NationStates Jolt Archive

No seriously. Finances? The price of oil keeps rising...if it isn't a factor in your daily living at this point, it will be. Personal tragedy? Do you have to live in a severely polluted environment and suffer the effects before it's an issue for you? What? What is is going to take for you to give a shit? At what point does, "I deserve to be a fat, disgusting consumer and damn the consequences" become overpowered by, "if I don't do something now, it'll be too late"?

Feel free to complain about how global warming is all a lie, and how nuclear energy is a viable option (forget all that radioactive waste, we'll shoot it into space one day), and how the market will save us from ourselves.

When I become fully assimilated.

I already do. Protecting the environment simply makes economic sense, no matter which angle you look at it. However, I do support nuclear power as part of a near future post-fossil energy portfolio:

I think it would look something like this 20% wind, 15% solar, 10% tidal/wave, 13% geothermal/hydroelectric, 6% biomass, 4% miscellaneous renewables and 32% nuclear. In the US, we get about 20% of our power from nuclear already; increasing it by 12% would amount to about 84,000 MW of capacity or 20 new plants the size of Palo Verde. That's not very many, especially with the advances in reprocessing and fuel efficiency.

Nuclear's purpose is for load stabilization, at least until electricity grids are advanced enough to allocate intermittent sources to fill in the gaps. The percentage of renewables could be even higher as the technology matures and distributed generation grids become commonplace.

Ctrl-V for the win...

No seriously. Finances? The price of oil keeps rising...if it isn't a factor in your daily living at this point, it will be. Personal tragedy? Do you have to live in a severely polluted environment and suffer the effects before it's an issue for you? What? What is is going to take for you to give a shit? At what point does, "I deserve to be a fat, disgusting consumer and damn the consequences" become overpowered by, "if I don't do something now, it'll be too late"?

Feel free to complain about how global warming is all a lie, and how nuclear energy is a viable option (forget all that radioactive waste, we'll shoot it into space one day), and how the market will save us from ourselves.
when environmentalists stop yelling and start offering viable solutions to the problem... and follow those solutions themselves.

especially those driving Cars and SUV's.

I had one person talking to a group I was with about the sorry state of the environment, placing the blame on the Bush Administration and their lack of inititive in reducing emmissions. after a while, (and the fact that no one was listening) he got into his huge SUV and drove off.

we were there waiting for the bus, you know, Mass Transit.

I wonder how many Envrionmentalist own cars, raise plants and actually plant them in barren areas to prevent erosion, recycle and reuse that which can be reused.


now... for a rendition of "Lets do the Time Warp Again"

When I become fully assimilated.
*howls* that was funny!

(It's back!)

What are the viable economic alternatives to our current pracitces? Even if we abandon industrialization in the Western Hemisphere, how will that stop China/India from ruining any attempt at ecological balance in their rush to 'catch up' to the west?

*howls* that was funny!
**ALERT** NEW CONSPIRACY THEORY

Sinuhue is Max Berry! :D :D :D

when environmentalists stop yelling and start offering viable solutions to the problem... and follow those solutions themselves.


So rather than do this yourself, you're going to wait for some hypocrites to get their values and actions in line first?

I already recycle.

when environmentalists stop yelling and start offering viable solutions to the problem... and follow those solutions themselves.


The ones who are offering the viable solutions are the ones who aren't yelling.;)

I already recycle.

But do you also reduce, and re-use, like any good environmentalist?

But do you also reduce, and re-use, like any good environmentalist?

Who said I was an environmentalist?

So rather than do this yourself, you're going to wait for some hypocrites to get their values and actions in line first?
if you read my posts, I was already cutting back on my emmisions, (taking mass transit) while they didn't why should I follow their "Rules" if they can't follow it themselves.

I also recycle, and while I don't plant trees or anything (being that I live in a city... and that My Green thumb can be considered a WMD for the plant world.) some of those people don't... or said they didn't when I ask them.

What are the viable economic alternatives to our current pracitces? Even if we abandon industrialization in the Western Hemisphere, how will that stop China/India from ruining any attempt at ecological balance in their rush to 'catch up' to the west?

Actually, China is launching the biggest alternative energy and environmental initiatives in the world. Over $200 billion on alternative energy and $170 on environmental cleanup over the next five years; it's an investment large enough to buy the oil corporation ConocoPhilips. They're now seeing the dangers of unrestricted growth and dependence on fossil fuels, so they are trying to clean up their act and provide a model for economic development in a period of ecological uncertainty. China's got a long way to go, but they're making investments on the scale necessary to tackle the problem.

To put it in perspective, China's hitting its own version of the 1960's when it comes to the environment.

Who said I was an environmentalist?

It was le joke.








Ha. Ha.

This is not a matter of destroying economics, its a matter of rebuilding, at least for America. For once in a lifetime American farmers have a product that will not only boost their own wealth, but also the health of the environment. Ethanol. Ye-old corn-based fuels. All we need in America is a politician that plans to save the American auto industry, restore prestige to the small-time American farmer (fast disappearing) and keep the environment healthier.

Also, somebody needs to figure out a way to engineer large-payload, flash-voltage energy transformers. This way we have a continual source of power. i.e.: some nerd needs to figure out how to capture lightning in very large batteries for use to power cities. Solar power needs to be implimented in desert areas. On the windier parts of the Great plains, people can erect wind farms, to both increase the fertility of the soil, and decrease erosion. Oh, and somebosy has got to clean up the mass transit systems of the city. Those things could do with a good Lysol dunking.

Again, all of this depends a politician willing to recognize America's potential to reclaim global dominance of the business world. america has the potential, and the resources. All we need now is the right guy (me).

Actually, China is launching the biggest alternative energy and environmental initiatives in the world. Over $200 billion on alternative energy and $170 on environmental cleanup over the next five years; it's an investment large enough to buy the oil corporation ConocoPhilips. They're now seeing the dangers of unrestricted growth and dependence on fossil fuels, so they are trying to clean up their act and provide a model for economic development in a period of ecological uncertainty. China's got a long way to go, but they're making investments on the scale necessary to tackle the problem.

To put it in perspective, China's hitting its own version of the 1960's when it comes to the environment.

Shows what I know...

What about India... there's another billion people who might want modern convenience.

Vetalia, perhaps you could be more explicit about what kinds of 'alternative energy' China is pursuing.

The ones who are offering the viable solutions are the ones who aren't yelling.;)
;)

I know... but you don't see many of them offering viable solutions.

I asked one person (who was speaking out against the drilling in Alaska) what's the alternative to getting oil from there... his reply... I dunno, but we should think of one.

then I asked him how much of that oil from Alaska is going to the US consumers... again his reply... I Dunno.

So I said, you want to cripple an unknown percent of people who are dependant on oil and gas as well as putting those workers out of a job by stopping this drilling, and you don't have any solutions or alternatives available?

while he stood there with a blank look on his face, I just walked away.

Again, all of this depends a politician willing to recognize America's potential to reclaim global dominance of the business world. america has the potential, and the resources. All we need now is the right guy (me).

Well get off your ass and pull the sword from the stone.

No seriously. Finances? The price of oil keeps rising...if it isn't a factor in your daily living at this point, it will be. Personal tragedy? Do you have to live in a severely polluted environment and suffer the effects before it's an issue for you? What? What is is going to take for you to give a shit? At what point does, "I deserve to be a fat, disgusting consumer and damn the consequences" become overpowered by, "if I don't do something now, it'll be too late"?

Feel free to complain about how global warming is all a lie, and how nuclear energy is a viable option (forget all that radioactive waste, we'll shoot it into space one day), and how the market will save us from ourselves.



Maybe a cookie would help.


But in fact I do care and try to do what I can.

One thing I'm depressed about is that we installed a great geothermal system in our house, but we can't afford it in the new place. Maybe later...but then we have the issue of having spent the money on a new furnace system, and then ditching it for geothermal. :(

Dunno. A meteorite?

Dunno. A meteorite?
I'm sending one your way.

Well get off your ass and pull the sword from the stone.

Ahh, small problem. U.S. Constitution bars me from federal public service for the next eight years. I've already drawn up that awesome plan, and urged my congressmen and senators to see if they can't do anything about it, but until I can get elected, I don't have much chance in getting into a postion of power. Still, putting up posters, blogging, holding conferences, and asking politicians to swing by for a good-old fashioned debate (for some odd reason, they don't return my calls any more) will have to do for now.

Feel free to complain about how global warming is all a lie, and how nuclear energy is a viable option (forget all that radioactive waste, we'll shoot it into space one day), and how the market will save us from ourselves.

Thanks for your permission. Not that I had intended to wait upon it anyway in matching your rhetoric with my own. ^_~

Do you mind if I take a moment to point out that since the 1960s various ZPGers have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming a hundred different variants of "We're all gonna die! We're all gonna die!" none of which ever came true? Would it be rude if I were to then go on that none of these dweebs were ever quite deterred by their previous inaccuracies and failures but would then just make up a new prophecy of doom or else move the deadline of the old one up a decade or 2 and just start again? Can you imagine what it made me think of the followers within that movement that none of them never seemed deterred by the fact that in more than 50 years none of their gurus have ever got it right but that they still want to make policy on the basis of what their silly little gurus say? And as long as you are going to trashtalk the free market do you mind if I point out that the worse environmental screwups took place behind the Iron Curtain and in other nations that were notable in despising everything capitalism ever stood for? Funny how that works. I myself am sometimes of the impression that environmentalists themselves are the worse threat to the environment that anyone may ever hope for. :eek:

I'm sending one your way.
*sits on meteorite*

Didn't work. I'm too lazy. Although, when you think about it, that means I spend very little energy, thus reducing my impact on the environment. Yay me!

I'm sending one your way.



What about my cookie?

What about my cookie?
Probably baking in the Metorite...

I wonder how many Envrionmentalist own cars, raise plants and actually plant them in barren areas to prevent erosion, recycle and reuse that which can be reused.



I refuse to get my drivers license because I don't want to pollute. I love transit. I try to reuse things and I rarely buy things. I mean even food I cut back on. I kill plants I forget about them. I turn off the heating in the winter to save energy (much to my families dismay) and oppose my parents plan to get air conditioning. But my weakness is the computer. I try to cut back though. But I don't watch TV that much so it evens out a bit.

I refuse to get my drivers license because I don't want to pollute.

Get your driver's license. Seriously.

*grumble, grumble, grumble.*

BTW, my house is solar powered. Doing this does nothing against the environment. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Vetalia, perhaps you could be more explicit about what kinds of 'alternative energy' China is pursuing.

According to the law: wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal and marine (tidal/wave) energy.

They want 10% renewables by 2020, which is a huge commitment especially given the fact that China is still electrifying its countryside and could easily have chosen to use its abundant coal deposits instead. This law guarantees that alternative energy will be a main source of power in their developing economy, something that never happened in the West or Japan.

China Passes Renewable Energy Law (http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=23531)

when environmentalists stop yelling and start offering viable solutions to the problem... and follow those solutions themselves.

especially those driving Cars and SUV's.

Hear, hear. A lot of people complain about the environment, but I know from personal experience how hard it is to get many of those same people up off their dead *ss to do something about it. Not all of us have money to donate to an environmental cause, but most all of us can donate the time to write a senator or representative to let them know what you think about a specific piece of environmental legislation. Or (gasp) actually donate your muscles and effort to participate on a cleanup somewhere. No matter what your specific interest, there is a group that can use your help. Seek it out. And donate that time.

Because it's all about getting out there and doing it. Talk is cheap. Because if you don't even have the time, then at least you can get a more fuel efficient car. Taking that extra step to put that trash in the can where it belongs.

And in short, being part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.

According to the law: wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal and marine (tidal/wave) energy.

They want 10% renewables by 2020, which is a huge commitment especially given the fact that China is still electrifying its countryside and could easily have chosen to use its abundant coal deposits instead. This law guarantees that alternative energy will be a main source of power in their developing economy, something that never happened in the West or Japan.

China Passes Renewable Energy Law (http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=23531)

That's definitely admirable.

But that other 90% is coming from traditional sources. That's a lot of environmental impact.

I don't care about the enviornment much. I'll admit it. I may not litter, as I feel thats wrong, I take pains to keep my farm looking nice, but global warming for instance? BS. Doesn't exist. Actually, theres a hell of a lot of evidence that its merely a common climatological effect, which occurs shortly before a new Ice Age, which is rapidly coming. Global Temperatures make a significant rise, then plummet faster than bird without wings.

That's definitely admirable.

But that other 90% is coming from traditional sources. That's a lot of environmental impact.

Well, it takes time to diversify from 200 years of fossil fuels; even the economically developed US only gets about 9.5% of its electricity from those renewables, so it's huge progress for a nation whose econmy is still developing to make that kind of commitment.

The main benefit is what will happen after 2020; with a strong renewable energy market in China, it'll be guaranteed to grow far beyond 10% of total power generation.

I quote The Simpsons...
Can't someone else do it?
---------------------------------------------------
At work i try and get as much of the metals into the proper bins for recycling, i take the Train to work don't buy Bottled Water

Probably something more substantial that i can't think of.

Honestly i think most people don't care because it is a problem for future generations not now, who cares that Tonga, Samoa, Kiribati or Niue keep getting swamped by abnormally high waves?

Lets assume Hurricane Katrina was due to Global Warming, it doesn't change anything.

No seriously. Finances? The price of oil keeps rising...if it isn't a factor in your daily living at this point, it will be. Personal tragedy? Do you have to live in a severely polluted environment and suffer the effects before it's an issue for you? What? What is is going to take for you to give a shit? At what point does, "I deserve to be a fat, disgusting consumer and damn the consequences" become overpowered by, "if I don't do something now, it'll be too late"?

Feel free to complain about how global warming is all a lie, and how nuclear energy is a viable option (forget all that radioactive waste, we'll shoot it into space one day), and how the market will save us from ourselves.
I'm like most Americans: As long as I can breathe the air for ten seconds without dying, I'll deny that there's a problem and keep on driving my M-1 Abrams tank to work (2 gallons per mile, but hey-- it's protected under the 2nd Amendment, no?)

well, I think certain countries, *coughs China* are definitely on the top of the list for polluters, but it's not just them, it's a global problem, I'm not freaking out about it though because where I live the air is still clean, but if I lived in a crowded, smog-filled city, *coughs again Mexico City* I might have a different opinon

No seriously. Finances? The price of oil keeps rising...if it isn't a factor in your daily living at this point, it will be. Personal tragedy? Do you have to live in a severely polluted environment and suffer the effects before it's an issue for you? What? What is is going to take for you to give a shit? At what point does, "I deserve to be a fat, disgusting consumer and damn the consequences" become overpowered by, "if I don't do something now, it'll be too late"?

Feel free to complain about how global warming is all a lie, and how nuclear energy is a viable option (forget all that radioactive waste, we'll shoot it into space one day), and how the market will save us from ourselves.
meh

Actually, theres a hell of a lot of evidence that its merely a common climatological effect, which occurs shortly before a new Ice Age, which is rapidly coming. Global Temperatures make a significant rise, then plummet faster than bird without wings.

That's a common misconception (for a lack of a better word). Scientists who study global warming already know that the Earth changes temperatures like that, and that currently, we are in the increasing stage. The temperature of the planet is more like a sin/cos wave, except over thousands of years.

The problem is that, even though temperatures are rising naturally, they're rising even faster due to global warming.

So, sure, global temperatures rise and fall repeatedly, but we're causing that rise to be even steeper.

The question isn't whether the global temperatures are currently rising, as scientists have already realized that they ARE rising due to the Earth's temperature pattern. It's whether they're rising more than they're supposed to naturally, and whether this increase in the rise is significant.

So instead of using an argument like "Global temperatures rise naturally anyways, so any and all of global warming is natural", which is flawed, you should instead be arguing that the increase is insignificant compared to the natural rise.

Nintendo Console delayed because resources are getting scarce!

Something like that.

I'm like most Americans: As long as I can breathe the air for ten seconds without dying, I'll deny that there's a problem and keep on driving my M-1 Abrams tank to work (2 gallons per mile, but hey-- it's protected under the 2nd Amendment, no?)

I prefer my Merkava, how many friends can you fit in that Abrams? And, there's something fun about opening the back doors and making a 'smokescreen' after hotboxing it. :D

Its not that I don't care about the environment, its that there are other things I care more about.

Like boobs.

No seriously. Finances? The price of oil keeps rising...if it isn't a factor in your daily living at this point, it will be. Personal tragedy? Do you have to live in a severely polluted environment and suffer the effects before it's an issue for you? What? What is is going to take for you to give a shit? At what point does, "I deserve to be a fat, disgusting consumer and damn the consequences" become overpowered by, "if I don't do something now, it'll be too late"?

Feel free to complain about how global warming is all a lie, and how nuclear energy is a viable option (forget all that radioactive waste, we'll shoot it into space one day), and how the market will save us from ourselves.

I do everything I can. Electricity isn't really an issue because the whole country is on hydropower. I don't have a car and I recycle my newspapers. We're a small clean nation, for every one of us there are millions who don't give a shit.
We recycle, we use hydropower and don't dump toxic waste, yet we are the first to feel the changes in the climate.
I once read that if America were to actually shut their TV's off instead of putting them on "standby" when not watching, the energy saved would be enough to power my country for 3 months (not that we need it, but it's a nice comparison).

Probably not until my standard of living improves to trhe point that I can afford to give a shit.

I will never care about the enviroment. If it gets that bad I'll kill myself and leave you poor bastards with the consiquences! :D

I figure it will become a priority for most people right around the point where it hits home that it is a threat to the two great human instincts ... self-preservation and perpetuation of our bloodlines. Unfortunately, the point when we reach that realization may come entirely too late to do either.

No seriously. Finances? The price of oil keeps rising...if it isn't a factor in your daily living at this point, it will be. Personal tragedy? Do you have to live in a severely polluted environment and suffer the effects before it's an issue for you? What? What is is going to take for you to give a shit? At what point does, "I deserve to be a fat, disgusting consumer and damn the consequences" become overpowered by, "if I don't do something now, it'll be too late"?

Feel free to complain about how global warming is all a lie, and how nuclear energy is a viable option (forget all that radioactive waste, we'll shoot it into space one day), and how the market will save us from ourselves.

tree hugger :rolleyes:

but seriously, I'll do what is easier for me, because why make extra effort to keep the earth clean? when i am dead it will be someone elses problem. I'll drain my car oil and coolant right into the sewer drain and continue untill i die because why should it be my job to dispose of it a the gas station.

tree hugger :rolleyes:

but seriously, I'll do what is easier for me, because why make extra effort to keep the earth clean? when i am dead it will be someone elses problem. I'll drain my car oil and coolant right into the sewer drain and continue untill i die because why should it be my job to dispose of it a the gas station.
Sewer drain? That's what god made grassy feilds for! :p

Sewer drain? That's what god made grassy feilds for! :p

i like the way you think

I wonder how many Envrionmentalist own cars, raise plants and actually plant them in barren areas to prevent erosion, recycle and reuse that which can be reused.
WTF? You don't want to stop damaging the environment so you act as if the hypocrites are the majority.

Every environmentalist save a few who we don't want anything to do with anyway, recycles and generally does their bit. They don't drive SUVs.

I know... but you don't see many of them offering viable solutions.
So where are all the viable solutions coming from? People who aren't environmentalists?

Do you mind if I take a moment to point out that since the 1960s various ZPGers have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming a hundred different variants of "We're all gonna die! We're all gonna die!" none of which ever came true?:
40 years is a short time in the Earth's life.

I myself am sometimes of the impression that environmentalists themselves are the worse threat to the environment that anyone may ever hope for.
How?

What would you do for a Klondike bar?
Would you get off your ass and care about the environment?

Look the earth never promised to stay stagnent. The earth will get warmer, it will get colder, it will be set on fire, it will be covered in ice, the continents will continue to seperate and humans have to do what we always done. Just deal with it. We get global warming..so what. If people have to move away from the coastline and relocate inland, big god damned deal. We will adjust and adapt. I have news for you, global warming does not equal a giant suprise tsnunami that will bury the world underwater with less than 20 min warning.People are acting like one morning they will wake up and have discovered thier houses are under 30 feet of water from melting ice caps where it was the top of a mountian just yesterday. I mean get a grip and stop running around yelling that the sky is falling. Its just weather, get over it.

What's it going to take for you to get off your ass and care about the environment?
Um, I already do?

Um, I already do?You better have been typing those words on a keyboard made of recycled paper or the Homeland Environmental Resource Protection Enforcement Squad will come and get you...

I love the environment. It is my toy. My entertainment.

Sometimes I wear nothing but the environment. :)

You better have been typing those words on a keyboard made of recycled paper or the Homeland Environmental Resource Protection Enforcement Squad will come and get you...
Honey, I am the Homeland Environmental Resource Protection Enforcement Squad. :mp5: (<-- shooting recycled corn starch pellets)

Honey, I am the Homeland Environmental Resource Protection Enforcement Squad. :mp5: (<-- shooting recycled corn starch pellets)Methinks the HERPES would be more effective if their members didn't get stuck in trash dumpsters every so often :p

Methinks the HERPES would be more effective if their members didn't get stuck in trash dumpsters every so often :p Ew, one could almost think you picked those initials on purpose just in case I claim myself to be them. :mad: :p

Who said I was an environmentalist?
Is your bible made from recyclable material?

Hm? Hm hm?

Where's your God now?

Huh? Take that!

*gets struck by lightning*

I think the environmentalists need big mainstream advertising campaigns like you could have a women in bikinis made out of hemp saying "We want you... to save the environment".

Ew, one could almost think you picked those initials on purpose just in case I claim myself to be them. :mad: :pAnd it worked, too! :D

And it worked, too! :D
Oh, you can only wish you'd thought of that. :D

I think the environmentalists need big mainstream advertising campaigns like you could have a women in bikinis made out of hemp saying "We want you... to save the environment".Or not wear anything and say "I'd rather wear nothing than fur!"?

Oh, you can only wish you'd thought of that. :DYou honestly think I'm not creative enough to come up with an acronym that quickly? I never expected you to claim membership, though...

You honestly think I'm not creative enough to come up with an acronym that quickly? I never expected you to claim membership, though...
I'm not going to answer this one. :D

Is your bible made from recyclable material?

Hm? Hm hm?

Where's your God now?

Huh? Take that!

*gets struck by lightning*

Mine is made from stretched human skin.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. :)

I think the environmentalists need big mainstream advertising campaigns like ...".

Having alarmed environmentalist Chicken Little running around yelling" The Sky isnt Falling!! "

I'm not going to answer this one. :DThen don't. Address the snide jab about getting stuck in trash cans :D

Then don't. Address the snide jab about getting stuck in trash cans :D
Can't. I'm ignoring that one because I have no idea what you're on about. :p

Mine is made from stretched human skin.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. :)
You are my green hero!

Can't. I'm ignoring that one because I have no idea what you're on about. :pThere's two possibilities I see: Either you have completely forgotten, or you are attempting to avoid potential embarassment... :p

There's two possibilities I see: Either you have completely forgotten, or you are attempting to avoid potential embarassment... :p
Life is like a box of chocolates..

There's two possibilities I see: Either you have completely forgotten, or you are attempting to avoid potential embarassment... :p
OH! The paper thing? Lol. :p

I had completely forgotten, I had no clue what you were talking about.

Meh, we don't really get stuck, we just insert our agents into a situation for closer inspection. *nods*

OH! The paper thing? Lol. :p

I had completely forgotten, I had no clue what you were talking about.

Meh, we don't really get stuck, we just insert our agents into a situation for closer inspection. *nods*

...insert...

:)

Regarding the OP, I just want to say Nuclear energy is a "best of the worst" option. Many nations, especially developing countries dont have to money to build renewable energy plants. So, given global warning, instead of building plants like coal or oil plants, nuclear energy is better. For ex: India, China. Actually even Finland is building a new nuclear plant to meet the standarts of Kyoto agreement.

Life is like a box of chocolates..

Your life, on the other hand is like a box of active grenades. You know exactly what you're going to get.

OH! The paper thing? Lol. :p

I had completely forgotten, I had no clue what you were talking about.

Meh, we don't really get stuck, we just insert our agents into a situation for closer inspection. *nods*Hehe. Took you a while... :p

...insert...

:) Are you just insinuating dirty things or did I use the wrong word after all (I wasn't sure & too lazy to look it up)?

Your life, on the other hand is like a box of active grenades. You know exactly what you're going to get.
Toasted marshmellows?

Are you just insinuating dirty things or did I use the wrong word after all (I wasn't sure & too lazy to look it up)?Dirty indeed: He's smiling because the verb reminds him of mud in some way... :p

Are you just insinuating dirty things or did I use the wrong word after all (I wasn't sure & too lazy to look it up)?
Show me yours, I'll show you mine...?

Dirty indeed: He's smiling because the verb reminds him of mud in some way... :p Well, they all do, so at least it's not my fault. :p

Show me yours, I'll show you mine...?
:eek: (http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/love031.gif)

Are you just insinuating dirty things or did I use the wrong word after all (I wasn't sure & too lazy to look it up)?

Apparently you're insinuating dirty things. You used the word. :)

Dirty indeed: He's smiling because the verb reminds him of mud in some way... :p


Mmm.... mud.

Apparently you're insinuating dirty things. You used the word. :)
I like your logic. http://forum.pummeldex.de/images/emotions/jaa.gif

I like your logic. http://forum.pummeldex.de/images/emotions/jaa.gifAnd insinuating dirty things, it seems...

And insinuating dirty things, it seems...
:eek: (http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/love031.gif)

:eek: (http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/love031.gif)
;) (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/Goomg/gif/smilies/spank.gif)

:eek: (http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/love031.gif)
Goodness me, there's no sense in you denying it. Just give in and revel in your... promiscuity...:p

Goodness me, there's no sense in you denying it. Just give in and revel in your... promiscuity...:p
What, just because I said the same thing to Ruffy I'm promiscuous now? :eek: (http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/love028.gif)

(Another thread killed... by smilies)

Dragging it back to the topic...
My 2 cents are...

How much can you expect us to do? Switching off lights and televisions may save you money, but let's not kid ourselves that we're saving the planet here. It's not like there's really anything we can do to prevent industries spewing out effluent because I think we can safely say that no-one in NS is in a position to do so.
And forget protests and petitions, there's too many people depending on pollution to safeguard themselves and their interests. It's all drops in the ocean and I'm really not sure what a mass reduction in pollutants would actually achieve. Progress would still march onward, there'd still be more than enough vehicles to counterbalance any taken off the road, and besides there's far bigger issues around - things we can actually do something about.

(Another thread killed... by smilies)

Dragging it back to the topic...
Ack, you're right. I got carried away. >.< *slinks off now*

What, just because I said the same thing to Ruffy I'm promiscuous now? :eek: (http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/love028.gif)
You' (http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/love022.gif)re the one with the naughty vocabulary, missy! ;)

(Another thread killed... by smilies)

Dragging it back to the topic...
My 2 cents are...

How much can you expect us to do? Switching off lights and televisions may save you money, but let's not kid ourselves that we're saving the planet here. It's not like there's really anything we can do to prevent industries spewing out effluent because I think we can safely say that no-one in NS is in a position to do so.
And forget protests and petitions, there's too many people depending on pollution to safeguard themselves and their interests. It's all drops in the ocean and I'm really not sure what a mass reduction in pollutants would actually achieve. Progress would still march onward, there'd still be more than enough vehicles to counterbalance any taken off the road, and besides there's far bigger issues around - things we can actually do something about.Yeah, of course soon it might become a more important issue than ever before. If my hunch is correct, then the extreme weather conditions Europe is starting to experience aren't going to change for the better anytime soon...

You' (http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/love022.gif)re the one with the naughty vocabulary, missy! ;)Don't call me missy, buster.*glowers* I've taken my smilies over to the spam thread where they belong, so you're not getting any.

Don't call me missy, buster.*glowers* I've taken my smilies over to the spam thread where they belong, so you're not getting any.
:(

Where would that be? Would we be safe from the repurcussions of a changing climate there? Did you hear the bit about us having a desert climate in Berlin and Brandenburg too? The temperature changes between morning and noon were similar, I heard.

No seriously. Finances? The price of oil keeps rising...if it isn't a factor in your daily living at this point, it will be. Personal tragedy? Do you have to live in a severely polluted environment and suffer the effects before it's an issue for you? What? What is is going to take for you to give a shit? At what point does, "I deserve to be a fat, disgusting consumer and damn the consequences" become overpowered by, "if I don't do something now, it'll be too late"?

Feel free to complain about how global warming is all a lie, and how nuclear energy is a viable option (forget all that radioactive waste, we'll shoot it into space one day), and how the market will save us from ourselves.

I actually care, Sinuhue. Less electricity and water consumption... and I recycle all the plastic, paper, glass and metal that my hands touch.

Also I recycle the batteries we use at home and look the material my clothes are made for: WOOL and COTTON!

:(

Where would that be? Would we be safe from the repurcussions of a changing climate there? Did you hear the bit about us having a desert climate in Berlin and Brandenburg too? The temperature changes between morning and noon were similar, I heard.The "What do you Want" thread.
And that desert bit sounds ridiculous. Do you mean at the moment or year-round? Because at the moment it's definitely bullshit - it's still 30°C at 1 am and goes down no further than to about 24° before sunrise. Some desert. :p

The "What do you Want" thread.
And that desert bit sounds ridiculous. Do you mean at the moment or year-round? Because at the moment it's definitely bullshit - it's still 30°C at 1 am and goes down no further than to about 24° before sunrise. Some desert. :p
Heard it on MorgenMagazin a while ago, when there was still a difference :p

Well, actually I changed all my light bulbs to CFLs, I bought a timed thermostat, I placed new insulation in the problem areas of my house, and gradually replaced my major appliances with energy efficient ones. I also traded in my old car for a hybrid, and switched over to the "green energy" options which my local utility company offers. My household bills are actually lower than they've ever been, and I pay less for gas than I have since it started costing more that $2.00 a gallon.

For me it was a perfect combination of environmental concern, and good old fashioned thriftiness.

What's it going to take for you to get off your ass and care about the environment?

An actual environmental problem.

Pie ...lots of pie.

An actual environmental problem.Ah, but what is an environmental problem? Is it merely things that go wrong in nature that affect human beings eventually? In the end, environmental problems are solely defined by their social character...

Ah, but what is an environmental problem? Is it merely things that go wrong in nature that affect human beings eventually? In the end, environmental problems are solely defined by their social character...
Don't try and reason with this guy. He thinks that every effort to safeguard God's green earth is a step towards communism.

I drive a large diesel vehicle. Don't get onto me about protecting the enviroment.

Me?

I don't propose to do a thing until such a time as the USA does.

Don't try and reason with this guy. He thinks that every effort to safeguard God's green earth is a step towards communism.Oh, of course not. I just wanted to get rid of some points from my classes.

Me?

I don't propose to do a thing until such a time as the USA does.

I don't plan on doing anything at all. No worries, just drive.

An actual environmental problem.
This is a very funny sarcastic remark!

An actual environmental problem.
Oh ha ha. :rolleyes:

I recycle and try my best to turn off lights when I'm not in a room. At the moment I think I contribute enough.

What's it going to take for you to get off your ass and care about the environment?
What, I can't care about the environment and ride my donkey at the same time? ;)

*Flees*

I don't plan on doing anything at all. No worries, just drive.

Until the gas runs out. No problem!

I drive a large diesel vehicle. Don't get onto me about protecting the enviroment.

Low-sulfur diesels are better for the environment than gasoline-powered vehicles. ;)

Not only that, but you get 30% more mileage than a comparable gas-powered vehicle. The only downside is that diesel is more expensive, although the higher cost is still less than the boost in mileage.

Financial considerations were definately high on the priority list when we installed our geothermal system. We forked out $10,000, but it increased the value of our home BIG time (we are one of only two homes in the area that have such a system) and it really paid off in energy savings.

I'm hoping we can do it again in the new home, but it's going to have to wait a while, since we are forking out huge bucks for the place and are going to be very cash strapped for a while. But we are also planning on starting up a small greenhouse that would be supplied with geothermal heating, so it's definately in the future.

I think our biggest success has been in reducing what we consume. On a personal or family level, that can be pretty huge.

On a wider, policy level, well I've voted Green (when living in a place that could actually run a candidate), and I've supported tribal environmental standards enacted in tribal lands that by FAR exceed federal standards. I'd like to see these standards in all tribal lands if we can't get them throughout Canada. Unfortunately, pollution doesn't respect borders, and a lot of areas that are not heavily polluting nonetheless bear the brunt of the actions of others who aren't so careful. In these cases, if the government doesn't step in, I'd like to see more culpability spelled out in crippling lawsuits.

when hippies shut up and note that converting matter into energy via Fission is a good way to make power. It makes minimal mass of toxic waste compared to the energy, which can be stored readily, and produces less deaths from accidents/pollution then coal and other fossil fuels, will still being economical and not cutting into everyone's day to day lives. It also doesnt invovle clear cutting large swaths of land like needed for a wind farm or solar panel array.

-partial snip-
I think our biggest success has been in reducing what we consume. On a personal or family level, that can be pretty huge..

A geothermal heating system usually reduces natural gas consumption by at least 80%; if it's used to also heat water you can boost that as high as 90%, and if you go all out and use geothermal or solar for electricity you can pretty much meet all of your needs plus a surplus that can be sold back to the grid if such a program exists.

In places with abundant geothermal, wind, or solar resources it's possible to live entirely off of the grid in terms of power and nearly free of all fossil fuels. The only downside is cost, but usually the different levels of government all offer outright financial aid or tax credits for installing those systems.

Blah blah blah Canuck blah
F*ckin Hippie


:fluffle:

when hippies shut up and note that converting matter into energy via Fission is a good way to make power. It makes minimal mass of toxic waste compared to the energy, which can be stored readily, and produces less deaths from accidents/pollution then coal and other fossil fuels, will still being economical and not cutting into everyone's day to day lives. It also doesnt invovle clear cutting large swaths of land like needed for a wind farm or solar panel array.

Nuclear is an important part of our energy portfolio, but it's not true that wind/solar require clearcutting for their construction.

Wind farms almost never require any forests to be cleared in order to be built. They're naturally located in windy areas that have sparse vegetation, and the actual turbines only take up a very small portion of the land allocated to them. In fact, one of the most promising sources of wind is in the ocean where they can be built with a minimum of effects on the environment, and the buffer zone for them creates a de facto nature preserve on site. Solar is usually built on houses or when it's used in large arrays in open fields or even deserts; forested areas are usually rainier and less viable for solar from the start so it would make little sense to clear the land to build ther.

Nuclear is an important part of our energy portfolio, but it's not true that wind/solar require clearcutting for their construction.

Wind farms almost never require any forests to be cleared in order to be built. They're naturally located in windy areas that have sparse vegetation, and the actual turbines only take up a very small portion of the land allocated to them. In fact, one of the most promising sources of wind is in the ocean where they can be built with a minimum of effects on the environment, and the buffer zone for them creates a de facto nature preserve on site. Solar is usually built on houses or when it's used in large arrays in open fields or even deserts; forested areas are usually rainier and less viable for solar from the start so it would make little sense to clear the land to build ther.
Until someone complains because of the decrease in property value because of the ruined view.

Until someone complains because of the decrease in property value because of the ruined view.

Well, that's what the opponents of offshore wind and wind in general say but there's little evidence to support it. In fact, wind arrays bring a lot of value (about $50,000/turbine per year on average) in to the economy of the places they're located in and even function as a tourist attraction in some communities. Not only that, but they're a lot more attractive than a coal or natural gas plant; wind is a clean, abundant, and aesthetic form of electrical generation.

Of course, the people who complain about wind don't want to build any kind of plants near them. It's the NIMBY mentality that motivates them, not any real concern about their land value. The public supports wind power, so they have to come up with a new excuse to block these plants from obstructing their ocean view.

They forget that the loss in property value from polluting natural gas or coal plants is a lot more than even the biggest potential loss from wind, yet have no problem with building them to meet our energy needs. But then again, it's so much easier to dump those coal plants on some poor community that can't do anything about them...

Until the gas runs out. No problem!

It's gonna be a long time, I get around 1100-1250 miles a tank. And I CAN run bio diesel, furthering my abilities to pollute the atmosphere. Mwahahahahah!


Low-sulfur diesels are better for the environment than gasoline-powered vehicles. ;)

Not only that, but you get 30% more mileage than a comparable gas-powered vehicle. The only downside is that diesel is more expensive, although the higher cost is still less than the boost in mileage.

Dude, I'm driving a hippie car. I need to get a big gas guzzling v8 4x4 or something...SUV....


I bought it 'cause it was a diesel, and reliable. Not because it was enviro-friendly.

Until someone complains because of the decrease in property value because of the ruined view.

Who cares, give them like 10% off their elec bill.

PANSIES.

There is no such thing as 'clean energy'. Everything has an impact upon our delicately balanced ecosystem. You have to understand that the earth has been building this ever-so-complex house of cards for billions of years. Rapid changes mess it up (except for the most basic elements). Further it must be understood that energy is not created, merely converted. Now remember that the ecosystem of the earth is an optimal machine, which uses every bit of it's available energy in some way. There is no surplus. When we use energy, we steal it from the planet. If we fill the Sahara desert with solar panels, global temperature will drop. If we fill the continent of Australia with wind farms, local wind will cease, and global wind currents will do strange things. If we fill polynesia with tidal power stations, we kill the cycle of the tides upon which practically all plant, animal and marine life depend on (directly or not). If we put geothermal power stations all over geographical hot spots, the core temperature of earth will drop (who know what would happen then). By the way, this is not a hippy rant, I am going somewhere with this. Basically, if we want renewable 'clean energy' we have to get it from somewhere other than earth, that doesn't matter if we mess it up. Like Space, or mars, (not the moon). As many of you may know, we have recently been able to teleport light. This is one step closer to being able to teleport energy. If we could teleport energy, we could slap some solar panels in space and never worry about energy again. Until that day, we have to worry about transporting energy. This will require time and money, and foresight, as well as meaning that the energy source must not be too far from earth (like mars). So basically, in breif, we can't get the amount of energy we need with out destroying the balance of earth's ecosystem. Therefore we must get it elsewhere, namely space or other planets. However, we can't transport energy very effectively, so the energy source must be within a reasonable proximity of earth in accordance to our level of transportative technology. At the moment, that would mean energy production in space is too much of a logisical feat to manuveur. So we shouldn't create energy on earth, and we can't do it in space. We are rooted. However, there is one final blessing. Nuculear Fission. Nuke reactors aren't the godsend that we all think it is, though. Forgetting about the various drawbacks, if the whole world were to convert to nuculear energy, we would run out of easilyu accessible uranium and plutonium in less than 50 years. However, 50 years is just about what we need to develope the technology we need to get these space-stations operating. So for now we should use nuculear energy, but we should not view it as a solution, but rather as a temporary energy fix, whilst we set up the true solution.

[QUOTE=Vetalia]*snip*
Wind farms almost never require any forests to be cleared in order to be built. They're naturally located in windy areas that have sparse vegetation, and the actual turbines only take up a very small portion of the land allocated to them. In fact, one of the most promising sources of wind is in the ocean where they can be built with a minimum of effects on the environment, and the buffer zone for them creates a de facto nature preserve on site. *snip*QUOTE]
However, if we built wind farms on a scale so as to meet even 5% of our energy needs, the wind turbines would actually kill the natural wind currents of the locale and upset the wind currents of the region.

-snip-.

Quite true. Ideally, of course, by the time that we need enough energy to necessitate covering the Sahara with solar panels or Australia with wind turbines we'll have developed advanced methods of producing energy that don't require that kind of extensive buildout.

There's a lot of available renewable energy out there, so hopefully by the time that our power demands reach the levels you describe we won't need to build them on Earth. 174 petawatts of solar power is a gigantic amount; currently, the entire world consumes 16.05 terawatts or 0.00009% of the amount that could be produced by solar power. Geothermal power alone could meet all of our demands with 7 tW left over; that's not to say it is plausible, but it could be done if we pushed our geothermal resources to full capacity.

However, if we built wind farms on a scale so as to meet even 5% of our energy needs, the wind turbines would actually kill the natural wind currents of the locale and upset the wind currents of the region.

I'd have to doubt that; it's simply not possible to stop the wind currents with turbines that take up almost no area relative to the amount of space allocated to them Plus, the sheer force of the wind would require something a lot bigger than a wind turbine to stop it; there is still wind in New York City despite the fact that there are a huge number of buildings taller and closer together than wind turbines. This doesn't even include things like small wind turbines or vertical ones that take up almost no lateral area.

For example, the German state of Schleswig-Holstein gets 20% of its power from wind with absolutely zero effect on local wind currents. Germany is already getting 6% of their electricity nationwide from wind without any effect on its wind patterns and is boosting it to 12.5% by 2010. Three states alone could meet all of the US's electricity needs, so the aregument doesn't really make sense that wind turbines can actually stop wind.

No seriously. Finances? The price of oil keeps rising...if it isn't a factor in your daily living at this point, it will be. Personal tragedy? Do you have to live in a severely polluted environment and suffer the effects before it's an issue for you? What? What is is going to take for you to give a shit? At what point does, "I deserve to be a fat, disgusting consumer and damn the consequences" become overpowered by, "if I don't do something now, it'll be too late"?

Feel free to complain about how global warming is all a lie, and how nuclear energy is a viable option (forget all that radioactive waste, we'll shoot it into space one day), and how the market will save us from ourselves.

For them to come out with cool "eco-friendly" cars...and not gay little piece of shit boxes that look like you can cock-slap them and they will break.

But until then, I'll stick to my lincoln Navigator. :)

But until then, I'll stick to my lincoln Navigator. :)

In about 4-5 years, we'll definitely be seeing hybrid full-size SUVs on the market that get 25-30 or more MPG. Can't guarantee if Ford's hybrid options will include the Navigator, but there will definitely be at least a hybrid Expedition. Fuel economy is big money these days, and the company that can combine both the comfort of an SUV and the efficiency of a small car will own the competition for a long time. Think 30 years, since that's how long Toyota has been gaining on GM and their gains came on the back of soaring gas prices.

The first company to release a full-size SUV that gets 30-40 or even more MPG will dominate the auto industry. I don't know if it will be Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, or any other automaker but the one who does it first will make the most money. Given the news I've heard about hybrid Tahoes and Escalades, I'm thinking GM will hit the money first but it's still anyone's race to win. Even boosting MPG for full-size SUVs in to the mid to upper 20's would be a major improvement to our fleet fuel economy; light trucks make up 50% of the car market so any improvement in them will have a huge effect.

In about 4-5 years, we'll definitely be seeing hybrid full-size SUVs on the market that get 25-30 or more MPG. Can't guarantee if Ford's hybrid options will include the Navigator, but there will definitely be at least a hybrid Expedition. Fuel economy is big money these days, and the company that can combine both the comfort of an SUV and the efficiency of a small car will own the competition for a long time. Think 30 years, since that's how long Toyota has been gaining on GM and their gains came on the back of soaring gas prices.

The first company to release a full-size SUV that gets 30-40 or even more MPG will dominate the auto industry. I don't know if it will be Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, or any other automaker but the one who does it first will make the most money. Given the news I've heard about hybrid Tahoes and Escalades, I'm thinking GM will hit the money first but it's still anyone's race to win. Even boosting MPG for full-size SUVs in to the mid to upper 20's would be a major improvement to our fleet fuel economy; light trucks make up 50% of the car market so any improvement in them will have a huge effect.

I agree, and honestly, in my opinion, I think GM will hit it off first. Maybe with a nice Yukon or Escalade. Either way, if they do it (and the car looks as normal as the regular ones) they will have made a buyer out of me.:)

I agree, and honestly, in my opinion, I think GM will hit it off first. Maybe with a nice Yukon or Escalade. Either way, if they do it (and the car looks as normal as the regular ones) they will have made a buyer out of me.:)

They'll probably look the same and will not cost much more than regular SUVs because of the falling cost for hybrid technology; they'll be pretty much cost-competitive come 2008-2010 given how fast the price for hybrid systems is falling. I've always felt that environmentalism works best when the economics support it, so I'll consider getting one if they're available.

Of course, if the impossible were to happen and gas falls back to $1/gallon like it did in '98 it might not be as likely...but then again, if that happens then we don't really need hybrids.

They'll probably look the same and will not cost much more than regular SUVs because of the falling cost for hybrid technology; they'll be pretty much cost-competitive come 2008-2010 given how fast the price for hybrid systems is falling. I've always felt that environmentalism works best when the economics support it, so I'll consider getting one if they're available.

Of course, if the impossible were to happen and gas falls back to $1/gallon like it did in '98 it might not be as likely...but then again, if that happens then we don't really need hybrids.
I think this is just one of those things that can be summed up in the statement, "only time will tell".

An actual environmental problem.
Wake UP!

I don't plan on doing anything at all. No worries, just drive.
Pfft, lazy. ;)

It's gonna be a long time, I get around 1100-1250 miles a tank. And I CAN run bio diesel, furthering my abilities to pollute the atmosphere. Mwahahahahah!




Dude, I'm driving a hippie car. I need to get a big gas guzzling v8 4x4 or something...SUV....


I bought it 'cause it was a diesel, and reliable. Not because it was enviro-friendly.
What is wrong with you?

It's gonna be a long time, I get around 1100-1250 miles a tank. And I CAN run bio diesel, furthering my abilities to pollute the atmosphere. Mwahahahahah!

I bought it 'cause it was a diesel, and reliable. Not because it was enviro-friendly.
Why are you proud of defiling God's green earth?

when hippies shut up and note that converting matter into energy via Fission is a good way to make power. It makes minimal mass of toxic waste compared to the energy, which can be stored readily, and produces less deaths from accidents/pollution then coal and other fossil fuels, will still being economical and not cutting into everyone's day to day lives. It also doesnt invovle clear cutting large swaths of land like needed for a wind farm or solar panel array.

When rednecks shut up and note that wind farms can be built in seas?

Until someone complains because of the decrease in property value because of the ruined view.

It can be built pretty offshore so that you cant see it from the coast. They are doing it in Denmark...

When rednecks shut up and note that wind farms can be built in seas?


also when something goes wrong with a nuclear power station, it goes very wrong indeed. Chernobyl anyone???

On a sidenote I read that the bush admin are making move towards new hybrid based car engines so that they wont be so reliant on middle eastern oil suppliers. But I doubt the veracity of such claims. It will be gratifying perhaps to know that the human race is digging its own grave. Future generations will remember us and particularly bush and all those little shits on the boards of corporate conglomerates with scorn.

also when something goes wrong with a nuclear power station, it goes very wrong indeed. Chernobyl anyone???

On a sidenote I read that the bush admin are making move towards new hybrid based car engines so that they wont be so reliant on middle eastern oil suppliers. But I doubt the veracity of such claims. It will be gratifying perhaps to know that the human race is digging its own grave. Future generations will remember us and particularly bush and all those little shits on the boards of corporate conglomerates with scorn.
Bush has only supported researching alternative powering, as has every other President for God knows how long...

also when something goes wrong with a nuclear power station, it goes very wrong indeed. Chernobyl anyone???

It seem that current scientific thinking is that the chernobyl incident was nowhere near as bad as was forecast.

It seem that current scientific thinking is that the chernobyl incident was nowhere near as bad as was forecast.

It was still pretty bad though...all those people afflicted with thyroid cancer...the devestation in the vicinty of the station. Is it really worth it? Granted there are more advanced safeguards yet funding may not always be consistent depending on the economies of different nations, and something eventually goes wrong, and more eventually, badly wrong.

It was still pretty bad though...all those people afflicted with thyroid cancer...the devestation in the vicinty of the station. Is it really worth it? Granted there are more advanced safeguards yet funding may not always be consistent depending on the economies of different nations, and something eventually goes wrong, and more eventually, badly wrong.Well, to be fair, Western and Soviet nuclear powerplants are rather different in structure. That what caused the meltdown in Chernobyl isn't likely to happen in a Western plant. What scares me though is how some of the stuff gets handled in Japan...

It was still pretty bad though...all those people afflicted with thyroid cancer...the devestation in the vicinty of the station. Is it really worth it? Granted there are more advanced safeguards yet funding may not always be consistent depending on the economies of different nations, and something eventually goes wrong, and more eventually, badly wrong.

I would be curious to see how the number of people affected by thyroid cancer measures up against the number of people who suffer medical conditions related to the emmissions from conventional power stations.

The vicinity of the station was abandoned as the accepted scientific knowledge of the time said it must be, in fact the animals that never moved away have suffered no detrimental effects as far as science can find.

No seriously. Finances? The price of oil keeps rising...if it isn't a factor in your daily living at this point, it will be. Personal tragedy? Do you have to live in a severely polluted environment and suffer the effects before it's an issue for you? What? What is is going to take for you to give a shit? At what point does, "I deserve to be a fat, disgusting consumer and damn the consequences" become overpowered by, "if I don't do something now, it'll be too late"?

Feel free to complain about how global warming is all a lie, and how nuclear energy is a viable option (forget all that radioactive waste, we'll shoot it into space one day), and how the market will save us from ourselves.
I'm old enough such that it's not my problem. And don't call me fat. I prefer 'lazy, disgusting consumer'.

Well, to be fair, Western and Soviet nuclear powerplants are rather different in structure. That what caused the meltdown in Chernobyl isn't likely to happen in a Western plant. What scares me though is how some of the stuff gets handled in Japan...

The structure wasn't that different at the time. I seem to remember reading that chernobyl was using the same cooling system design as three-mile island. A cooling system that isn't in use anymore :D

also when something goes wrong with a nuclear power station, it goes very wrong indeed. Chernobyl anyone???.

Chernobyl was a poorly designed Soviet plant without the regulations or accountability that exist in the West; even the oldest plants in the West were better designed and safer than the one in use at Chernobyl, so it's impossible to compare them. The main concern is how to store the waste; ideally, we'll be able to reprocess most of it in to new fuel and reduce the radioactivity of the waste to a much shorter time so as to avoid

Of course, there are plenty of locations where nuclear waste storage can be safely placed that are thousands of miles away from human inhabitation; Russia in particular is well suited to storing nuclear waste (that's where France sends it).

The structure wasn't that different at the time. I seem to remember reading that chernobyl was using the same cooling system design as three-mile island. A cooling system that isn't in use anymore :DNot according to what I was studying for an exam last year. As far as I know, the control mechanisms were different.

I would be curious to see how the number of people affected by thyroid cancer measures up against the number of people who suffer medical conditions related to the emmissions from conventional power stations.

The vicinity of the station was abandoned as the accepted scientific knowledge of the time said it must be, in fact the animals that never moved away have suffered no detrimental effects as far as science can find.

not so. The livers of animals in the region have been found to be extremely small from the consumption due to the consumption of poisonous radioactive materials. Some people still live there. They get their food and water imported but they are taking a risk in that respect. Workers who maintain the plant and who must live in the region do so for only a number of years before their lease is up for health reasons.

I'm old enough such that it's not my problem. And don't call me fat. I prefer 'lazy, disgusting consumer'.
I'm glad then that you don't have children or are not planning on having children.

Not according to what I was studying for an exam last year. As far as I know, the control mechanisms were different.

I bow to your superior knowledge on this one. That little fact was something that was just rattling around in my head and I haven't a shred of evidence to back it up.

Chernobyl was a poorly designed Soviet plant without the regulations or accountability that exist in the West; even the oldest plants in the West were better designed and safer than the one in use at Chernobyl, so it's impossible to compare them. The main concern is how to store the waste; ideally, we'll be able to reprocess most of it in to new fuel and reduce the radioactivity of the waste to a much shorter time so as to avoid

Of course, there are plenty of locations where nuclear waste storage can be safely placed that are thousands of miles away from human inhabitation; Russia in particular is well suited to storing nuclear waste (that's where France sends it).

Sellafield is a bit dodgy though dont you think? No matter how well designed a nuclear plant is, eventually something will break down or go wrong. And unless we have a proper response strategy that actually gets rid of the fallout then I cant think of any reason to go in the nuclear direction.

No seriously. Finances? The price of oil keeps rising...if it isn't a factor in your daily living at this point, it will be. Personal tragedy? Do you have to live in a severely polluted environment and suffer the effects before it's an issue for you? What? What is is going to take for you to give a shit? At what point does, "I deserve to be a fat, disgusting consumer and damn the consequences" become overpowered by, "if I don't do something now, it'll be too late"?

Feel free to complain about how global warming is all a lie, and how nuclear energy is a viable option (forget all that radioactive waste, we'll shoot it into space one day), and how the market will save us from ourselves.

The Earth is heating to a boil and all George W. Bush wants is more money, money, money, and tax cuts for the rich.

Unless we look at what industries can be closed down or operated more efficiently by government regulators, then the end of the world will occur on December 19, 2099.

I swear this is just a coicedence, but does anyone notice how socialism would effectively deal with this environmental problem, but capitalism will just make it worse?

I bow to your superior knowledge on this one. That little fact was something that was just rattling around in my head and I haven't a shred of evidence to back it up.Details are sketchy, though. That exam was like a detailed multiple choice exam, only that instead of picking the answer, you had to fill it in... One of the questions was "The natural concentration of U___ in uranium is ___%"...

not so. The livers of animals in the region have been found to be extremely small from the consumption due to the consumption of poisonous radioactive materials. Some people still live there. They get their food and water imported but they are taking a risk in that respect. Workers who maintain the plant and who must live in the region do so for only a number of years before their lease is up for health reasons.

Professor Ron Chesser, of Texas Tech University, US, has spent 10 years studying animals living within the 30km exclusion zone surrounding Chernobyl.

He has found that, far from the effects of low-level radiation being carcinogenic, it appears to boost those genes that protect us against cancer.

"One of the thoughts that comes out of this is that prior exposure to low levels of radiation actually may have a beneficial effect," Professor Chesser says.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5173310.stm

I'm glad then that you don't have children or are not planning on having children.
Sarcasm just doesn't take, does it?

Sarcasm just doesn't take, does it?
I wasn't being sarcastic. I inferred it from your post.

Edit: Oh wait: Were you being sarcastic? If so, you can call me an ass.

Sellafield is a bit dodgy though dont you think? No matter how well designed a nuclear plant is, eventually something will break down or go wrong. And unless we have a proper response strategy that actually gets rid of the fallout then I cant think of any reason to go in the nuclear direction.
Yes, somethings will break or go wrong. However, with proper planning and maintenance, nothing catastrophic will every occur.

The Naval nuclear power program has been operating since the '50s without anything close to a major incident.

And all without being under the authority of the NRC.

*Snip*
I swear this is just a coicedence, but does anyone notice how socialism would effectively deal with this environmental problem, but capitalism will just make it worse?

Right, thats why Communist China is building many more coal plants and accelerating the rate at which they mine it. If Communism is great for environmental issues then why s the the world's largest communist counrtry is among the top five worst polluters and heading for #1 quickly?

I wasn't being sarcastic. I inferred it from your post.
Your answer didn't sound like a reply to a sarcastic post, but my observation stands.

The best thing a citizen can do to improve the environment is to become educated about the issues. Not just the demogogued positions, but the real science behind the events. And a Ph.D. in pollution isn't what's required, either. Just some attention to facts, rather than emotive arguments.

Your answer didn't sound like a reply to a sarcastic post, but my observation stands.

The best thing a citizen can do to improve the environment is to become educated about the issues. Not just the demogogued positions, but the real science behind the events. And a Ph.D. in pollution isn't what's required, either. Just some attention to facts, rather than emotive arguments.
What are you talking about? Where do you stand?

What are you talking about? Where do you stand?On the side that cheers on the bulldozers that destroy the little bit of habitat that certain small birds have left in order to pave the way for tourism.

On the side that cheers on the bulldozers that destroy the little bit of habitat that certain small birds have left in order to pave the way for tourism.
Oh. That's the wrong side.

What are you talking about? Where do you stand?
As far as evironmental change? I'd like to see things do that make sense. Forget the Kyoto treaty because it only nibbles around the edges of a problem we can't influence, anyway. Let's put some effort into adapting to climate change instead of pursuing the vain effort to prevent it.

As far as evironmental change? I'd like to see things do that make sense. Forget the Kyoto treaty because it only nibbles around the edges of a problem we can't influence, anyway. Let's put some effort into adapting to climate change instead of pursuing the vain effort to prevent it.
The Kyoto Treaty is necessary and is the only global plan being offered right now. Come up with a better one and get the world to sign on.

Also, you're wrong to think that we cannot have an influence on the problem.

The Kyoto Treaty is necessary and is the only global plan being offered right now. Come up with a better one and get the world to sign on.

Also, you're wrong to think that we cannot have an influence on the problem.
I'm probably wrong about many things. I don't think this is one of them. Reducing the output of developed nations, but leaving developing nations unrestricted doesn't make any sense. Less sense, even, if you have walked the streets of Bejing, Bombay, and any number of other smoggy cities.

My personal efforts are probably just as futile, but I have solar panels to heat water, I buy bio-diesel at least every other tank, and I buy green power from the electric co-op. I can't do much more.

also when something goes wrong with a nuclear power station, it goes very wrong indeed. Chernobyl anyone???

On a sidenote I read that the bush admin are making move towards new hybrid based car engines so that they wont be so reliant on middle eastern oil suppliers. But I doubt the veracity of such claims. It will be gratifying perhaps to know that the human race is digging its own grave. Future generations will remember us and particularly bush and all those little shits on the boards of corporate conglomerates with scorn.

Modern nuclear plants are much more safer than the likes of Chernobyl and they should be prioritized before coal and oil plants that affect global warming. However, the first priority is of course renewable energy plants, a country should build as much as it can sensibily afford to do so.

The Earth is heating to a boil and all George W. Bush wants is more money, money, money, and tax cuts for the rich.

Unless we look at what industries can be closed down or operated more efficiently by government regulators, then the end of the world will occur on December 19, 2099.

I swear this is just a coicedence, but does anyone notice how socialism would effectively deal with this environmental problem, but capitalism will just make it worse?

What a black and white world view...

Modern nuclear plants are much more safer than the likes of Chernobyl and they should be prioritized before coal and oil plants that affect global warming. However, the first priority is of course renewable energy plants, a country should build as much as it can sensibily afford to do so.

My god, I agree with Ny Nordland.

As far as evironmental change? I'd like to see things do that make sense. Forget the Kyoto treaty because it only nibbles around the edges of a problem we can't influence, anyway. Let's put some effort into adapting to climate change instead of pursuing the vain effort to prevent it.

You are ready to adapt to a world suffering from global warming but not to a treaty? That's rather silly. It's like you are defending to adapt to being homeless instead of adapting to get it painted...

Sellafield is a bit dodgy though dont you think? No matter how well designed a nuclear plant is, eventually something will break down or go wrong. And unless we have a proper response strategy that actually gets rid of the fallout then I cant think of any reason to go in the nuclear direction.

True. Nuclear has to be properly regulated in order to contribute to our future energy needs; however, if we develop our alternative resources well enough we won't have to rely on nuclear for much more than 30% of our total electricity demand.

In the US and other developed countries, nuclear already meets a little more than 20% of electricity demand so it wouldn't put significant strain on the system to boost that to 30-35%; nuclear is only a part of the solution with wind and solar contributing similar percentages.

I'm probably wrong about many things. I don't think this is one of them. Reducing the output of developed nations, but leaving developing nations unrestricted doesn't make any sense. Less sense, even, if you have walked the streets of Bejing, Bombay, and any number of other smoggy cities.

My personal efforts are probably just as futile, but I have solar panels to heat water, I buy bio-diesel at least every other tank, and I buy green power from the electric co-op. I can't do much more.
You do enough as any one individual can be expected to do. I agree that in the future, developing nations should have to have more of a responsibility and it's a valid argument that they should have a responsibility even now. But that is still no excuse for America to back out of the Kyoto Treaty. We have 5% of the world population but provide 25% of manmade CO2.

You are ready to adapt to a world suffering from global warming but not to a treaty? That's rather silly. It's like you are defending to adapt to being homeless instead of adapting to get it painted...
No, no, no. Because I believe the science, rather than the hype, I am sure that we are in a natural cycle. We may be increasing the onset of the cyclic temperature change with the production of extra greenhouse gases, but we will most certainly not stop it by eliminating that production, let alone reducing it slightly.

So what's better? Spend effort in a vain attempt to stop what nature is going to do anyway, or find a way to adapt to inevitable change?

No, no, no. Because I believe the science, rather than the hype, I am sure that we are in a natural cycle. We may be increasing the onset of the cyclic temperature change with the production of extra greenhouse gases, but we will most certainly not stop it by eliminating that production, let alone reducing it slightly.

So what's better? Spend effort in a vain attempt to stop what nature is going to do anyway, or find a way to adapt to inevitable change?
I think what you're describing is just the flip side of the same coin.

I think what you're describing is just the flip side of the same coin.
Ab-so-lute-ly. The problem is the same -- Temperature increases, wreaks havoc, world ends. The difficult part is the way we deal with it. Do we spend finite and limited resources on a solution that only attacks the periphery, or do we spend those same resources on finding a way to deal with the consequences. I guess the answer depends on whether you believe man can do more to control earth's climate than can nature. Personally, I'm betting nature gets its way.

Because I believe the science, rather than the hype, I am sure that we are in a natural cycle.

please cite this science

When we fix the other problems of the world,

war, famine, genocide, beligerent communist nations, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, or increasingly innefectual government, maybe then there will be time to give to shits about the pretty flowers.

If Communism is great for environmental issues then why s the the world's largest communist counrtry is among the top five worst polluters and heading for #1 quickly?

Two answers, pick which ever one you prefer:

1.) because it is rapidly restructuring itself so as to be able to compete with other nations in the global capitalist marketplace.

or...

2.) because it has more people than all the other individual countries.

The Earth is heating to a boil and all George W. Bush wants is more money, money, money, and tax cuts for the rich.

Unless we look at what industries can be closed down or operated more efficiently by government regulators, then the end of the world will occur on December 19, 2099.

I swear this is just a coicedence, but does anyone notice how socialism would effectively deal with this environmental problem, but capitalism will just make it worse?
Because china is known for its clear skies and drinkable water!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/RecycleYrShit.jpg

Besides putting more effort into a real, energy efficient recycling system, prices are going to increase - almost every ressource is somehow linked to oil.

But I think that's just the thing. Making existing technology more energy-efficient. Take light bulbs, for example. 80+% heat? Oh, great!
All those things on stand-by. (Some of the things I have don't even switch off at all unless I want to pull the plug each day).

There was some statistic showing that with all of Germany's stand-by turned off, one NPP could be shut down. Now, that's interesting, ain't it?

Two answers, pick which ever one you prefer:

1.) because it is rapidly restructuring itself so as to be able to compete with other nations in the global capitalist marketplace.

or...

2.) because it has more people than all the other individual countries.
Or

3.) Hu Jintao doesn't give two shits about what American hippies think.

Prepare for the future now I say.

Two answers, pick which ever one you prefer:

1.) because it is rapidly restructuring itself so as to be able to compete with other nations in the global capitalist marketplace.

or...

2.) because it has more people than all the other individual countries.
1) It's also becoming more Democratic. The USSR's economic strip-mining of satellite countries has left many with no resources, and ravaged landscapes. Communism and the environment have repeatedly been shown to be incompatible.

2)India is close, and more Americans drive cars than Chinese. So, really bad defense.

more Americans drive cars than Chinese. So, really bad defense.

But considering China's current economic growth, Chinese drivers will surpass the number of U.S. drivers... yes?

But considering China's current economic growth, Chinese drivers will surpass the number of U.S. drivers... yes?
Doesn't matter. The numbers are immaterial, we (the US) should be polluting more now. Since most Chinese don't produce that much pollution per person by American standards, that means the problem is industrial pollution. That is the gov'ts fault, and has nothing to do with the number of people. See what I mean?

No seriously. Finances? The price of oil keeps rising...if it isn't a factor in your daily living at this point, it will be. Personal tragedy? Do you have to live in a severely polluted environment and suffer the effects before it's an issue for you? What? What is is going to take for you to give a shit? At what point does, "I deserve to be a fat, disgusting consumer and damn the consequences" become overpowered by, "if I don't do something now, it'll be too late"?

Feel free to complain about how global warming is all a lie, and how nuclear energy is a viable option (forget all that radioactive waste, we'll shoot it into space one day), and how the market will save us from ourselves.


when it becomes so serious that you quit wasting precious electricity to be on the internet I will too

Doesn't matter. The numbers are immaterial, we (the US) should be polluting more now. Since most Chinese don't produce that much pollution per person by American standards, that means the problem is industrial pollution. That is the gov'ts fault, and has nothing to do with the number of people. See what I mean?
Currently, the United states has much stricter environmental laws than China does, AND China's industry has long been expanding; though smaller than ours still, it passes us in pollutants easily.

Not to mention, even if the average American produced three and a quarter times the pollution of an average Chinese person, the Chinese would produce more pollution by sheer numbers.

please cite this science
In the late 1st millenium, grapes grew in northern parts of England. Then we entered a period commonly known as "The Little Ice Age," (history Channel) From roughly 1200 to 1850... from which we are still warming up from. Granted, there have been more carbon emissions than ever before, but the fact is, we've only been truly recording temperatures for the last century, maybe a little earlier, which means we've only got this warming cycle on record. True, we've got the highest carbon emissions rating in milleniums, but we've only got a hundred years worth of temperature records to compare that too.

In the late 1st millenium, grapes grew in northern parts of England.

that's nice. you are aware, of course, that 1) that has fuck all to do with anything, 2) it was only in southern england, and 3) there are vastly more vineyards in england now than there ever were then (and much farther north too).

realclimate article on the subject (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/#more-322)

we've only been truly recording temperatures for the last century, maybe a little earlier, which means we've only got this warming cycle on record.

unless somehow we found some sort of 'proxy' measurements that we could use to extend this record back farther. but that's just crazy talk...wait, what were you saying about grapes before?

that's nice. you are aware, of course, that 1) that has fuck all to do with anything, 2) it was only in southern england, and 3) there are vastly more vineyards in england now than there ever were then (and much farther north too).

realclimate article on the subject (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/#more-322)



unless somehow we found some sort of 'proxy' measurements that we could use to extend this record back farther. but that's just crazy talk...wait, what were you saying about grapes before?


Alright, you've got me there. Alas, television has failed me yet again. Still, I say we give it a few more years before we really start to panic.

Even then, what do you propose as a solution? No one's going to stop driving, making stuff or burning shit to stay warm.

*Edit* That does have something to do with the previous thing, though. I was just trying to say that we truly don't have enough data to make a good theory... theres just been too much time and we've only been really paying attention for a few centuries though. There may be a natural cycle we're not aware of.

I swear this is just a coicedence, but does anyone notice how socialism would effectively deal with this environmental problem, but capitalism will just make it worse?
cough cough **Aral Sea **cough cough **Chernobyl**cough cough

Sellafield is a bit dodgy though dont you think? No matter how well designed a nuclear plant is, eventually something will break down or go wrong. And unless we have a proper response strategy that actually gets rid of the fallout then I cant think of any reason to go in the nuclear direction.
Let's take a look at the amount of people that have died thanks to nuclear accidents.
Three Mile Island: This is probably not very well-known, but get this:
NO ONE DIED FROM THREE MILE ISLAND. And I'm including the cancer stuff. The amount of radiation people were getting two miles from the plant was less radiation than I'll get from a X-ray.
Chernobyl: This was a plant with a bad design, bad management, badly built, under the inefficeint Soviet system, and only 47 people died directly from Chernobyl.
Approximately another 500 died from cancer.

While this sounds bad, let's take a look at it this way:
In 50 years of nuclear energy, about 600 people have died from nuclear power globally.
Contrast that with coal, where over 12000 people in the world die every year from coal power.
Nuclear power is much safer than anything else.

In the late 1st millenium, grapes grew in northern parts of England. Then we entered a period commonly known as "The Little Ice Age," (history Channel) From roughly 1200 to 1850... from which we are still warming up from. Granted, there have been more carbon emissions than ever before, but the fact is, we've only been truly recording temperatures for the last century, maybe a little earlier, which means we've only got this warming cycle on record. True, we've got the highest carbon emissions rating in milleniums, but we've only got a hundred years worth of temperature records to compare that too.What makes you think temperature would be the only thing CO2 emissions could influence?

Chernobyl was a poorly designed Soviet plant without the regulations or accountability that exist in the West;

Accountable? Safe? Don't make me laugh. The nuclear industry is not even liable (beyond a small statutorily prescribed amount) for the damage they might cause if there were a meltdown. And if the government didn't limit their liability, they would never be able to get insurance.

If the new nuclear is so safe, then we haven't Canada or the US repealed their nuclear liability acts?

I'm probably wrong about many things. I don't think this is one of them. Reducing the output of developed nations, but leaving developing nations unrestricted doesn't make any sense. Less sense, even, if you have walked the streets of Bejing, Bombay, and any number of other smoggy cities.

.

Firstly, smog and CO2 are not the same thing.
SEcondly, it was always contemplated that the developing countries would be brought on board in the next round of negotiations. That is pretty standard in international treaties of this nature; the developed countries get involved first and develop the requisite technologies to solve the problem, which they then provide to the developing countries in exchange for their participation. The problem now is that the developed nations are trying to weasel out of even their weak commitments, so nobody is really taking the needed leadership role.

If every other issue in the world was solved first, I might care... a little...

Ab-so-lute-ly. The problem is the same -- Temperature increases, wreaks havoc, world ends. The difficult part is the way we deal with it. Do we spend finite and limited resources on a solution that only attacks the periphery, or do we spend those same resources on finding a way to deal with the consequences. I guess the answer depends on whether you believe man can do more to control earth's climate than can nature. Personally, I'm betting nature gets its way.
You assume that prevention is going to be more costly than the cure. I would like some evidence that has ever been the case.

NAture will get its way of course. It's survived 5 mass extinctions and it will survive the one currently in progress ... we may just not be around to see it.

This. (http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?Alonocus)

This. (http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?Alonocus)
Don't do it!!:eek:

Right, thats why Communist China is building many more coal plants and accelerating the rate at which they mine it. If Communism is great for environmental issues then why s the the world's largest communist counrtry is among the top five worst polluters and heading for #1 quickly?
Not to mention that the USSR was the most environmentally destructive nation ever to exist.

I'm probably wrong about many things. I don't think this is one of them. Reducing the output of developed nations, but leaving developing nations unrestricted doesn't make any sense. Less sense, even, if you have walked the streets of Bejing, Bombay, and any number of other smoggy cities.
We can prevent climate change. We just have to implement restrictions that go further than Kyoto. China and India aren't really developing countries so they must also be restricted.

When we fix the other problems of the world,

war, famine, genocide, beligerent communist nations, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, or increasingly innefectual government, maybe then there will be time to give to shits about the pretty flowers.
Wow, someone really doesn't get it.

Concerns about environmental problems don't have much to do with flowers and everything to do with us and the way we live. If we don't care for the environment, it is WE that will be screwed, not the flowers.

Granted, there have been more carbon emissions than ever before, but the fact is, we've only been truly recording temperatures for the last century, maybe a little earlier, which means we've only got this warming cycle on record. True, we've got the highest carbon emissions rating in milleniums, but we've only got a hundred years worth of temperature records to compare that too.
You do know that scientists have established a fairly accurate model of temperature/rainfall timeline using ancient wood from pretty everywhere and every time period. That really works.
Besides, many other climate facts can be found in the ice they drill out all over the world to establish a timeline in correspondance with those factors encountered.

If the new nuclear is so safe, then we haven't Canada or the US repealed their nuclear liability acts?
Because the enviromentalists will go ballistic, and the liberal media has constantly drilled into the head of average Americans, "OMG!! Nuclear is the badzor! We'll all di3 of t3h cancer!!!!"

No seriously. Finances? The price of oil keeps rising...if it isn't a factor in your daily living at this point, it will be. Personal tragedy? Do you have to live in a severely polluted environment and suffer the effects before it's an issue for you? What? What is is going to take for you to give a shit? At what point does, "I deserve to be a fat, disgusting consumer and damn the consequences" become overpowered by, "if I don't do something now, it'll be too late"?

Feel free to complain about how global warming is all a lie, and how nuclear energy is a viable option (forget all that radioactive waste, we'll shoot it into space one day), and how the market will save us from ourselves.


Actually, there's a fission reactor design that not only burns 95 percent of the nuclear fuel (as opposed to current designs that only burn 5 percent or less), but it also destroys other radioactive waste in the process, and can burn most types of waste as well.

It's also a safe design, and was tested to just short of failure at the same time the Chernobyl reactor exploded. The TBR reactor is a proven, safe, and extremely low waste reactor.

There are articles on this reactor, including one at Scientific American. Before you kneejerk and say that nuclear power is bad, why don't you consider the fact that there are engineering solutions to nearly every complaint you may have about them.

Global warming is irreversible at this point and nothing I can personally do will stop it, and I don’t see any reason to. Global temperatures have been increasing for a hundred years, and during those hundred years, the standard of living for nearly everyone on the planet has improved, and humankind has experienced more scientific and social progress more rapidly than ever before in its history.

In every other department, the earth is at its healthiest of the past hundred years or so, thanks to a combination of government and self regulation.

I don’t “get out and do something about the Earth” because I don’t see anything that really needs doing.

Wow, someone really doesn't get it.

Concerns about environmental problems don't have much to do with flowers and everything to do with us and the way we live. If we don't care for the environment, it is WE that will be screwed, not the flowers.
Wow, someone really doesn't get it.

The average person is concerned with here and now. Solving problems that might happen 60 years down the road is a waste of time and resources. If I had the choice of helping out a person at the expense of nature, I would do it, and to do anything else is entirely immoral.

I'll care when I personally benefit from doing so.

Ah, but what is an environmental problem? Is it merely things that go wrong in nature that affect human beings eventually? In the end, environmental problems are solely defined by their social character...

There is nothing wrong with the environment.

Because the enviromentalists will go ballistic, and the liberal media has constantly drilled into the head of average Americans, "OMG!! Nuclear is the badzor! We'll all di3 of t3h cancer!!!!"
The environmental lobby hasn't had that kind of power since the 1970's. The real reason is because the nuclear industry knows that if they actually had to insure against the real risks that their plants represent, nuclear energy would not be economically viable.

There is nothing wrong with the environment.
Absolutely right. What is wrong is our relationship with the environment.

We can prevent climate change. We just have to implement restrictions that go further than Kyoto. China and India aren't really developing countries so they must also be restricted.

So which makes more sense ... scrapping the entire accord, or bringing China and India on board, and then making the next round of commitments much tougher?

Global warming is irreversible at this point and nothing I can personally do will stop it, and I don’t see any reason to. Global temperatures have been increasing for a hundred years, and during those hundred years, the standard of living for nearly everyone on the planet has improved, and humankind has experienced more scientific and social progress more rapidly than ever before in its history.
So if the earth continues to get hotter at an increasingly rapid pace, things can only get better? What if it triggers another Younger-Dryas event?

In every other department, the earth is at its healthiest of the past hundred years or so, thanks to a combination of government and self regulation.

By what standard?

Global warming is irreversible at this point
Link?

There is nothing wrong with the environment.
I think you just like saying things.

Accountable? Safe? Don't make me laugh. The nuclear industry is not even liable (beyond a small statutorily prescribed amount) for the damage they might cause if there were a meltdown. And if the government didn't limit their liability, they would never be able to get insurance.

There's never been a meltdown at a US plant that wasn't successfully contained. Nuclear power has not been responsible for any deaths in the United States and is far cleaner than the alternatives like coal or natural gas (both of whom recieve abundant subsidies from the government).

Natural gas and coal are no longer desirable sources of energy, so we're going to need something else to fill in the gaps from renewables; 33% nuclear and 67%renewable is what we're aiming for.

If the new nuclear is so safe, then we haven't Canada or the US repealed their nuclear liability acts?

Safe doesn't equal perfect. Also, there are no operational nuclear plants in the US newer than the late 80's, so the law has to remain in order to cover the older plants.

But considering China's current economic growth, Chinese drivers will surpass the number of U.S. drivers... yes?

Well, what matters isn't the number of drivers but how much fuel the drivers consume. The cars sold in China are generally a lot smaller and a lot more fuel efficient than the average US car so there can be more cars on the road for the same amount of fuel consumption. It also matters how much the car owners actually drive; in the US, you can barely go anywhere without a car but in China it's a lot more possible to get by without one due to the much more extensive mass transit and investments by the Chinese government.

The main problem is fuel subsidies; China's been scaling them back but they still have subsidies on their oil and gas products and price controls at the refining level. That will encourage waste and overconsumption (like in Iran or Venezuela) if they're not scaled back, but given the Chinese desire to become as energy independent as possible it's unlikely they will propagate waste for much longer.

Still, I say we give it a few more years before we really start to panic.

how about we skip the panic and just start dealing with it?

Even then, what do you propose as a solution? No one's going to stop driving, making stuff or burning shit to stay warm.

who beyond primmies ever advocates giving up on "making stuff" or "keeping warm"?

phase one, stop subsidizing waste, inefficiency, and destruction. start making businesses (and individuals) deal with some more realistic costs for their activities. promote and expand the use of already existing technologies that are vastly more efficient and less environmentally damaging. etc.

the problem has never been a lack of solutions, merely a lack of political will and a number of powerful people with a vested interest in not solving anything.

the issue also might be helped if somebody beat some fucking sense into lying asshole senator (but i repeat myself...) james inhofe. it would make me feel better at least.

I was just trying to say that we truly don't have enough data to make a good theory... theres just been too much time and we've only been really paying attention for a few centuries though. There may be a natural cycle we're not aware of.

maybe. but nobody pushing that idea seems to be able to come up with any evidence for it at all, while all the people doing real science in a relevant field keep pointing out the enormous piles of evidence they've got backing up their ideas.

There's never been a meltdown at a US plant that wasn't successfully contained. Nuclear power has not been responsible for any deaths in the United States and is far cleaner than the alternatives like coal or natural gas (both of whom recieve abundant subsidies from the government).

There have also been several near-misses. The safety record in the US, the UK and Canada is far from perfect, and suggests that the lack of a meltdown is probably more good luck than good management.


Natural gas and coal are no longer desirable sources of energy, so we're going to need something else to fill in the gaps from renewables; 33% nuclear and 67%renewable is what we're aiming for.

What about demand-side management? When are we going to accept that continuing to ramp up supply to meet demand just isn't working? Why is it that Europeans are able to enjoy a similar standard of living while consuming half as much energy per capita as North Americans?


Safe doesn't equal perfect. Also, there are no operational nuclear plants in the US newer than the late 80's, so the law has to remain in order to cover the older plants.

Why not exclude the newer plants from the limitation of liability? Why not phase out the older plants if they are not sufficiently safe to assume the responsibility of the full cost of a meltdown?

There have also been several near-misses. The safety record in the US, the UK and Canada is far from perfect, and suggests that the lack of a meltdown is probably more good luck than good management.

There's a risk of a serious disaster with any number of industries; regulation and tested designs are the only way to reduce the risk of them occuring.

Some of it probably has to do with the history of the industry itself; only 50-odd years have passed since nuclear power emerged as a viable source, so for at least half of that time the plants were run by people who learned as they went rather than drew from the experience of prior nuclear engineers and plant managers. Now, there's a pool of experienced workers to help the next generation of nuclear plant workers run their facilities; I don't think its coincidence that there are fewer problems today than there were in the 1960's or 1970's but rather due to the improving quality of the nuclear industry workforce.

What about demand-side management? When are we going to accept that continuing to ramp up supply to meet demand just isn't working? Why is it that Europeans are able to enjoy a similar standard of living while consuming half as much energy per capita as North Americans?

I agree 100%. The world can conserve as much additional energy today as it could in 1973 or 1979 and quite possibly even more; since that time, conservation has absorbed 80% of the demand growth in energy leaving only 20% to be met by new power plants.

We can produce enough alternative energy to meet 70% of our energy needs and could even go to 100% once the problem of load stabilization is fully solved; the main value of nuclear power right now is its utility as a stabilizer for the times when wind/solar/tidal are not producing their nameplate capacity due to inclement weather. The 10% nuclear expansion is a temporary measure rather than a permanent solution; ideally, 30 years of expansion followed by another 20 of operation and then a gradual elimination as alternatives are able to fully power the grid.

Why not exclude the newer plants from the limitation of liability? Why not phase out the older plants if they are not sufficiently safe to assume the responsibility of the full cost of a meltdown?

Well, it's probably because most nuclear-plant licenses still have many years left and can be renewed without much difficulty; most current licenses still have over one or two decades of operation left, so they will not be replaced at least for that amount of time. It's more profitable to keep older plants running than to build new ones, so most utilities will accept the risk.

Plus, coal and natural gas are still fairly cheap compared to nuclear; they can't compete against renewables, but they can compete against nuclear for the role of stabilizer.

I think that global warming is a bunch of bs, but that doesn't stop me from caring about the environment. I get pissed because the topic is so politicised, no one even knows all of the information about the "problem." I am very environmental though. We use geothermal heating for my house, have all energy-efficient bulbs, I unplug things when I'm not using them, I never turn on lights during the day, I drive a compact car (and when the smart car is being released, I'm buying one), I always recycle (even to the point that I haul around bottles from when I buy water during the day), take my own bag to the grocery instead of using their bags, et cetera. We also use natural gas for cooking and our area is powered by hydroelectric power.

So people who thing global warming is a bunch of crap can still care, kthxbye.

So people who thing global warming is a bunch of crap can still care, kthxbye.

of course they can. we just wish they'd be more rational and open to science while they're at it.