Forums → WEPR → Environmentalism
| 86 | 25511 |
I think its gone to far, and that it is starting to severely affect our economy. Your thoughts?
- 86 Replies
It's not only about the inventions and the energy, it's also about the whole sustainability and resulting behaviours. For example, instead of buying meat being mass-produced and shipped across half of the world, you buy meat at a local butcher who gets the meat from a local farmer.
How does that help sustainability? Besides, I do live in Montana, where cows outnumber people 2/1, and are not mass produced. It would be inefficient not to eat them, even McDonald uses "local" cows.
Or in cities, around here there's a trend to buy vegetable more at the markets and at stores who get them from the surrounding area, instead of buying them at bigger food chains.
I could see that helping the small country, but how does that effect the environment?
Well in my country it doesn't make a huuuge difference since it's relatively small, but it still reduces transports->ollution, and it helps the local structures and the small and medium-sized businesses; which is good for the economy. In France for example, they put too much on the bigger enterprises and not enough on the multitude of smaller ones; you see where that brought their economy...
How so? Don't the small companies still have to transport just as many goods?
Regardless that it doesn't help the economy at the moment, helping the environment via sustainable development will save our planet in the future.
Then say that, instead of saying that it will aid the economy.
Over the next hundred or so years, the global temperature could increase by 5 degrees Celsius (41 F). This may not seem like a lot but the temperature of a City like New York which isn't relatively hot compared to the rest of the World will be a hot as the Sahara desert during the summer.
Source?
Other than that, it will also mean that areas once 5 degrees to cold will now be accessible, correct? Witch means more crop land, more food, and less hunger.
What's worse is if the global temperature increased by 2 C (37 F), 30 to 200 million people dependant on agriculture (such as people living in Africa would starve).
....Everyone...Is...Dependent...On...Agriculture. Where. In. Hell. are. you. getting. This?
What makes Africa more dependent on agriculture then the rest of the world? And wouldn't higher temperatures mean better crops? Or are you saying crop production would be down so that 200 million people would be unable to feed themselves? Where do you get this statistic?
Yes greener energies cost more and it may be a pain but hydrogen powered cars are cheaper than oil and petrol which are both rising in cost by the day and hydrogen won't run out.
Your contradicting yourself. Are they cheaper or not?
Hydrogen powered cars, in the modern day, are inferior to oil cars in every way. They are more expensive, weaker, more dangerous, and whatever you can have you. Most people sponsoring it say it would take forty years for it to be at a point where it would have a significant impact on global worming. How is a viable option at this moment?
We have a moral responsibility to our future generations and we must start now before it's too late. Most of the countries of the World are making doing what they can to stop messing things up for the next generation, why can't those who don't care for the environment accept the fact that it is a necessity that we can't ignore?
Most of the countries in the world can not afford to care like we can. I don't know why you think they do, but for the most part, only the industrialized western world seems to care about the environment at all, those poor places like the Africans you mentioned really don't care.
It is. But if you're using electricity like nobody's business, or insist on driving large cars, of course you're going to feel the pinch. Almost no one consumes energy per capita on the same scale as America does.
That was not the point. The point was he was saying that the people where making "Overpriced oil deals", witch as we both know is simply not true.
Obama already is. The plain cold fact is that America simply does not have enough. It might have enough to sustain itself in the really short run, but oil is finite, and pretty soon will be used up. Better to swallow some pain now and develop technologies instead of relying on fossil fuel.
Really? I have always heard that it was somewhere between 1.442 trillion barrels and 198 billion barrels, depending on what we are calling "recoverable oil". And America only uses what, 18 million a day?
France for example, runs on 78% nuclear energy. That is a remarkable achievement in itself.
While impressive, you must take into account that France uses far less energy than the U.S. For example, the U.S produces more energy from nuclear power then France does, but it doesn't even cover 20% of our energy needs.
Many may view this true, but try convincing the people with the power and money to make it happen. It just isn't cost-effective, or else we would have switched to greener options long ago. These companies are all about profit. If they can make more dough using resources that punch the Earth, they're all for it. Now, not every single company does this, but I'd venture to say it is true in quite a few cases.
Why shouldn't they be all about profit? It is their job, after all, and there is no real reason they should give up millions of dollars for a small impact...
Which means the average summer temperature of the actual Sahara will be 135 F, and the average winter temperature will scrape 100 F. In the past hundred years, the earth has heated up 1.33 F. Saying the average temperature of earth will go up 41 F means we'll all die. And, if we were going to all roast in the coming century, I assume more would be taking place in the 'green' effort. I'm skeptical of this data. Besides, even if there is a site where this can be found, you can find dozens of different data options on dozens of different views and opinions on global warming, or the myth of.
I am confused on what you are trying to say here.
My bet is that it might expand in the long run if other sources can't be utilised fully. Solar energy still isn't cost-efficient, wind/hydro isn't possible everywhere, so the other alternative after fossil fuels runs out is possibly nuclear, also given the fact that using corn and maize on biofuels is a crap idea.
So your saying that nuclear energy is the only viable output? Doesn't that have a large chance of catastrophic consequences if it is not taken completely and utterly seriously? I am sure Japan would agree that nuclear power can be dangerous, the recent earthquakes have shown such.
If we end in a ball of sun-caused fire or nuclear fire, it would really be the same in the end, wouldn't it?
Alaska's reserves are tiny compared to world output. Current estimates in the NPR is less than a billion. Other than the fact that the USA will still need to import, even as it drills more simply due to huge demand, the fact remains that oil prices will not dip and decrease even if America drills more, simply because oil is a global commodity. It is traded at a world price, and no single country other than Saudi Arabia has enough clout to change this price.
Like I said, we have many billions or even over a trillion, if we are willing to work for it.
How does that help sustainability? Besides, I do live in Montana, where cows outnumber people 2/1, and are not mass produced. It would be inefficient not to eat them, even McDonald uses "local" cows.
It helps because it strenghtens the smaller networks instead of relying too much on a few big food chains.
Not everyone lives in Montana with two cows to keep company, so what did you expect by posting that?
I could see that helping the small country, but how does that effect the environment?
Because of the transportation? Also maybe smaller farmers may be more receptive to environmental sensibilisation.
How so? Don't the small companies still have to transport just as many goods?
They do, but usually a shorter way. Everything I just said aims to say: keep it small, keep it local. Like, don't eat Spanish tomatoes in Winter..
And wouldn't higher temperatures mean better crops?
Water is the key. Desertification doesn't help crops, really. And what good is it for Africa to become dependent of crops grown in northern countries? Transport will raise the costs even more.
France for example, runs on 78% nuclear energy. That is a remarkable achievement in itself.
Yeah, and the amounts of nuclear waste that land in the nature is remarkable as well...
It helps because it strenghtens the smaller networks instead of relying too much on a few big food chains.
How does that help the environment?
Not everyone lives in Montana with two cows to keep company, so what did you expect by posting that?
We get all our food locally, since that is the biggest source of food. Food chains even get food locally.
Or are you saying that for some reason we would be using them as emergency food supply? Relatively low density and relatively high cow population, as well as the fact that ranges are located all around the state, means that yes, we could pretty much just go out and get two cows a piece if for some reason we needed to.
Because of the transportation? Also maybe smaller farmers may be more receptive to environmental sensibilisation.
Big companies have to transport the same amount as little companies, if anything big companies save MORE by transporting in larger packages, meaning it takes less trips and thus less gas to feed the populace. They may be more receptive, but they may also be less receptive, after all no one is going to call them on it...
They do, but usually a shorter way. Everything I just said aims to say: keep it small, keep it local. Like, don't eat Spanish tomatoes in Winter..
I can't afford to eat food out of season, who do you think I am? Bill Gates?
Why would it be a shorter way to transport?
Water is the key. Desertification doesn't help crops, really. And what good is it for Africa to become dependent of crops grown in northern countries? Transport will raise the costs even more.
Not all areas will be come destirficatedfied, and many farming areas have some kind of system that can get plenty of water to their crops. Transport may raise costs, but it could also raise supply, witch of course would in turn lower costs... (Which. Made you freak out there for a second).
Well you said big companies don't do anything for the environment. Logically, small companies must do something, or you would have simply said "companies", correct?
What? Lol. I wrote big countries. COUNTRIES.
Great! Then it will be cheaper to use renewable resources, thus capitalism will take effect and renewable resources will be used. This will probably take effect the second renewable resources become cheaper than it's equivalent in nonrenewable resources, correct?
Yeah, sure.
That sounds like a misdirected cause and effect. Since clean energy costs MORE, that means that bad economies can't afford them, while good economies can. Correct? That is like saying "Eating caviar makes you rich, or can you name one poor person who eats caviar on a regular bases?"
So are you telling me that if a poor person manages to eat more McDonalds, he will become richer? Anyway, I was saying to progress to renewable resources, not to throw oil out of the window over night. I was also saying that's not only capitalism that should do the business, but with some help from the government to kick start the process. It can't hurt, because oil is already a dead end.
Over the next hundred or so years, the global temperature could increase by 5 degrees Celsius (41 F). This may not seem like a lot but the temperature of a City like New York which isn't relatively hot compared to the rest of the World will be a hot as the Sahara desert during the summer.
What's worse is if the global temperature increased by 2 C (37 F), 30 to 200 million people dependant on agriculture (such as people living in Africa would starve).
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the lotus eaters of Al Gore.
Anyway, if you manage to tell me one country that has a high percentage of clean energy use and has a bad economy, I might reconsider.
Spain's "Green Economy" Massive debt and record unemployment, but hey, atleast we're helping the environment, right?
hydrogen powered cars are cheaper than oil and petrol which are both rising in cost by the day and hydrogen won't run out.
Actually, Fortune Magazine estimated the cost of producing the Honda Clarity at over 300,000 USD. So if the dealer wants to make a profit, then the car will have to cost significantly more than the production cost.
Meanwhile, the 'expensive' Honda Accord has a suggested starting price of a mere 23,080 USD by the manufacturer. So you could buy 12 Honda Accords for every 1 Honda Clarity.
No to mention all the problems with infrastructure, fuel cell replacement, and the fact that you're driving a miniture Hindenburg on wheels.
destirficatedfied
That's heavy man...
We get all our food locally, since that is the biggest source of food. Food chains even get food locally.
Ah. See, there's no problem with that, it's what I say we should focus on in a similar way around here too. When I go to the store, of course I can buy Swiss products, mainly (and although I don't know whether they come from the same canton or the other end of the country, it doesn't matter much since my country is small), but they also sell products from foreign countries, like tomatoes from Spain (since they got such big greenhouse installations, it's much cheaper), and sometimes even meat from god knows where, like the other side of the planet. This is what I find ridiculously stupid, this is what I mean by longer transport ways. And this is why I prefer getting my meat from the butcher than from big food chains.
(Which. Made you freak out there for a second)
Other than that, it will also mean that areas once 5 degrees to cold will now be accessible, correct? Witch means more crop land, more food, and less hunger.
You have to also think, that means areas once almost too warm to sustain crops will then be unable to, along with that 5 degrees heating up already melting ice, claiming land on all the continents, shortening crop land, less food, and more hunger. The net gain of crop land seems anywhere from negligible to negative.
@redcreator
So you're keen on nuclear energy? Sure, let's forget about the tons and tons of water vapour it lets out continously. What was that? Water vapour is worse than CO2? Oh my....
Let's also forget about all the conflicts uranium and nuclear energy and weapons are engaged in.
Let's also forget that currently, all the nuclear waste, which takes thousands of years to degrade at least, is currently not burried kilometres deep in the earth, but rather superficially dumped in the nature in crevices and dumpsites.
-
What are your evidences that the earth is cooling? There are none. Certain regions might cool down, after all the cold ice water from the melting pole caps has to go somewhere. But in general, the earth is warming which is perfectly normal, since we're at the end of an ice age. My evidence? Glaciology, paleobotany, geology... need I go on?
Spain's "Green Economy" Massive debt and record unemployment, but hey, atleast we're helping the environment, right?
Too bad Spain is ranked 12th in percentage of renewable energy use... in the European Union.
vrtually all of the supposed green technologies have negative long term effects such as the hydrogen car which releases waater vapor.
Okay...But the hydrogen car is not the only option.
water vapor sounds innocuos but is a green house gas and far worse than any of the green house gases produced by fossil fuel vehicles.
Maybe you're trying to say something else, but water vapor is, well, water.
The wind turbine damages the cycle of heating and cooling air causing in the long term the are to become hotter and drier leading to global warming.
I actually tried to look that up and found nothing. Proof pl0x?
Many green energy sources output much less energy and require more pollution to be produced than normal fossil fuels.
Not doubting or anything, but can I have some examples?
nuclear energy outputs very little pollution and the pollution it does output is through the form of spent uranium rods and irradiated water which can be barreled away and dumped in a mine for 10,000 years so we don't need to worry about it.
Wrong.
The time frame in question when dealing with radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years,[42] according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.[43] Researchers suggest that forecasts of health detriment for such periods should be examined critically.[44] [45] Practical studies only consider up to 100 years as far as effective planning[46] and cost evaluations[47] are concerned. Long term behavior of radioactive wastes remains a subject for ongoing research projects in geoforecasting.[48]
-From here
vrtually all of the supposed green technologies have negative long term effects such as the hydrogen car which releases waater vapor. water vapor sounds innocuos but is a green house gas and far worse than any of the green house gases produced by fossil fuel vehicles.
Virtually* water* Water*
And source?
The only issue with that statement is that the amount of water on the Earth has remained basically constant throughout its history. So if that statement is true, why hasn't the billions of tons of water evaporating from the oceans everyday killed all life? About a trillion tons of water is evaporated everyday compared to about 88 million tons of carbon dioxide per day. If water vapor really was worse...we'd most likely all be dead. And you have to think; how many viable hydrogen cars do we have in existence? None. They all explode.
there is no real evidence that the world is warming. The evidence actually points to the contrary. The world by all signs actually appears to be cooling down. That takes the heart out of the supposed green movement which was actually started by communists after the fall of the soviet union. they realized the best way to kill america was to kill our production and they chose an effective way of going about it.
There* They*
....global warming was started by the communists? That's a new one.
And according to several charts I have looked up, the Earth goes through natural heating and cooling cycles all by itself. We are currently going through a warming phase, regardless of our huge carbon output, and the cooling of the earth is caused by large volcanic activity and decreased solar output from the sun, of which isn't predicted until around 2038.
I'd like to see some sources.
[url=http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm]
[quote]Let's also forget that currently, all the nuclear waste, which takes thousands of years to degrade at least, is currently not burried kilometres deep in the earth, but rather superficially dumped in the nature in crevices and dumpsites.[quote]
I agree...what are we supposed to do with all the used-up Uranium pellets? Obviously what we're doing now ain't workin' out too well.
So far, the best possible source of energy I've heard of is cold fusion. It has the potential to be a limitless source of energy, with little to none production of waste material. Only problem is that it hasn't happened yet. And when it does, it still has to be made into a safe, reliable, compact form with household applications. Promising....but not for a long time.
vrtually all of the supposed green technologies have negative long term effects such as the hydrogen car which releases waater vapor. water vapor sounds innocuos but is a green house gas and far worse than any of the green house gases produced by fossil fuel vehicles.
Virtually* water* Water*
And source?
The only issue with that statement is that the amount of water on the Earth has remained basically constant throughout its history. So if that statement is true, why hasn't the billions of tons of water evaporating from the oceans everyday killed all life? About a trillion tons of water is evaporated everyday compared to about 88 million tons of carbon dioxide per day. If water vapor really was worse...we'd most likely all be dead. And you have to think; how many viable hydrogen cars do we have in existence? None. They all explode.
there is no real evidence that the world is warming. The evidence actually points to the contrary. The world by all signs actually appears to be cooling down. That takes the heart out of the supposed green movement which was actually started by communists after the fall of the soviet union. they realized the best way to kill america was to kill our production and they chose an effective way of going about it.
There* They*
....global warming was started by the communists? That's a new one.
And according to several charts I have looked up, the Earth goes through natural heating and cooling cycles all by itself. We are currently going through a warming phase, regardless of our huge carbon output, and the cooling of the earth is caused by large volcanic activity and decreased solar output from the sun, of which isn't predicted until around 2038.
I'd like to see some sources.
[url=http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm]
Let's also forget that currently, all the nuclear waste, which takes thousands of years to degrade at least, is currently not burried kilometres deep in the earth, but rather superficially dumped in the nature in crevices and dumpsites.
I agree...what are we supposed to do with all the used-up Uranium pellets? Obviously what we're doing now ain't workin' out too well.
So far, the best possible source of energy I've heard of is cold fusion. It has the potential to be a limitless source of energy, with little to none production of waste material. Only problem is that it hasn't happened yet. And when it does, it still has to be made into a safe, reliable, compact form with household applications. Promising....but not for a long time.
Sorry about the double post you guys.
nuclear energy outputs very little pollution and the pollution it does output is through the form of spent uranium rods and irradiated water which can be barreled away and dumped in a mine for 10,000 years so we don't need to worry about it.
Nuclear*
Well what happens when the radiation seeps through the soil into our ground water, or the alleged 'mine' is filled? Gamma radiation can only be stopped by several feet of concrete, or several inches of solid lead. We'd have to spend billions to create a storehouse for all the spent pellets, and then constantly monitor it for leakage. Not a very cost-effective option.
regardless of our huge carbon output,
Ooops, maybe shouldn't of said that? From your source:
We, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, believe that the warming and even the cooling of global temperatures are the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However, Mankindâs activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the âUrban Heat Island Effect,â are making conditions âworseâ and this will ultimately enhance the Earthâs warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades.
Here is also a chart of anomalies. Notice how all of the results are pointing up.
there is no real evidence that the world is warming.
Wrong. I could give you evidence, but then again, would you really bother? I mean you could look it up yourself.
....global warming was started by the communists? That's a new one.
You know, the old conservative/republican trick. If you don't like/want it, smash the communist stamp on it.
"Black president? Communist."
"Protests for higher living standards? Communist."
"Global warming? Communist."
"Atheism? Communist."
Okay...But the hydrogen car is not the only option.
How about natural gas instead? About 15 million vehicles are already in use.
"Black president? Communist."
"Protests for higher living standards? Communist."
"Global warming? Communist."
"Atheism? Communist."
"Jesus? Communist".
Agreed, communism can still be used as a scapegoat, even though it is clearly waning.
You must be logged in to post a reply!