50 things you can do to save the Earth

[Menchise]

[aramike]

quote:

---

I know what he said, and I'm saying that it doesn't matter. Once again, America is going to run out of oil much sooner than the Arabs will. When that happens, all the money goes to the Middle East, and then some. The Bush administration is only delaying the inevitable.

---

So? There are alternatives.

In fact, I remember that in the 70's we had environmentalists telling us how irradiated we were going to be due to nuclear power - you know, 4 eyed frogs, kids with 3 legs, etc.

Never happened.

There ARE solutions. In fact, radioactive nuclear waste can be reused in generators. So, that simply leaves the non-radioactive waste to be disposed which is not too much different than a coffee cup from McDonalds.

Yes, the US will always have a measure of dependency, BUT, we can become LESS dependant by utilizing all resources. Sure, the wells may dry up at some point, but then again, that is a long way off ANY things are becoming more fuel efficient with hybrids and fuel cell cars here and on the horizon.

[Guest]

You sound like since we will run out oil before the arabs do that we shouldn't even bother going after it, that's like saying, we are going to die anyway, let's just go kill ourselves. COME ON!!! we should go after that oil and need to go after that oil. We need Nuclear power and should go after it, we need the clean burning coal, which is low sulfur content by the way, not actually CLEAN burning coal, but cleaner burning coal, and therefore should be allowed to go get it.

This crap about, it won't do any good in the long run, is a crock.

We need that energy for the long term needs of the country, we should go after it.

And AGAIN, where's the PROOF of global warming? You all are spouting that stuff now, sorry folks, convince me!! I don't believe it, I have YET to see ANY proof, GIVE ME PROOF!!!!

[aramike]

Global warming is an ACCEPTED scientific problem.

Here are the facts:

The freezing point in the upper atmosphere is gaining altitude causing warming surface temperatures.

Ice caps in alpine regions throughout the tropics and sub-tropics are melting at an incredible rate.

The edge of the Qori Kalis glacier that flows off the Quelccaya ice cap high in the Peruvian Andes Mountains was retreating at a rate of 13 feet annually between 1963 and 1978. By 1995, that rate had grown to 99 feet each year.

The freezing level in the Earth's atmosphere -- the height where the air temperature reaches 0 degrees C -- has been gaining altitude since 1970 at a rate of nearly 15 feet each year. This is not supposed to occur naturally.

Ice cores taken from the Dunde ice cap in eastern Tibet have shown that the last 50 years were the warmest in recorded history. A similar ice core record from the Huascaran ice cap in Peru has shown a strong warming over the last 200 years.

Increased snowfall over East Antarctica is indicative of warmer arctic temperatures which allows for the travel of vapor moisture to the region.

-----

Sure, all this may simply be a result of climactic variation, but most scientists don't believe that as such variations occuring globally would be nearly impossible. Also, historically the earth should be undergoing a COOLING trend at this time - not a warming trend.

Those are the facts. As I said, I am not an environmentalist in the least but I don't ignore HARD evidence just because it varies from my beliefs.

Think: if global warming DIDN'T exist, why would governments be trashing BILLIONS of dollars in trying to rectify the problem?

[ 05-21-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

[Steve Schacher]

This is where Limbaugh got his list:

quote:

---

I found something from the early 90's that proves my point. It's a collective effort by members of various American environmental groups who contributed to this at the invitation of the Earth Island Journal, a publication of the Earth Island Institute.

---

Regarding evidence of global warming, my opinion is that we have only been accurately measuring the earth's temperature for a few hundred years now, out of a several billion year existence for this planet. Do we have enough measurements to determine what are short-term fluctuations vs. actual long-term trend changes?

The reason that current evidence of global warming is being criticized as junk science is that:

1) it is now coming out that ocean temperatures used in these studies were measured as the water passed through the engines of ships at sea. The oceans make up 75% of the surface of the earth, yet the measurements are being taken randomly by ships from where ever they may be at the time. Do these samples represent enough of a statistical population relative to the whole to be able to draw valid conclusions?

2) Atmospheric temperatures over the water have not been statistically correlating with water temperatures. Initial global warming projections were based on the assumption that rising water temperatures would lead to rising atmospheric temperatures.

3) With all the concern over rising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (CO2), have we forgotten all the recent volcanic activity that has been going on over the past few years? Also, CO2 is produced naturally as we breath, and we have been slowly destroying the natural consumers of CO2, the rainforests and other old-growth forests. As we keep chopping down the rainforests to make room for cattle grazing, we eliminate the natural scrubbers of the atmosphere, and that is just as likely a cause for rising CO2 (less depletion rate) as is the argument that we are increasing the output of CO2.

4) Global warming "experts" were recently debunked when the New York Times ran a story on how a "hole" in the ice in the Arctic Ocean was proof of global warming. They retracted the story a few weeks later when they learned that their "expert" didn't know that the ice frequently melts at the north pole, and that this wasn't his specialty anyway. Read this link for details.

[aramike]

Heh, Steve, I see your point, and it is why I am on the fence. I believe that there IS a measure of global warming occuring - there IS a LOT of substantial evidence. However, with the limitation of our sciences, it is hard to say for sure.

Regardless, conservation is hardly the way to change this. I doubt ANYONE can reverse the trends of 5 billion people - they better not try to reverse mine.

[Steve Schacher]

Conservation is not the answer.

California ranks 50th in per capita electricity use, meaning we are the most conservative when it comes to electricity and we are still having power blackouts. We can't conserve any more because we are already at the bottom. Our problem is multi-fold: 1) no new power plants in 15 years, 2) unrestricted illegal alien influx drawing on our supplies (I bet that if we suddenly deported all the illegal aliens back to Mexico, our power problems will be drastically reduced), 3) PCs (Silicon Valley), 4) Disneyland and the new California Experience.

Of course, while this is all going on, the California Air Quality Board is forcing auto manufacturers to sell more electric cars. Where will they get the juice to charge them up?

[Guest]

Steve, I feel for you guys down there in California so bad, your politicians are trying to blame everybody but themselves, when they are in fact the main culprits in all this, and you the people are the ones that suffer. Gray Davis has a snowballs chance in hell of getting reelected.

He keeps saying that Bush has done nothing for the short term energy needs of California, and the fact is, if he does anything, it'll just make it worse, what a catch 22. But I feel for you, I really do!!

I'm conserving my butt off, you can have what I'm not using, but only you!!! LOL

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Dunno, Charles. The definition of debate is simply "a formal discussion".

---

No, debate does not mean "simply" a formal discussion. Look it up.

I'll tell everyone what's wrong.

I thanked Jaguar for a follow-up argument supporting my case. Whether Jaguar meant to support me or not I don't know. It seems Menchise thought that I thought Jaguar was rushing to my defense after I thanked Jaguar for it. That was not the case and I said so.

[edit in]I did not say that. I said I did not beleive Menchise was atacking me personally

Menchise said debates are not battles and I said yes they are. Technically they are.

We are now debating what a debate means.

Formal or not debate equates to argument.

Menshise and I are cool. He can attack my argument all he wants. He has not atacked me personally.

Menchise?

[ 05-22-2001: Message edited by: Charles Lindsey ]

[Guest]

Indeed I was backing you up Charles, just as Steve has backed me up and so on and so forth, what a great team we make!!!

And a debate is an argument of the facts, and he with the most facts wins!! Guess what?

Let's see where that takes us!!! LOL

[ 05-22-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Steve Schacher]

Personally, I can't wait for the blackouts. They can't come soon enough for me.

Gray Davis didn't create the problem, but he could have taken action last year when San Diego first started showing signs of trouble. He didn't because he was fundraising and building up his presidential ambitions, and didn't want to tarnish his image with a troubling policy.

California politicians were blaming the Republicans for the problem because Gov. Wilson signed the deregulation bill. They are trying to argue that Wilson, and Deukmejian before him, were Republicans so that makes this a Republican problem. However, Willie Brown was the Speaker For Life of the Assembly and he (and the rest of the legislature) were Democrats.

Now they are trying to blame this on Bush because he won't pull their behinds out of the fire. California politians want short-term fixes to get them past the next election cycle, so they want the feds to impose price caps on energy. Bush wants to find long-term market solutions and won't tamper with the free market for short term fixes. Besides, with all the effort he put into California during the election, what did he get to show for it? Why should he put himself on the line for California when they will just turn around and stab him in the back the first chance they get?

Finally, Gray Davis just hired Chris Lehane and Mark Fabiani to handle his PR. Lehane and Fabiani were Clinton's main attack dogs during the era of politics of personal destruction. It was Fabiani who was spokesman for Al Gore's campaign. It was Fabiani who started rumors about Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris. It was Fabiani who called Harris a Soviet Commissar. Since the rumors of Bush and Harris were proved false, they recently changed the woman but kept the rumors. This is the team that Gray Davis is bringing into California to help solve the problem -- the problem of his plummeting image, not the energy problem. Oh, and he's not paying them from his $30 million campaign warchest -- he's paying them with taxpayer dollars.

So I can't wait for the blackouts to begin.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Menchise?

---

I'm still here.

quote:

---

Yes, the US will always have a measure of dependency, BUT, we can become LESS dependant by utilizing all resources. Sure, the wells may dry up at some point, but then again, that is a long way off ANY things are becoming more fuel efficient with hybrids and fuel cell cars here and on the horizon.

You sound like since we will run out oil before the arabs do that we shouldn't even bother going after it, that's like saying, we are going to die anyway, let's just go kill ourselves. COME ON!!! we should go after that oil and need to go after that oil. We need Nuclear power and should go after it, we need the clean burning coal, which is low sulfur content by the way, not actually CLEAN burning coal, but cleaner burning coal, and therefore should be allowed to go get it.

---

The point is that we are only utilizing the non-renewable resources. If we took all the time and money we spend on the production of oil, natural gas, and coal, and used it to proliferate the use of renewable energy sources, such as the sun, the tides, and ethyl alcohol (believe it or not ), there would be NO dependence at all!

The key to this solution is examining the geography of your country, and developing methods of generating energy that adapt to these geographical factors. Norway is the best example of an independent and environmentally friendly producer of electricity: Over 85 percent of its homes are powered by hydroelectric plants.

America has two oceans and a series of deserts. The possibilities are endless!

Nuclear power plants are not a good idea in the context of America's geography. They're too dangerous on the west coast, because it's prone to earthquakes. They're too dangerous on the southeast, because it's prone to hurricanes. They're too dangerous in the central states, because they're prone to tornadoes. They're too dangerous in the New York area, because it's on top of another fault line.

[aramike]

Debate: a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

Don't trust me, Charles - check Webster.com.

Essentially, all "debate" technically means is a "formal discussion".

[ 05-22-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

[aramike]

quote:

---

The point is that we are only utilizing the non-renewable resources. If we took all the time and money we spend on the production of oil, natural gas, and coal, and used it to proliferate the use of renewable energy sources, such as the sun, the tides, and ethyl alcohol (believe it or not ), there would be NO dependence at all!

---

Doubtful. The sun isn't a reliable producer of energy. Hydroelectricity is a problem for some (I'll get into that in a moment).

quote:

---

The key to this solution is examining the geography of your country, and developing methods of generating energy that adapt to these geographical factors. Norway is the best example of an independent and environmentally friendly producer of electricity: Over 85 percent of its homes are powered by hydroelectric plants.

---

Guess what: hydroelectric plants are on the environmentalist's sh*tlists too. *Sigh*, you can't make everyone happy.

quote:

---

America has two oceans and a series of deserts. The possibilities are endless!

---

Not true. We may have deserts, but how do you propose getting that electricity to non-desert regions? Further, solar plants can only produce a TINY amount of electricity when compared to more conventional methods, and they can only produce during half of the day (or less). Also, cloud cover could cause problems.

quote:

---

Nuclear power plants are not a good idea in the context of America's geography. They're too dangerous on the west coast, because it's prone to earthquakes. They're too dangerous on the southeast, because it's prone to hurricanes. They're too dangerous in the central states, because they're prone to tornadoes. They're too dangerous in the New York area, because it's on top of another fault line.

---

I read something interesting and true the other day: "more people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than from American nuclear disasters".

That argument of geographic considerations is unfounded because there are nuclear plants in ALL of the aforementioned regions. Further, not ONE of them has EVER experienced an accident due to earthquakes, tornados, etc.

[Guest Shingen]

Geeze, I'm gone for a few days, and look at all the fun I missed..

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

I'm still here.

---

And probably LYSAO.

Mike, to have an a and a b you must have a main part. You left that out.

: a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.

Same site I looked at last night. Actually I used http://www.m-w.com . Then I dug deeper and found this little gem under the synonym of the verb form.

synonyms DISCUSS, ARGUE, DEBATE mean to discourse about in order to reach conclusions or to convince. DISCUSS implies a sifting of possibilities especially by presenting considerations pro and con (discussed the need for a new highway). ARGUE implies the offering of reasons or evidence in support of convictions already held (argued that the project would be too costly). DEBATE suggests formal or public argument between opposing parties (debated the merits of the amendment); it may also apply to deliberation with oneself (I'm debating whether I should go).

Cool, huh?

The fact that debate implies formal discussion does not change the other fact that it is still basically an arguement. Which is the basic definition I used to make my comment to Menchise.

It does not have to be formal. The use of the word "as" in the definition above means for example. It is basically an argument. It is most often a formal discussion.

According to the synonym paragraph above you could discuss with your wife whether or not to fix the car. You could then discuss which mechanic to use. You could then argue why your choice is best. Then you could debate with yourself whether you actually want to listen to her in the first place. Hehe. Isn't English the best?

If it meant formal discussion it would say debate (n): a formal discussion. But then you couldn't have informal debates which would be an oxymoron.

I know it's a very fine line I'm walking but it could come in handy one day.

Are we done now?

BTW, Nice chat. I had fun.

[ 05-22-2001: Message edited by: Charles Lindsey ]

[Menchise]

quote:

---

The sun isn't a reliable producer of energy. solar plants can only produce a TINY amount of electricity when compared to more conventional methods, and they can only produce during half of the day (or less). Also, cloud cover could cause problems.

---

That may have been true ten years ago, but the technology has been improving since then.

In fact, homeowners with solar panels powering their houses receive money from electricity companies for generating a surplus in the grid. In other words, their solar panels are not only powering their homes, but other homes as well! This has been happening as far back as the early 90s.

quote:

---

Guess what: hydroelectric plants are on the environmentalist's sh*tlists too.

---

I don't get it. Do you have information about why they're not accepted?

quote:

---

Not true. We may have deserts, but how do you propose getting that electricity to non-desert regions?

---

Okay, the deserts are not the best example, but there are still many possibilities. Theoretically, a significant percentage of electricity going to the coastal cities could come from tidal power plants underwater (the technology has existed for over five years). I can just imagine all the California dudes getting their juice from the surf.

quote:

---

That argument of geographic considerations is unfounded because there are nuclear plants in ALL of the aforementioned regions. Further, not ONE of them has EVER experienced an accident due to earthquakes, tornados, etc.

---

You mean not yet. Here is another interesting quote for you to consider. It was said by some guy in 1912: "The Titanic is unsinkable." He drowned the next day. As soon as progress becomes complacent in the face of nature's fury, disaster is bound to strike.

[Epsilon 5]

quote:

---

I don't get it. Do you have information about why they're not accepted?

---

I know about that, we are specialist, over here in Qu├®bec. When they build dams, they build reservoirs. Those reservoirs take A LOT of space. It destroy the nature and habitats around, and pollute the water with tree floating and stuff from the earth dissolving in the water. Also, some indian population have to be moved away, because they are there where there will be 200 feets of water. it gives you an idea.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

I know about that, we are specialist, over here in Qu├®bec. When they build dams, they build reservoirs. Those reservoirs take A LOT of space. It destroy the nature and habitats around, and pollute the water with tree floating and stuff from the earth dissolving in the water. Also, some indian population have to be moved away, because they are there where there will be 200 feets of water. it gives you an idea.

---

The dams are just one method of generating hydroelectricity. What about tidal power?

[Korono Lakeela]

..trying to out-think eachother on what the meaning of a debate is....man, can't be knocked off our ego ramps can we? ...

So what is the Hoover Dam up too?..Still running at 40% capacity?....what a waste of power....

And it would not surprise me if the government has a host of interestingly inovative power production devices collecting dust somewhere. But lord knows with that old Oil Tycoon Bush Sr. running the country....we won't see 'em. I bet the next 4 years are going to very profitable for the old oil wigs in this country. And aren't OPEC'S prices falling right now (last I heard, could be wrong though)?....strange that our prices are going up....Alaska just seems more like a move to pay off the people that got old GW in office to me.

money, money, money, sometimes it is kinda sick being a weak-disiciplined human being. The big screen TV and the comfy chair come first and foremost, usually over our fellow human's life....who cares about tommorrow, I want to be gratified TODAY!!......If humanity could survive an extra 50 years for every shmo who sacrificed his luxuries...I wonder how many would do it? We are so brainwashed to buy and buy and be as comfortable as possible, me first, me foremost.....if this mindset continues...we deserve extinction.

Slightly off topic.....ever think what we could do if we took the billions and billions we are going to waste on a missle defense program that still won't defend us against a nut in a van down by the river with a nuke and put it into the space program.....I think it would be neat......but if this threatens my comfy chair....f*ck it!! LOL

This is more than likely my mis-informed opinion, so don't waste too much energy slaughtering this post, I really don't care enough to enter debate...uh..I mean...bloodthirsty merciless combat...WHATEVER the heck it means lol, just venting off some things on my mind...

keep yer old peepers on

www.opec.com

[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: Korono Lakeela ]

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

But lord knows with that old Oil Tycoon Bush Sr. running the country....

---

Ooohhh... we don't want someone with actual energy experience making energy decisions, do we?

quote:

---

I bet the next 4 years are going to very profitable for the old oil wigs in this country.

---

Lest we forget the years when oil was $15 per barrel and the oil companies made no profit whatsoever... If you slice up time in small enough chunks you can make any business look like gougers (let's look at hardware stores in the days before hurricanes). Over the longer term, the oil companies are making back the money they lost while exploring during the lean years just to keep the gasoline flowing for everyone.

quote:

---

And aren't OPEC's prices falling right now (last I heard, could be wrong though)?

---

OPEC controls supply, so they can regulate prices by increasing and decreasing production. Remember, whenever you hear Democrats crying about how Bush is only looking at the supply side of things (meaning let's look at conservation = demand), OPEC rules the supply, so Bush's supply focus is also an international diplomacy focus. OPEC can cause prices to jump skyhigh or plummet rock-bottom with the turn of a spiget.

quote:

---

strange that our prices are going up

---

You should look at the Clean Air Act that congress passed and how localities are enforcing it. California has special "clean burning" gasolines that require the use of MTBE. It makes the air cleaner, but it poisons the water (who knew? not the politicians who want us to believe that they are experts instead of people with real industry experience who are labeled as partisan and tainted -- by, you guessed it, politicians!).

Each municipality has their own formula for clean-burning gasolines, which require the "old oil wigs" to refine specific gasolines for each market (at a cost), which also prevents the old oil wigs from shifting supply from one region with a surplus to another region with a shortfall because the locally mandated formulas are different.

quote:

---

Alaska just seems more like a move to pay off the people that got old GW in office to me.

---

Don't listen to the politicians -- they'll lie to you every time.

Read this article for details on how the Clinton Administration is actually responsible for the rise in oil prices over the last year.

[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

[Sunanta]

Let's drop the 'definition of debate' thing. It's utterly irrelevant to this discussion, and as I said before, arguing over semantics will only serve to inflame tempers.

Now, on to business.

There is only one way America could ever become self-sufficient- use resources that cannot be depleted.

Hydroelectric power is a good example. The main reason why some environmentalists are against them is because they interfere with salmon migration. There are devices which remedy this problem, undermining the validity of this objection. Other problems are generally countered by the benefit in air quality we would gainl. This form of power will probably never be able to make the US completely self-sufficient, though.

Then, of course, there is nuclear fission. Because nuclear fission reactors do not require huge amounts of fuel (unlike coal, natural gas, and oil power plants), import of uranium would probably not be terribly expensive (compared to the vast amounts of oil we currently purchase), should we run out. It is also relatively clean. Its only problems are radioactive waste and accidents. Now, to deal with waste. First, Jaguar, imagine dumping one kilogram of nuclear waste per kiloton of concrete into the ocean. The concrete would probably dissolve under pressure by the time it reached the ocean ridges (not counting the cost and ecological impact a kiloton of concrete would have before it sufficiently dispersed), allowing the waste, which would also undoubtable dissolve, to float freely throughout the ocean. Now imagine all the nuclear waste we would produce if the US was powered solely by nuclear powerplants. Of course, you probably meant a gram of waste per ton of concrete. That's still a lot, if you consider how many grams of nuclear waste you'd have to dispose of. That surely isn't practical. It is almost rediculous to talk about the possibility of a major accident at a nuclear powerplant these days, but if it happens, we'll all pay dearly. That is why many people say (and they have a point, though I happen to disagree with them on this particular issue) that it simply isn't worth the risk, however small. Nuclear power, in my opinion, is an adequate, if controversial short-term solution, though only as a last resort.

Now what's left? You've got windmills, solar power, geothermal energy, and some theoretical stuff (such as nuclear fusion). All of this is clean. Eventually, solar technology would have advanced to the point where it will be cheap enough to enter the mainstream. Windmills and geothermal plants require special locations, so I doubt that they will become a major source of power. Then you have nuclear fusion. This would be a dream come true. It's clean, uses hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe, doesn't produce dangerous radiation or radioactive waste, and is more powerful than fission. Expect scientists to make it cost-effective sometime in this geologic period. Solar power is a good alternative, as it is becoming more and more cost-effective everyday. If weather becomse a problem, we would eventually be able to put large satellites into orbit and have them do the collecting. They could beam the energy back to earth as microwaves (something the government looked into 10 or 20 years ago, though it was too expensive at the time).

There you have it- everything has advantages and disadvantages. Refusing to embrace the future of clean power, however, is not a sound plan. Just as coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power had its day, we must give newer technologies a chance to thrive, instead of looking to solutions of yesteryear for tomorrow's problems.

[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

[Menchise]

In case anyone noticed the reply I wrote about Steven Schacher's reply to Korono's post, I decided to delete it. In retrospect, it was a bit childish.

Charles, what does LYSAO mean?

[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Korono Lakeela]

Hey man, an occassional childish post, like mine, is cool every now and then...keeps the wolves fed...

[Menchise]

I was actually describing my reply as childish, not your post.

I'll just say a couple of things and then wait for the replies to my post about renewable energy (by the way, I generally agree with Sunanta, but I may post more on that later).

Steve, oil tycoons do not have energy experience. They are the ones who sell the fuel to some of the people who have energy experience. Oil tycoons also tell just as many lies as politicians do (if not more).