Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by justadude on February 24, 2011 at 11:23pm

 

 

 

Climate change theory has proved itself valid. In the 80's it predicted the current climate. That is a way of proofing a theory, that it does predict the future accurately.

 

 

Man-made global warming is not a fact.  Climate change is a fact.  Climate change has been a fact throughout human history.  Climates have changed long before humans existed.  So how am I wrong that man-made global warming is an unprovable premise?  On another note, psychics predict the future not climate change theory.  This theory from what I understand is based on evidence collected from our natural world.  I must confess that I am skeptical that you know the difference between man-made global warming and climate change.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rodrica Davis on February 24, 2011 at 11:28pm

I wouldn't say that you are wrong but I would say that you have a made a lofty claim that needs justification. To say that man-made global warming is "unprovable" is extraordinary. You are basically saying that we can't ever prove that man is having an effect. That is what "unprovable" means. I ask you to justify the claim that we can't ever prove that man is effecting the climate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by justadude on February 25, 2011 at 12:04am

I must accept that you are correct.  I was referring to a previous statement made by another poster.  I would rather say that man-made climate change has not been proven.  I would also say that the evidence is miniscule.  However the evidence that climates change is enormous.

Permalink Reply by justadude on February 24, 2011 at 11:56pm

It is a theory, a fact?  And who is the little boy?  Who has been watching Al Gore?  In case you needed clarification theories and facts are different things.  If climates have changed throughout history and they continue to change are we also responsible for past changes?  Not to burst your little bubble but no evidence exists that humans have any bearing on climate change.  Does this mean that we do not affect climate change? NO!  Unfortunately for some  I require actual evidence before I proclaim something is fact.  A prophet in the church of environmentalism such as James Hansen does nothing to prove anything except that people are still gullible enough to believe unscientific claims.

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on February 25, 2011 at 9:54am

Climates have changed long before humans existed.

 

Justadud, how can you possibly know that, and why do you believe it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 24, 2011 at 4:38pm

I think we need to seperate environmentalism and Environmentalism, as in those who attempt to reduce our impact on the environment vs those who treat the environment as a deity which humanity is sinning against.

Some examples of things which generally hurt the environment rather then help it, but is high on the Environmentalist list are:

Locally grown food - smaller production units decreases efficiency.

Recycling - remelting glass is no better than melting new sand. Paper should be burned and ashes sent to foresting areas (naturs way of solving it).

Solar panels- requires massive amounts of energy to produce vs gain from operation.

Hydroelectric - massive local habitat destruction.

Low energy bulbs - silly in areas where your house is heated for 9 months out of the year.

Hybrid cars - has a substantially higher environmetal impact in production and higway mileage is no better than a regular car.

But misunderstand me correctly, I have nothing against environmentalism; I am opposed to Environmentalism gone avry - when the focus is on the problem and not solutions. Personally, I do my utmost to reduce my impact, and I am a supporter of carbon taxation, pesticide reduction, heavy fines for pollution, I eat little meat etc.

Also, this was only part of the question I posed. We all know that a number of religious people are impervious to reason due to their strongly held conviction, I just find that a number of non-religious people are equally impervious to reason in non-religious matters for the very same reason.

 

Edit: To move the discussion a bit forward. In Europe many people believe the healthcare service should be wholly government run. In the US many believe the government should have nothing to do with the healthcare service at all. Both sides present the most horrid picture of what will happen if even parts of the opposite system is imposed, and blankly refuses to accept any evidence that there are positive and negative aspects of both.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on February 24, 2011 at 6:15pm

those who treat the environment as a deity which humanity is sinning against.

 

We are completely dependent upon our environment for life. When we "sin" against the environment, we "sin" against ourselves.

 

Locally grown food - smaller production units decreases efficiency.

 

No it doesn't. Small farms use equipment and transport in ways that are equal to the task.

 

Recycling - remelting glass is no better than melting new sand. Paper should be burned and ashes sent to foresting areas (naturs way of solving it).

 

Recycling glass may not be cleaner (I'm not sure), but it keeps it out of the landfill. Paper can be composted, but paper also contains a lot more chemicals than just plain ol' wood does. Converting it to ash and not using it again seems silly (and desperate on your part).

 

Solar panels- requires massive amounts of energy to produce vs gain from operation.

 

Based on what evidence?

 

Hydroelectric - massive local habitat destruction.

 

Agreed.

 

Low energy bulbs - silly in areas where your house is heated for 9 months out of the year.

 

Why is it silly? And not everyone needs to heat for 9 months anyhow.

 

Hybrid cars - has a substantially higher environmetal impact in production and higway mileage is no better than a regular car.

 

Production, since it is so low, may not be as efficient right now. And yes, the batteries are an issue, but if it uses less gas than a regular car, you still save emissions in use.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 25, 2011 at 11:34am

Locally grown food: "Consumers are increasingly being told that “local” foods—typically regarded as those grown within 100 miles of the point of purchase—are environmentally superior to foods that are grown farther away. But research suggests that this is not the case (Shimizu and Desrochers, 2008). The transport of agricultural products actually accounts for a relatively small proportion of the total energy-related emissions generated in food production (Weber and Matthews, 2008). In fact, in many instances, imports have a smaller environmental “footprint” than locally produced food."

Glass could essentially be dumped into the deep ocean and return in a few millenia as sand. Paper should probably be burned and the ashes returned to the foresting areas so similate nature's way of recycling. Metals should of course be recycled. Plastics can be burned to produce energy and reduce landfills.

"New research shows, albeit unintentional, that generating electricity with solar panels can also be a very bad idea. In some cases, producing electricity by solar panels releases more greenhouse gases than producing electricity by gas or even coal." http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/03/the-ugly-side-o.html

In much of Europe and the US it is cold 7-10 months out of the year. A regular light bulb demands less resources to produce and does not contain heavy metals such as mercury and quicksilver. It burnes much more energy, the vast majority being turned into heat, which essentially only reduces the heating bill. In warmer regions the low energy bulbs make sense, but not in i.e. Northern Europe or Canada.

I can't find the study at the moment, but someone had calculated the life cycle environmental impact of different car models. As I recall it was the VW Polo which was the least polluting. It would be much better for the environment if people did not lug around 4 unused seats and a few m2 of empty air at all time.

 

I didn't really want to discuss the environment, but it is a good example that people become dogmatic to the point where suboptimal solutions are preferred because the sides have become too entrenched.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on February 25, 2011 at 8:46pm

"locally grown" has different cost analyses considering location and product. No single study trying to make grand declarations can have any value. Growing locally is NOT only about carbon footprint, it is about divulging of information and local economies. Cash crops do not benefit anyone other than a few corporations, that does not help humans.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 25, 2011 at 3:24pm

Locally grown food: Added a link a previous post with claims the exact opposite. There is no definate proof that locally grown food tastes better or is healthier.

Glass and paper recycling have been the subject of other posts, a number of which disproves your claim. Though for glass, reusing is an alternative which is undeniably very good.

Solar panels: Extracting, refining, and melting silisium are all very high impact activities. They are a good idea in sunny (desert) areas, but in Europe, which can be blanketed by clouds for a large part of the year, they are not a solution.

If I replace 400 watts of regular lightbulbs with 100w low energy bulbs (which contains heavy metals), I will just crank up whichever other heating device I have. 95% of the power drawn by regular bulbs are emitted as heat. In warm areas where the a/c blasts for much of the year, low energy bulbs are of course a very good solution.

Much of car emissions happens in the production of cars. Someone has found out  that it takes 113 BTUs to produce a Prius. A Highlander takes 107 BTUs. A small clean diesel car has much higher MPGs than a Prius, and much lower energy requirements to produce.

 

If you truly want to support the environment, start with yourself. Get a job close to where you live or vice versa, so you can walk or ride a bike. You choose where you live and you choose where you work. Eat meat at most twice a week, livestock are a major source of pollution. Eat more legumes, they are good for you and have a low environmental impact. Eat 20% than the recommended daily intake, you will feel better and live longer. Buy a smaller car, how often do you really need 5 seats? Don't buy more clothes than you can wear.

My recommendations will lead to a reduction in consumption, which is really the major cause of environmental issues. Most of the bigger topics above are only fixes so we can continue overconsumption - but they are the ones which seem to engange people.

 

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 25, 2011 at 4:41pm

Much of car emissions happens in the production of cars. Someone has found out  that it takes 113 BTUs to produce a Prius. A Highlander takes 107 BTUs. A small clean diesel car has much higher MPGs than a Prius, and much lower energy requirements to produce.

 

Generally, it's not enough to just think in the present.  I would think that the rate of technological development applied to hybrid cars would typically be commensurate with economic incentive.  Wide scale commercial production of hybrids is still fairly new.  There are likely considerable gains still to be made in improving efficiency in production and in vehicle performance.

 

The article ran the comparison of buying a new Prius vs. a Used Corolla.  It's an interesting comparison, but if we're going to do this as a means of comparing environmental impact, New Priuses will also enter into the used market in their life cycle as well.

 

You mentioned buying a diesel, but with the right market support, electric/ diesel hybrids will be made available.  Coca-Cola already uses this technology in some of their trucks.  VW had already made a Golf electric/ diesel hybrid (not sure if it's on the market yet).  It takes time for technologies to develop and improve.  We can't start at the finish, nor can we be excessively conservative in adopting new technologies.

 

I suppose other factors to take into consideration is that not all energy consumption is equal.  Without knowing the energy source during production, it's hard to do a direct environmental comparison.

 

Exercising some low level google-fu (have to get back to work) I found the following article: source: inautonews.com

 

The Tsutsumi plant in Japan is one of five Toyota global Eco-Factories (Burnaston in the UK is another) that are designed to minimise environmental impact and develop best practices for adoption elsewhere.It has held the ISO14001 “green standard” for environmental management since 1996, pioneering innovations in energy saving, waste management and recycling.

 

Just as new Prius can use solar energy to keep its cabin cool when parked, Tsutsumi meets half its electricity requirements with a 50,000m2 array of solar panels that can generate 2,000kW of energy an hour. The rest of its energy demands are met by an efficient gas co-generation system.

 

To ensure only as much power as needed is used, energy-saving lighting has been installed and patrols are carried out to monitor usage. A control system cuts electricity use when the plant is non-operational and the building of sunlight ducts allows more natural light to be introduced into working areas.

 

Even the building itself helps clean up the local environment, with 22,000m2 of the assembly plant being covered in photocatalytic paint. This reacts to sunlight by releasing active oxygen into the atmosphere, which helps break down harmful substances such as nitrogen oxides (NOx). To help offset CO2 emissions, Tsutsumi workers and people from the local community joined forces to plant 50,000 trees around the factory site in 2008.

 

Tsutsumi sends no waste to landfill and cut the amount that is incinerated by 82 per cent to 730 tonnes between 1999 and 2006, with the future goal of reducing that figure to zero.

 

Between 2003 and 2007 CO2 emissions from the plant were reduced by 36 per cent. During the same period, the total amount of waste produced was reduced by 21 per cent between; use of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was down by 48 per cent; and 14 per cent less water was used.

 

Now, does that suddenly mean that the Prius is the right choice?  Of course not.  It's circumstantial.  People's needs and considerations are all different.  To me, the important thing is that consumers do some level of research.  Perhaps they don't make the best choice, but if they consistently make good choices, that creates a frame work in which we can collectively make progress.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daria Black on February 25, 2011 at 3:55pm

Great points Neal.

 

I think a lot of people forget that environmentalism is still new to us. It's going to take awhile before everything is as efficient as can be.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page