No Global Warming, orly?

[IndiReloaded]

Solar makes sense. Are you collecting your rainwater? That would make the water consumption moot.

[MaidenMinx]

Solar makes sense. Are you collecting your rainwater? That would make the water consumption moot.

Not as yet. Need the tanks for that. Even though I am in suburbia my aim is to get my home as self sufficient as possible. If it wasn't hubbys family home I'd be pushing to sell up and buy a block of land with a patch of creek on it. We all have to work with what we have though and what I have is sufficient for what I need.

[Mish]

why concentrate on the future when we are having people die in the present? shouldn't we invest our time, money and energy into helping out our generation, instead of complaining about the future of the earth. after all no one really knows what's going to happen to it in the near future. one natural disaster and we all may be gone.
i say F**K global warming and let's live in the present.

Our generation is affected by global warming as well, things will get worse for all of us if we just seat on our hands

Here's a fun question, environment can survive without us, can we survive without the environment?

[Sonrisa]

Our generation is affected by global warming as well, things will get worse for all of us if we just seat on our hands

Here's a fun question, environment can survive without us, can we survive without the environment?

I personally am not affected by the global warming. However I am sure that nature will have it's way to protect herself and destroy us on a needed basis.

The logical answer is we can't survive without the environment.

[HeartIsAching]

You are mixing arguments, HIA. While your comments are correct you need to decide WHICH issue you care about. Mercury from CFLs is a concern but a very different one from GHG levels... CFLs use less power and therefore, for place like the US which are ~ 60% coal, a good thing to be using. Less power consumption = less GHG from coal-fired power plants. Same argument for electric batteries in EVs. You are right about making them in China and shipping them here by tanker tho.

I'm pro NG vehicles. At least for now, and NOW is what is needed to stop pumping GHG into the atmosphere. I think we are already going to hit 450 ppm no matter what (did you read about the gianormous iceberg off Newfoundland on its way down the E. Coast?) Immediate 20% decrease in CO2, easy conversions, locally available energy (NA has a lot of NG)... TIME to develop the electric tech. Ultimately tho, that's the way to go. Bicycles when you can. Personally, I'm waiting for the first of these:

[url=http://www.aptera.com/]Aptera Homepage | Aptera Motors[/url]

No, I don't believe I need to decide which issue I care about. On one hand, carbon emissions are a serious problem, but I'm not convinced they're the paramount problem. Besides that, becoming less dependent on oil is at least as important for transportation, which is fairly easily achievable. On the other hand, heavy metal poisoning of the environment is VERY important for the immediate future. Heavy metals don't go away, they accumulate.

CFL's are a dead-end as far as environmental friendliness is concerned - they're touted as lasting up to 10X longer than incandescent bulbs, but the reality is THEY DON'T. They're sensitive to fluctuations in current, and burn out almost as quickly as incandescents. I agree that pollution from electric power production is an issue, but that's a solvable issue, as has been amply demonstrated in parts of the U.S., and in many industrialized foreign countries. Unless they can make CFL's that REALLY last 10X longer than a conventional bulb, and produce them in such a way as to not release toxic chemicals and heavy metals into the environment, they're a crap solution. As far as lighting goes, LED's are a better (though still infant) solution. They ACTUALLY last much longer than conventional lights, and use far less power than either fluorescent or incandescent.

As far as fuel for vehicles goes, in my opinion natural gas is simply trading one finite resource for another. Several other possibilities exist that are far better solutions, but are not being exploited yet. For example, rotting organic material (or more precisely, the bacteria causing the rot) naturally produces methane, a flammable gas. Ever driven by a dump and seen the pipes with flames coming off the top? Why the hell are we wasting that? Why aren't we piling waste organics from farms and collecting the gasses as they rot?

Alcohol is another possibility - but in the U.S. with subsidies for corn, we achieve at best about a 1:1 ratio for fuel used to fuel produced, which is a zero sum game. Using other sugar-producing plants like beets or sugar cane, far better ratios are achievable, but still not enough for our consumption... and certainly not enough if we continue to subsidize corn.

And I think you missed my point entirely - if you're concerned about it enough to harass other people, then DO something about it. If you're not doing anything about it, in my opinion you're (and I don't mean you personally) are just moving hot air around. In my way, I do my part, and I don't hassle (usually) other people about their use.

[IndiReloaded]

No, I don't believe I need to decide which issue I care about. On one hand, carbon emissions are a serious problem, but I'm not convinced they're the paramount problem.

I posted imprecisely. I meant that you are mixing up issues. Rising atmospheric carbon IS one of the most important problems we are facing as a global society. Despite the imprecision of the IPCC report (which isn't a scientific body, they just collate and report the data) the scientists are clear on the matter. They (we) are damned worried. GHG is the paramount problem. Mercury levels are nothing in comparison. Same for those who worry about radiation disasters from nuclear plants and continue to vote for politicians who support coal plants. Ignorant fools.

Note that I applaud your efforts to get off the grid and reduce your consumption. Everyone should follow your example. But your efforts are for nothing if you aren't clear in your own mind as to the 'why' behind your efforts. The goal is (or should be) to reduce GHG (and water vapour) levels and yesterday isn't too soon. Your comment about CFLs vs. LEDs etc is fine (and correct) but meaningless w/o understanding how society adopts changes in technology. Or don't. People won't pay for LEDs but they will buy CFLs, which do use less energy. 20% of something is better than 100% of nothing, especially as we approach that 450ppm limit.

If you want to argue the science, no problem. I have a pretty good handle on what is current (I was just at an energy summit w/some of the high-profile players in this area). Just don't quote wikipedia.

[MaidenMinx]

I think Indi, for those of us without scientific minds the whole environmental thing comes under one heading and that is that. I will admit here I am assuming everyone else thinks like me. Ha! Though I am sure I am not the only person who can't think global warming without thinking of the destruction of the oceans, the disappearing species- and on the flip side the introduced problem species, the depletion of natural resources and all the rest. I know I will never get my head around the science of it but to me, everything is all connected.

[IndiReloaded]

Its very simple, Minx. Rising GHG = increased temperatures around the globe. This means places won't be able to grow crops, food becomes increasingly scarce and people are going to die. Lots of them.

Sorry for the doom and gloom, but this is what is coming for us. Not a question of IF any more, but when. Some of the warming is due to periodic cycles of things like solar activity but humans releasing huge amounts of fixed carbon (ie. oil, coal, gas) is making the problem worse.

The temperature change means that weather will get strange. The warming won't be the same everywhere but the average will be up. Lots of dire models for oceans dying, algae and microbial chains being destroyed, which means everything else will go also. On the other hand, plants will grow like crazy w/more atmospheric carbon. Provided we don't cut them all down first. You get the idea.

[IndiReloaded]

but to me, everything is all connected.

There is connection. But my point is that it doesn't matter saving the monkeys in borneo if we continue to ship huge amounts of coal that gets burned to GHG to make electricity. Australia, much?

[MaidenMinx]

*sigh* Why on earth did I have a child?

One question for all participants of this thread...
What saddens you more, that humanity is on the path to make itself an extinct species?
OR the fact that we have hurt the planet and ALL it's in habitants this badly?

[Lipp]

There is connection. But my point is that it doesn't matter saving the monkeys in borneo if we continue to ship huge amounts of coal that gets burned to GHG to make electricity. Australia, much?

This. It's pretty annoying to see global warming being used as a bandwagon for to promote all manner of conservation and resource consumption efforts, regardless of how distant they may be.

[MaidenMinx]

There is connection. But my point is that it doesn't matter saving the monkeys in borneo if we continue to ship huge amounts of coal that gets burned to GHG to make electricity. Australia, much?

Hey, we just introduced a carbon tax (that half the country is kicking up a stink about. I don't think our first female Prime Minister is likely to get re-elected because of it). Defensive, much? Heh :p

One thing I will give the animal activists is they are usually 'green' thinking people anyway. And after seeing Stephen Frys series Last Chance To See, I'd rather save the Kakapo than the monkeys. (j/k)

I understand your point though. It sometimes seems that the planet is such a mess that no amount of work will clean it up. *pout*

[IndiReloaded]

This. It's pretty annoying to see global warming being used as a bandwagon for to promote all manner of conservation and resource consumption efforts, regardless of how distant they may be.

Exactly. Its about priorities and where to put our effort. Of course, HIA has a point, tho he didn't state it explicitly: CFLs should have been bypassed to LED. If there had been the political will (and knowledge) perhaps by now the tech would be cheap enough so everyone is using it. In fact, there are wireless lighting technologies now available (but very expensive). Same argument for the electric car. But pointing fingers and looking back doesn't get us lower GHG NOW. We must live in the present when solving problems.

[HeartIsAching]

I posted imprecisely. I meant that you are mixing up issues. Rising atmospheric carbon IS one of the most important problems we are facing as a global society. Despite the imprecision of the IPCC report (which isn't a scientific body, they just collate and report the data) the scientists are clear on the matter. They (we) are damned worried. GHG is the paramount problem. Mercury levels are nothing in comparison. Same for those who worry about radiation disasters from nuclear plants and continue to vote for politicians who support coal plants. Ignorant fools.

Note that I applaud your efforts to get off the grid and reduce your consumption. Everyone should follow your example. But your efforts are for nothing if you aren't clear in your own mind as to the 'why' behind your efforts. The goal is (or should be) to reduce GHG (and water vapour) levels and yesterday isn't too soon. Your comment about CFLs vs. LEDs etc is fine (and correct) but meaningless w/o understanding how society adopts changes in technology. Or don't. People won't pay for LEDs but they will buy CFLs, which do use less energy. 20% of something is better than 100% of nothing, especially as we approach that 450ppm limit.

If you want to argue the science, no problem. I have a pretty good handle on what is current (I was just at an energy summit w/some of the high-profile players in this area). Just don't quote wikipedia.

Isn't the IPCC the idiots that had their servers hacked and had something like 60MB's of data leaked that showed they were discarding data that didn't fit their preferred findings? Their report isn't "suspect" it's horseshit through and through. That's not science, it's politics.

As I said, I don't DISBELIEVE, but I don't believe either. I'm still on the fence, and whether or not it's "clear in my mind", my efforts are not worth nothing.

The reason I'm more concerned with CFL's is that the threat of a broken bulb IN MY HOUSE is immediate. Do I want to expose my children to that? The reason I'm less concerned about using more electricity in a conventional bulb isn't because I'm unconcerned with usage, but because electric production pollution is a SOLVABLE problem. I don't believe we can solve it by "cutting back" - you're never going to get people to do that consistently. If you want to solve the problem, you fix the root of it, not the end result. That to me means Hydroelectric (fought tooth and nail by environMENTALists), Nuclear (again, fought by whack-jobs), Wind (yet again), Solar, Geo-Thermal and of course, production of or use of renewable resources like methane and alcohol.

Do I want to promote living simply and encourage others to use less? You bet. I personally feel that the best way to do that is to set the example, and when people ask as they inevitably do, I tell them - AND I tell them about the parts that will be REALLY relevant to their daily lives - like the fact that I'm 35Lbs. lighter than I was 3 years ago, and haven't changed my diet, except for cutting out most sugar, and the fact that every time I go to the grocery store, I save about $3.50 in gasoline... or to the EZ Mart, or the laundromat. We also make our own laundry detergent, BTW. People ask us all the time about our savings and my wife's work mates are starting to consider riding their bikes, as they've noted her weight loss. Those things are the things that get people's attention.

So I go my way, do my thing, and when people ask, I tell them. It seems to get results.

[IndiReloaded]

Isn't the IPCC the idiots that had their servers hacked and had something like 60MB's of data leaked that showed they were discarding data that didn't fit their preferred findings? Their report isn't "suspect" it's horseshit through and through. That's not science, it's politics.

If you want to start discussing 'preferred findings' then you are nothing more than a nutcase conspiracy theorist. Have you actually read any of their reports yourself? Or, more importantly, the basic science data they are based on? Its NOT horseshit, tho some of their people are certainly idiots and have done dumb things, like their predictions on glacier melts.

I have no problem stating that. There are are idiots running the admin of entire universities and countries. That doesn't make the ACTUAL WORK the scientists do garbage. I'm talking about the actual science. I'm posting from direct knowledge and experience. I know you aren't a scientist, but try to at least use some common sense. Stop reading wikipedia (or whatever source) to look up your answer before posting. Just say you don't know.