PDA

View Full Version : Save our environment!


The Maverick
03-10-2008, 12:00 AM
I recently read in a magazine that 56,000 garbage trucks full of solid waste would be eliminaed annually if all 110,000,000 American households paid their bills online instead of receiving paper bills and bank statements. I just thought that was an interesting fact. Is there an interesting fact or idea that you can share that could help save our environment?

Achilles
03-10-2008, 12:17 AM
Many appliances draw electricity even when they aren't being used.

DeadYorick
03-10-2008, 12:17 AM
I recently read in a magazine that 56,000 garbage trucks full of solid waste would be eliminaed annually if all 110,000,000 American households paid their bills online instead of receiving paper bills and bank statements. I just thought that was an interesting fact. Is there an interesting fact or idea that you can share that could help save our environment?

There are a lot of weird facts about the environment. I know that every 30 seconds a child is born while every 2-5 seconds a child dies. Its how the population regulates itself

Rev7
03-10-2008, 12:18 AM
Erm... don't litter. There are lots of things that we can do...change the type of fuel that cars run off of...there are lots of things that we can do to try to "save our environment". :)

Jae Onasi
03-10-2008, 12:25 AM
Switching from incandescent to flourescent bulbs saves energy. Driving somewhere in the vicinity of the speed limit, as opposed to driving like you're in the Indianapolis 500, saves gas.

Totenkopf
03-10-2008, 12:59 AM
Using less AC/heating also saves on fuel consumption (both at home and in the car), though it may be uncomfortable.

Corinthian
03-10-2008, 01:36 AM
Why exactly do we need to save our environment? Aren't they always telling us that Mother Nature is a lot more powerful than Mankind?

DeadYorick
03-10-2008, 01:46 AM
Why exactly do we need to save our environment? Aren't they always telling us that Mother Nature is a lot more powerful than Mankind?

Does global warming ring a bell. If we don't care about our environment Mother Nature is going to get so pissed off she is going to rub us off the face of the planet

Q
03-10-2008, 02:00 AM
Many appliances draw electricity even when they aren't being used.
Very true, and often overlooked. Even when "turned off" appliances in standby mode still draw electricity, and though it isn't much, when multiplied by several million such devices it equals a lot of wasted power. In most cases this could be rectified by using a battery.
Switching from incandescent to flourescent bulbs saves energy.
Also true, but the quality of light that they produce pales (pun intended) in comparison to that produced by incandescent bulbs. Then there's the disposal issue, which presents its own environmental problem as flourescent bulbs contain mercury.

There is a solution, but I don't think that banning incandescent bulbs, as some governments are doing, is it. A good start would be the construction of nuclear power plants.

MdKnightR
03-10-2008, 02:34 AM
Why exactly do we need to save our environment? Aren't they always telling us that Mother Nature is a lot more powerful than Mankind?


+1

Google The Planet is Fine by George Carlin (http://www.google.com/search?q=The+Planet+is+Fine&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Arcesious
03-10-2008, 03:17 AM
Once we develope better space travel and advance far enough overall, perhaps we can mine the resources of other planets. That's pretty far off though.

Corinthian
03-10-2008, 03:20 AM
See, Arcescious is right. All we need to do is deploy Nanomachines to strip-mine other worlds. It's not like the rest of the Sol System is inhabited anyway. Well, as far as we know.

And, actually, I have not heard of this Global Warming phenomenon. It's actually at record low temperatures here. Are you sure about this?

Arcesious
03-10-2008, 03:30 AM
Global warming has weird effects on other areas... Like a tornado in florida, and more snow in the rockies, but less ice in the poles. Edit: Oh yeah, and more/worse hurricaines.

Does anyone remember the thread about the world's supply of helium being almost gone? Well... Maybe we can dismantle all those nukes all over the place lying useless and use their uranium to produce some more helium. Or we could in the far future mine helium and other gases off of the sun and gas planets...

Corinthian
03-10-2008, 03:53 AM
That makes...no sense. Logically, if the globe were really heating up, then everything would be heating up. This implies a localized heating, so I'm guessing we've got some kind of Supervillain with his Arctic Heating Ray to blame.

Also, didn't you ever play Fallout, Arcescious? Everybody knows that uranium is going to be one of the resources that drives World War II, we can't afford to get rid of any of that stuff.

Ray Jones
03-10-2008, 03:56 AM
Once we develope better space travel and advance far enough overall, perhaps we can mine the resources of other planets. That's pretty far off though.Alright. Let's go out there and destroy other worlds, inhabited or not. Let's just behave as if we had learned absolutely nothing during our time on earth. :rolleyes:

Corinthian
03-10-2008, 05:10 AM
Hey, save the habitable worlds for agriculture and such, we can live on Space Stations. Everything else, like desert worlds, ice worlds, volcanic worlds, and dead worlds are suitable for strip-mining.

Ray Jones
03-10-2008, 06:20 AM
They may be future worlds full of life, just like it's here on earth, too.

Tommycat
03-10-2008, 07:11 AM
Hmph... I wish people would quit talking about global warming as if it is a fact that we are causing it. We dump far less contaminates into the atmosphere than mother nature does(I think the last I heard it was less than 1% of greenhouse gasses were caused by man, if someone has accurate figures NOT from a global warming alarmist page, I'd like to see it). I'm all for not trashing our planet. Keep it clean. Don't pollute the waters, and basically don't poop where we eat. I just think this alarmist crap is overboard. Why waste energy protecting against a global heat wave when we could be preparing for a global ice age. That is my reason for not doing anything for global warming. All it would take is a few large eruptions and it wipes out all the good we do by switching everyone to electric cars recharged with solar power.

Totenkopf
03-10-2008, 08:40 AM
I wholeheartedly agree. It seems like "going green" is the listerine of our time. Global warming is the new bogeyman. There's nothing wrong with trying not to be wasteful, but I refuse to turn my life upsidedown for some unproven artificially constructed crisis to make the Al Gore's of the world that much richer. For those that wish to drink the global warming koolaid, by all means do so......in your own personal life. Just leave the rest of us alone. Good link, btw, MdKnightR.

Quanon
03-10-2008, 09:09 AM
I wholeheartedly agree. It seems like "going green" is the listerine of our time. Global warming is the new bogeyman.

True, still I don't think we should test if this artificial crisis can be true...
It would be like if you would put a gun to your head, only you just "heard" and shared thoughts on how this thing could/can kill.

Would you pull the trigger ?

All I learned is that our Planet has seasons of cold/ warmth, now these periods range +100.000 years.
Somehow where dissurpting or are at the start of messing with this system.
Which could turn to some bad bad things... or ofcourse if we're lucky we'll have a tropical paredises everywhere.

IMO, we better just be carfull and mindfull what we do with or resources, industry.
So that we don't end up like in DUNE=> Earth a nice scorchted ball of rock.
*thought those cyborgs where at it... *

Samuel Dravis
03-10-2008, 10:15 AM
That makes...no sense. Logically, if the globe were really heating up, then everything would be heating up. This implies a localized heating, so I'm guessing we've got some kind of Supervillain with his Arctic Heating Ray to blame. Not necessarily. For example, a change in climate could disrupt warm water currents in the ocean. Such currents are a significant part of the climate (Europe benefits from the Atlantic currents especially). If that happened, it's entirely possible that global warming could result in localized cooling.

Ray Jones
03-10-2008, 12:06 PM
Hence why global warming is a somewhat misleading term. However, it's shorter than "the climate is changing in a way it wouldn't without us being wasteful asshats".

tk102
03-10-2008, 12:19 PM
^^
Agreed. The proper term is climate destabilization. More energy in the atmosphere means less stable weather patterns. Think laminar versus turbulent flow.

Arcesious
03-10-2008, 12:57 PM
Okay... I've done some research. Not about global warming (climate destabilization) though, as that seems to have been answered about how it works. So... Earth. We should work hard to fix the enviroment on earth, and make earth mostly agriculural. First we must colonize the moon, and build industrial plants on the moon to replace the polluting ones on Earth, also, a little strip-mining the moon would help. We've got to be practical about gettign resources.
Next up, Mars.
Mars is pretty far away, but it has many oxide-rich rocks, and other resources. We can make tons of oxygen and water from those oxide-rich rocks. Also, mars has potential to become a habitable planet, however it's resources in things like iron are very great, so strip mining most of mars would be the most useful way to use Mars.
For now we should leave Venus and mercury alone though- to hot to mine either.
Jupiter- A gas planet. A great resource. All of those gases make jupiter a very valuable planet to mine. We just need to invent more pressure resitant alloys and strogner engines to resist it's gravity before we try to mine it. But before that, we can always mine the Asteroid belt near Jupiter. Jupiter has a lot of useful hydrogen and helium, and other gases we haven't found yet deeper in it's atmosphere.
Saturn- We can mine it's rings, and it's got a lot of hydrogen.
Neptune-more Hydrogen and Helium
Uranus-Even more hydrogen and helium... (Also to mention most of these planets planets have some methane, which is also useful)
Pluto, and all of the moons around different planets that were not mentioned can pretty much be for strip mining. Europa has lots of useful ice...
The Kuiper Belt. Lots of rocks there that we can mine, but we don't know much of what's beyond that, besides a few planetoids and the rest of the stars.

Tommycat
03-10-2008, 09:40 PM
^^
Agreed. The proper term is climate destabilization. More energy in the atmosphere means less stable weather patterns. Think laminar versus turbulent flow.
See the problem is that we're still making HUGE decisions based on speculation and assumptions. What the current global climate destabilization fanatics are having us do is the "Ready Fire Aim" approach. We're pulling the trigger on things that we have no way of knowing that they will affect positive change on little more than "feel good" measures. These changes are industry stifling, expensive, and dramatic, yet have little chance of affecting the global climate change. Especially when you consider that a volcanic erruption blows enough chemicals into the air that it would undo 10 years worth of our hard work.

I heard on CNN that Australia recently found that the only way to meet their 2020 requirements would be to completely stop using automobiles and start walking and riding bikes. The problem with this (at least as I see it) is that it means that more people have to live near their work to do this. That means if you don't live IN the city, you are pretty much unemployed.

Corinthian
03-10-2008, 10:00 PM
Arsescious, you forgot the various moons and the Asteroid Belt.

tk102
03-10-2008, 10:58 PM
See the problem is that we're still making HUGE decisions based on speculation and assumptions. What the current global climate destabilization fanatics are having us do is the "Ready Fire Aim" approach. We're pulling the trigger on things that we have no way of knowing that they will affect positive change on little more than "feel good" measures.

You're right, let's cross our fingers and hope that the scientists who've been studying all this for a living and reaching independent the same conclusions are just trying to get attention. Let's speculate that this is just the earth doing its thing. Let's assume we can't do anything about it. Let's feel good about global industry and its pollution.

Sorry man that argument cuts both ways.

mimartin
03-10-2008, 11:06 PM
Why should I believe anything the scientist from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html) say?

I heard on CNN that Australia recently found that the only way to meet their 2020 requirements would be to completely stop using automobiles and start walking and riding bikes. By my count, it is 2008, so in 12 years there will be no technological advances in this area. (I believe it is time to sell my technology stock.) If I recall my history correctly, we took less time to come up with the technology to put two men on the moon and return them back to earth safely. So according to CNN the Australians only alternative is to go back in time 100 years?

Q
03-10-2008, 11:12 PM
Though I try to take anything said by anyone these days with a grain of salt, I'd rather err on the side of caution where this subject is concerned.

I think that a lot of people would be more easily persuaded if environmentalism didn't have the polarizing political agenda attached to it.

Totenkopf
03-10-2008, 11:38 PM
You're right, let's cross our fingers and hope that the scientists who've been studying all this for a living and reaching independent the same conclusions are just trying to get attention. Let's speculate that this is just the earth doing it's thing. Let's assume we can't do anything about it. Let's feel good about global industry and its pollution. Sorry man that argument both ways.


Why should I believe anything the scientist from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration say?

You guys aren't suggesting we accept their current conclusions simply on their "authority"? You don't believe these people would never lie to us? Problem is, there is no hard and fast concensus and the debate isn't anywhere near over yet, Al Gore's pronouncements notwithstanding.

tk102
03-10-2008, 11:55 PM
You guys aren't suggesting we accept their current conclusions simply on their "authority"? You don't believe these people would never lie to us? Problem is, there is no hard and fast concensus and the debate isn't anywhere near over yet, Al Gore's pronouncements notwithstanding.No I don't believe any scientist with their fancy-dancy scientific methods, numbers, and stuff. They have so many good reasons to lie to us and oppress us with their "theories".

I instead believe in my gubbermint, the oil industry, and the power of the once mighty dollar. They would would never lie to me. No sir.

Tommycat
03-11-2008, 12:17 AM
You assume too much when you make those statements. These scientists have a vested interest in proving that there is global warming(or global climate destabilization, whatever makes you feel better). Keep in mind these same organizations stated in the 70's that we were headed for a global ice age. Give it a few more years and we'll be hearing the same thing again. Perhaps that's why I am a bit skeptical. They are given grants for researching global warming. Several of the scientists the UN used as supporting global warming have actually come out AGAINST man made global climate change.

We're still going on shoot first aim second. Since we have no idea what the real problem is as of yet, making drastic changes is a bit like slamming on your brakes at the first sign of trouble. Sure it might be a good idea, but not on ice. I say hold off on drastic changes until we can be sure of what we need to do.

Totenkopf
03-11-2008, 12:52 AM
No I don't believe any scientist with their fancy-dancy scientific methods, numbers, and stuff. They have so many good reasons to lie to us and oppress us with their "theories".

I instead believe in my gubbermint, the oil industry, and the power of the once mighty dollar. They would would never lie to me. No sir.

Now, now, TK. Never said the other side was above such behavior. :D Still, I no more put blind faith in the "priests of the new age" than you would want to in those (religious types) of days gone by (almost anyway it seems).

mimartin
03-11-2008, 01:26 PM
These scientists have a vested interest in proving that there is global warmingYet, the non-scientists that insist that global warming is a myth have no vested interest in keeping the status quo. Oh, you are correct, the NASA scientist do have a vested interest, in the form of pressure to keep their mouth shut. The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/science/10nasa.html)

If you believe in global warming or the tooth fairy does not mean anything. The point is spewing toxic chemicals into the air is not the best of ideas for those of us that actually breathe the air or is there a debate about these chemical being harmful to the human species?

Jae Onasi
03-11-2008, 01:46 PM
I've lost all faith in anything the New York Times publishes now after multiple journalist scandals involving fake stories, plagiarism, false leads, and stories making insinuations with little proof to back them up.

Totenkopf
03-11-2008, 02:01 PM
Well, you'd be one of many. Seems the paper of record has little record left to run off of anymore. Circulation numbers being but one critical indicator. The problem with changing the status quo is that it's very long on rhetoric and extremely short on viable solutions, especially in the time frame that's being forced on everyone. Demanding draconian cutbacks in some parts of the world, while effectively ignoring other parts (the basic flaws of Kyoto and Rio(?) ) point toward collectivist redistribution of global wealth schemes. Fact is, non scientific types aside, there is NO consensus in the scientific community currently on this topic.

Tommycat
03-11-2008, 09:49 PM
Yet, the non-scientists that insist that global warming is a myth have no vested interest in keeping the status quo. Oh, you are correct, the NASA scientist do have a vested interest, in the form of pressure to keep their mouth shut. The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/science/10nasa.html)

If you believe in global warming or the tooth fairy does not mean anything. The point is spewing toxic chemicals into the air is not the best of ideas for those of us that actually breathe the air or is there a debate about these chemical being harmful to the human species?
You also make the assumption that the people coming out against global warming(man-made global climate change) are non-scientists. In fact quite a few scientists are opposed to the insinuations of global warming(man-made global climate change). The problem is that many institutions shun those scientists as soon as they say they disagree with it.

Then when you look at how poorly the data is being collected(there goes the whole scientific experiment thing) it is difficult to judge how well the scientists can accurately judge the data. I mean there are a number of temperature recorders set up near burn barrels, in the middle of black-tops, near exhaust vents. Those kinds of things can make the data collected useless. Yet they do not dismiss those.

Again, I'm all for keeping the air clean. I'm all for keeping our waters clean. I'm all for having lush forests and places to hunt/fish/hike/camp/whatever, but the measures that are being proposed may in fact cause more harm than good. I mean electric cars produce ground level Ozone. Which sounds all spiffy, but it actually kills plants.

Arcesious
03-11-2008, 09:57 PM
I used to believe global warming was entirely true, but after reading this thread I'm starting to question the validity these scientists' results... However I do admit the we have messed up the world considerably, and need to do soemthing about it.

Tommycat, do electric cars really produce ground-level ozone? I just want proof to clarify it is all, I'm not trying to say it isn't true, because if that is true, then that issue needs to be addressed, since many people are putting faith in the 'age of electric cars' that apparently is coming in the near future, without knowing what consequences there may be.

mimartin
03-11-2008, 10:11 PM
You also make the assumption that the people coming out against global warming(man-made global climate change) are non-scientists. Is that the same kind of assumption that states all scientists that believe in global warming are liars or alarmist? Alternatively, is it the same kind of assumption that human are small and the earth is large, so there is no possible way that we can affect the environment on such a scale? I apologize for my exhibited assumption; I actually know some scientists do not believe in global warming. I do not even know if I believe in global warming, however I do believe in protecting humankind and Americans. Thus, I believe in cutting back on emissions and Middle Eastern oil. In one case, we will breathe better and in the other, we continue to breathe.

Tommycat
03-11-2008, 10:15 PM
I used to believe global warming was entirely true, but after reading this thread I'm starting to question the validity these scientists' results... However I do admit the we have messed up the world considerably, and need to do soemthing about it.

Tommycat, do electric cars really produce ground-level ozone? I just want proof to clarify it is all, I'm not trying to say it isn't true, because if that is true, then that issue needs to be addressed, since many people are putting faith in the 'age of electric cars' that apparently is coming in the near future, without knowing what consequences there may be.
EVERY electrical device produces a small amount of ozone. It's that smell from the electric motors. The more prominent the smell, the more ozone is being produced.

Actually, I'm not too proud to admit I was wrong. Actally I was wrong about the levels of ozone(well I guess I hadn't explained fully) An electric car would produce much less ozone than the standard 1970's era car. However compared with modern cars, it produces about 98% of the level of ozone. Plus when you offset that with power generation, lead acid batteries that need to be replaced, chemicals used in the creation of the power storage(batteries), non-reusable parts that will be tossed out, it kinda makes the gasoline car a nicer option.

@mimartin:
Trust me, I'm all for our independance from middle-eastern oil, but we only get around 10% from them. We get most from Venezuela.

As far as your other comment regarding the scientists being liars, I believe the CATO Institute(yeah I know... hardly without bias) found that several of the scientists were pressured to change their results to be more in line with current expectations regarding global climate change. They may not be the ones who want to lie, but many of the grant holders aren't as honest as many scientists.

Arcesious
03-11-2008, 10:20 PM
It seems Thomas Edison accidentally missed that one then... :xp:
Well... We are too dependent of electricity to get rid of it, and I can think of no other substitute... so... I guess we'll end up killign ourselves with our own technology... unless if a sulution for power better than electricity is invented. I doubt electricity will kill us as fast as fossil fuels will though...

(What about antimatter or dark matter? We're a long way off from that, but aren't those two massive power sources?)

DeadYorick
03-11-2008, 10:25 PM
(What about antimatter or dark matter? We're a long way off from that, but aren't those two massive power sources?)

Antimatter is a negatively charged amount of matter that doesn't exist in our galaxy. It is highly unstable near regular matter and could implode taking a ton of nearby matter with it

Arcesious
03-11-2008, 10:37 PM
Scrap that idea... I've been watching too much Startrek Enterprise... All their fancy antimatter power cores... I've got to remember, fiction, not reality...

JediMaster12
03-14-2008, 02:31 PM
Antimatter is a probability but right now the problem is keeping the molecule stable. It is said that a single gram of antimatter has enough energy to power New York city for a week.

Alternative fuel sources is something we should consider looking at. Fossil fuels, the basis for our oil that makes gasoline takes thousands of year to form. Oil is formed by the decayed carcasses of animals in certain conditions. This makes sense in that all lifeforms are carbon based. At the rate we use our fossil fules, scientists are right in saying that it is a finite source of energy. The electric cars/hybrids were a step forward but of course you need to park where the juice is. The ethanol option is another step that would be beneficil. Of course there is the fact that the oil companies think they are going to lose money and they are getting stingy over that. I think alternative sources is the next step.