of ITER.



References

Charlton, A. (2006, November 23). Wheels in motion to build fusion reactor in France [Electronic version]. International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://www.dailybulletin.com/jobs/ci_4706949

Fossil fuel. (2006, November 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:41, November 29, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...&oldid=90778774

Fusion power. (2006, November 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:42, November 29, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...&oldid=90620046

ITER. (2006, November 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:42, November 29, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...&oldid=90754370

IEER Fact Sheet. (2005, July 1). Uranium: Its Uses and Hazards. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/uranium.html

The Columbia Encyclopedia. (2006)
Global Warming. Columbia University Press Encyclopedia. Retrieved November 20, 2006 from Yahoo! Education on the World Wide Web: http://education.yahoo.com/referenc.../entry/globalwa

Tokamak. (2006, November 26). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:43, November 29, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...&oldid=90296398

Yucca Mountain. (2006, November 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:57, November 29, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...&oldid=90407039

___________________

My global warming paper. I truly do hate referencing and citing. It's so complicated. Wish we could just cite wikipedia style with sub-numbers to represent a reference. So I always get penalized for my lack of referencing.

THESIS: One of the main conclusions reached in this case study was that the changes in the environment worldwide which can be attributed to abnormal warming are almost positively human caused. From this conclusion, the study examines possible actions which civilization could take in order to avert environmental catastrophe. Possible actions include doing nothing at all, trading carbon credits, government regulation, and international treaties.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Perils of Global Climate Change

The case study Of Greenhouses and Freezers lays out the scientific case for the causes of global warming and its possible consequences. The study cites numerous scientific authoritative organizations such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to demonstrate the data gathered by scientists really means. According to this study, scientists have come to a general consensus that global warming is real, undeniable, and already upon us in a very tangible way. The ice caps decreasing in size, global temperature rising, decreasing ozone layer, deforestation, and much more are occurring at faster rates as time moves forward. One of the main conclusions reached in this case study was that the changes in the environment worldwide which can be attributed to abnormal warming are almost positively human caused. From this conclusion, the study examines possible actions which civilization could take in order to avert environmental catastrophe. Possible actions include doing nothing at all, trading carbon credits, government regulation, and international treaties.

The primary advocates of the dangers of global warming are the scientists themselves who have enormous volumes of data to support their empirical research. Scientists know more than anyone the current state of the Earth's atmosphere/habitat and can tell us what is likely to happen in the future. The current consensus is that human-caused global warming is going to have adverse effects on the Earth and human civilization within just the next 100-200 years. The worst-case scenario being massive coastal flooding, droughts, floods, desertification, and more. One of the consequences could be the worst refugee crisis ever in the history of mankind. Governments could fall, people could lose everything, wars could flair up over remaining resources, and more could happen. This is a world in which only the wealthiest people can survive and so social order will break down as the lower classes rebel for a share in the remaining resources. This scenario is the worst-case probability and may be unlikely to happen, but with the uncertainties of exact predictions in the weather, one can not say it will not happen.

The other side of the global warming spectrum are the polluters. The polluters are basically everyone but especially heavy industry. Heavy industry is responsible for making the materials we use in daily life such as our cars, clothes, food, housing, energy, etc. Currently, the only way for developed civilizations to continue living the status quo is to continue producing materials in the same polluting ways. Many heavy polluters send lobbyists to Washington such as Philip A. Cooney who currently works for Exxon Mobil (2005). These lobbyists usually try to counter any scientific opinions on global warming with their own industry supported “research”. The current American regime is run by heavy industry insiders and so any environmental reform is unlikely to happen. Some within heavy industry are taking the initiative to reform such as Google Inc., Wal-Mart, and others. A new “green” industry has also begun and is expected to grow exponentially in the next few years as technology improves and living green becomes economically practical. Another industry improvement is the construction of energy efficient homes, offices, and cars. No law will ever persuade enough people to consciously conserve energy which is why energy efficiency is a much more practical measure towards decreasing energy consumption per capita. Much remains to be done though within heavy industry. It is still currently more profitable to continue polluting than not to. A certain degree of socialization may be necessary to progress the massive reforms which are needed to produce a transformed naturally equilibriumized civilization.

Sitting in the middle of the fight over global warming are the governments of the world. It is they who must enforce any policy of reform to curtail the buildup of greenhouse gases. National policy can only go so far. Global warming reform will most inevitably require a joint international effort if civilization is to truly change the course of the climate crisis. The Kyoto Treaty was the first substantial international treaty to set greenhouse gas quotas for developed nations. The treaty has unfortunately not gone far enough because the role of developing nations was left out. This omission has been the cause of the heavy industry controlled American regime's reluctance to agree to abide by the treaty. Europe currently leads the way in global warming reform in their adoption of massive wind farms (offshore & onshore), high petrol taxes, sophisticated mass transit systems, and more. The course a government takes on global warming really depends on who are the leaders of the government. Are the leaders previously from heavy industry? Such realities lead to the current position of the US executive administration which is to protect heavy industry's profits rather than reform them.

The civilizations of most developed countries are hedonistic in their ways. This is not to say they are extravagant in living like rock stars but rather their economies operate in way in which people buy what they need and want. Peoples of developing countries seldom have money to buy what they want. Supplying the unlimited wants of developed countries requires a large polluting heavy industry. One of the aspects of consumption capitalism is the philosophy of anthropocentrism in which human civilization is valued above all else including the environment. This is ideology guiding those countries whose governments are lead by laissez-fair capitalists who would rather leave heavy industry sectors alone. Free-market nations whose social policies are more in line with socialism currently lead the way in energy reform. Many of these leaders have an ecophilosophy in which they realize that human civilization is not a separate entity from the natural environment. Therefore, realizing this truth, it our responsibility as a sophisticated civilization to live in harmony and equilibrium with the natural environment. Most scientists would also subscribe to such an ecological view but from a pragmatic point of view. It is the scientists who gather the data and analyze it in a controlled environment in line with the scientific method. Above all else, the most utilitarian approach is to curtail the effects of global warming now, so as to maximize the potential of human civilization of centuries to come.

References

Revkin, A. (2005) Ex-Bush Aide Who Edited Climate Reports to Join ExxonMobil, New York Times.

___________________

Last edited by Krypton on Jun-06-2008 at 03:41

I was really hoping to get more people involved in this - it loses a bit of its luster if it is just myself and Krypton posting papers back and forth.

___________________

i graduated in 2001, thus most of my stuff would be painfully out of date and nobody wants to read my marxist drivel anyway

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and nobody wants to read my marxist drivel anyway

yes we do you closet leftie.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i graduated in 2001, thus most of my stuff would be painfully out of date and nobody wants to read my marxist drivel anyway

Well, since you have your evenings free, you can cook something up special for us to read.

Op-Ed's are welcome too.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Well, since you have your evenings free, you can cook something up special for us to read. Op-Ed's are welcome too.

hahaha "evenings free" ? i have so much computer game playing to attend to there's hardly enough time to have dinner

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I was really hoping to get more people involved in this - it loses a bit of its luster if it is just myself and Krypton posting papers back and forth.

I'm not required to do many essays in my current course, but here's my most recent one if it helps keep the thread alive:

quote:

For this report, I have chosen to examine the economic mechanisms that underlie the Kyoto Protocol and the economic consequences of its implementation. I believe that this is an important issue, because while few would disagree that a reduction in global carbon emissions is in our best interests, this simple proposition needs to be weighed against the potential costs that such action necessarily engenders, so as to assist us in deciding which path forward is of most direct benefit to our species. Background: On the 11th of December, delegates from the majority of the world’s countries assembled in Kyoto, Japan and agreed on a framework to tackle the problem of global climate change. Noting that the primary cause of warming was the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, the “Kyoto Protocol” called on developed nations (referred to by the proposal as “Annex I” countries) to cut carbon emissions by 5.2% of 1990 levels by 2012, the conclusion of the primary stage of the agreement (UNFCCC (1)). Recognising the disparate contributions made to global carbon emissions among Annex I countries, each nation was given a unique target under the protocol, though certain economic mechanisms were included to help evenly spread the burden between the nations. Market mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol: The Kyoto Protocol contains three major market mechanisms to provide direct economic incentives for countries to achieve (or even out-perform) their emissions targets and to help spread the burden of compliance costs (UNFCCC (2)). These are: · “Emissions Trading”, which allows countries producing less carbon emissions than they are permitted to under their Kyoto Protocol targets to sell their excess emissions units (or “assigned unit amounts” - AAUs) to countries struggling to meet their own targets. This is also known as the “carbon market”. · The “Clean Development Mechanism” (CDM), which allows Annex I countries to offset their own emissions by investing in emissions reduction projects in developing nations. · The “Joint Implementation Mechanism” (JI), which allows Annex I countries to offset their own emissions by investing in emissions reduction projects in other Annex I nations. Such carbon emissions trading schemes represent an attempt to ensure that cuts in emissions are made efficiently and where they can best be afforded (the so-called “where” flexibility of the Protocol). For instance, if the cost of reducing carbon emissions in an Australian factory comes to $150/tonne, the cost of reducing carbon emissions in an equivalent Chinese factory comes to $50/tonne and carbon credits are being sold on the international market for $100/tonne, it would make economic sense for the owner of the Australian factory to purchase carbon credits (which are cheaper than the cost of compliance) from the Chinese factory (where the cost of compliance is cheaper than the cost of the carbon credit). The efficacy of the Kyoto carbon market: While the value of this market is now $64 billion (more than doubling since 2006), there are concerns that its presence is permitting countries to merely defer their obligations to reduce carbon emissions. During the time that the value of the carbon market doubled, emissions in Annex I countries fell by just 7% (BBC News 2008). Additionally, some economists, such as Alan Manne and Richard Richels, note that the efficiency of this system will decline as the market reaches equilibrium, resulting in a reduction in the number of “spare” carbon credits in the market and a consequent increase in their cost. For this reason they project that the annual costs of each country meeting Kyoto targets will grow significantly between 2010 – when they project the market to reach equilibrium - and 2020. The added cost of compliance for business may also have the effect of driving up supply-side inflation (Manne & Richels 2000). However, they also note that the introduction of such carbon-trading schemes will, by the end of the agreement, have likely reduced the cost of target compliance by about 75% when compared to the costs that would be incurred had the protocol been implemented without the provision for carbon trading (ibid.). The inequitable economic costs of target compliance: Despite the existence of global carbon, many economists still argue that the costs of reaching the targets set under the protocol are unevenly distributed. Yale economist Robert O. Mendelsohn, for instance, argues that the cost required for the US to reach its targets under the protocol would be about 20 times that of the EU (Mendelsohn 2005). In a similar vain, many critics of the Kyoto Protocol point to the exclusion of developing economies from the agreement as another example of an inequitable distribution in the cost of carbon-emission abatement. While China is now the world’s greatest carbon emitter, responsible for nearly a tenth of global output (Guardian 2007) and has been increasing emissions at more than three times the rate of the United States since 1990 (47% increase versus 16% increase) (EIA 2007) China has no binding targets under the present agreement. Much of political resistance to Kyoto in the US (and previously in Australia as well) can be traced back to this perceived inequality in the economic costs of target compliance. Bjorn Lomborg: Are the costs of Kyoto compliance too great? Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg views the Kyoto protocol as both an inefficient and ineffective mechanism for dealing with the problem of climate change. Much of his criticism is based on his perception that the economic costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol far outweigh the potential benefits. He cites an IPCC report, which suggests that the global economic cost of inaction on climate change would total about $5 trillion dollars, but he puts the cost of implementing the Kyoto Protocol targets up until the end of the century at about $107 trillion, which would have the effect of merely delaying the inevitable effects of global warming by 6 years (Lomborg 2002). In other words, according to Lomborg the costs of inaction would actually be far smaller than the costs of continuing with the Kyoto Protocol targets to the end of the century. As he puts it in his magnum opus, The Skeptical Environmentalist: “…since the CO2 emissions of the OECD countries would otherwise have continuously increased, keeping the Kyoto promise and staying 5.2 percent below 1990 levels will really mean making deeper and deeper cuts, such that in 2050 the entire OECD must have cut its ‘natural’emissions by more than 50 percent.” By this time, he estimates that the costs of compliance for OECD nations will total more than $900 billion annually (Lomborg 2001 (1)). As a consequence, he believes that attempts to stave off the negative effects of global warming would be far better served by investing in the research of renewable energies and in third-world aid (as he believes that the most severe consequences of global warming will be felt in developing countries), which currently totals about $50 billion dollars annually (about one sixth the current estimate of the amount being spent on Kyoto compliance) (Lomborg 2001 (2)). Criticisms of Lomborg’s Position: Many critics note that much Lomborg’s future projections of the cost of the Kyoto framework rest on the assumption that it will be extended beyond its current expiry date of 2012 (up to, in Lomborg’s calculations, the end of this century). As environmental scientist Stephen Schneider puts it: “Lomborg’s creation of a 100-year regime for a decade-long protocol is a distortion of the climate policy process… Kyoto is a starting point” (Schneider 2002). As such, the exorbitant cost projections Lomborg places on keeping emissions at Kyoto’s 1990 levels may not be accurate. Similarly, there is evidence to suggest that Lomborg may be unjustifiably downplaying the consequences of inaction on global climate change. As environmental scientist Eban Goodstein puts it, the trouble with his estimation of the cost of inaction totalling just $5 trillion is “that Lomborg ignores the main concern driving the debate. Incredibly, he never mentions even the possibility that the world might heat up more than 4.7 degrees. Although he claims IPCC science as gospel… the IPCC provides a range of up to 10.5 degrees -- more than double the number on which Lomborg bases his entire argument” (Goodstein 2007). The Stern Review, using assumptions that more accurately reflect the conclusions reached by the IPCC in their 2007 report, estimates that the cost of inaction may total up to 20% of global GDP by the end of the century (Stern 2006). Finally, while Lomborg’s concerns about investment in foreign aid and renewable energy are laudable, there is no reason to believe that such investment is threatened by the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, the CDM within the Kyoto Protocol rewards investment in developing nations, and even with the Kyoto Protocol in place, global investment in renewable energy research is tipped to reach $750 billion annually by 2016 (about two and a half times the estimate Lomborg gives for the annual cost of compliance with Kyoto targets) (Ernst & Young 2007). Conclusion: There is little doubt that the Kyoto Protocol represents an imperfect and costly attempt to deal with the issue climate change. Despite the implementation of economic mechanisms that reward target compliance and encourage sharing the economic burden of making emission cuts across all nations, there is evidence to suggest that the protocol’s impact on carbon emissions is modest and that inequitable burdens are being placed on some individual nations. As Lomborg rightly points out, the cost of implementing the Kyoto Protocol – when compared to the costs of other immediate priorities – is high. However, given the urgency of the problem of global climate change, there is little doubt that immediate action – in the context of an internationally binding framework – needs to be taken. In lieu of any better frameworks currently presenting themselves, the Kyoto Protocol still represents our best present chance of tackling climate change and this in itself justifies its global implementation. References: BBC News (2008) – “Carbon market's value hits $64bn” BBC News Website: Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7388035.stm Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2007) - H.1co2 World Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption and Flaring of Fossil Fuels, 1980-2005 International Energy Annual 2005. Available: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/internat.../tableh1co2.xls Ernst & Young (2007) – “Global investment in renewable energy to hit $750bn by 2016”: Ernst & Young Website: Available: http://www.ey.com/global/content.ns...Indices_Q2_2007 Goodstein, Eban (2007) – Hot Air: Salon Website: Available: http://www.salon.com/books/review/2007/08/29/cool_it/ Guardian Online (2007) – “China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter” Guardian Website: Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...19/china.usnews Lomborg, Bjorn (2001 (1)) - The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World: Cambridge University Press. Lomborg, Bjorn (2001 (2)) - Global Warming – Are We Doing the Right Thing? White Paper: Available: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-fil.../14/warming.pdf Lomborg, Bjorn (2002) – Kyoto: Costs vs. Benefits AEI-Brookings Joint Center Discussion, April 8th 2002. Manne, Alan & Richels, Richard (2000) – The Kyoto Protocol: A Cost-Effective Strategy for Meeting Environmental Objectives? Efficiency and Equity of Climate Change Policy: Springer. Mendelsohn, Robert O. (2005) - An Economist's View of the Kyoto Climate Treaty NPR Website: Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/...storyId=4504298 Schneider, Steven (2002) – Global Warming – Neglecting the Complexities: Scientific American, January 2002 issue. Stern, Nicholas (2006) - The Economics of Climate Change (The Stern Review): Cambridge University Press. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Website (UNFCCC): Available: http://www.unfccc.int/ · Pages referenced: 1) http://unfccc.int/cop3/fccc/info/indust.htm 2) http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I'm not required to do many essays in my current course, but here's my most recent one if it helps keep the thread alive:

It's a good read though - I have to admit that though I am familiar with the Kyoto Protocol in principle, this helped out a lot with the details!

I'll get it up asap

___________________

Interesting stuff, I'm writing up a paper at the moment about Dental x-rays, might post it on here but theres a chance its going into the British Medical Journal so I cant go pasting it here

___________________
ID THESE TRACKS PLEASE

IDing tracks is like having sex, the more you get the happier you'll be!!

Want to download a Digweed set? TA ID HUNT!

Too bad you don't know Swedish, I could post a few interesting papers and op-eds