Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
megreenyou

Global Warming

The U.S. is ready to confront the major challenge of global warming. America generates roughly one quarter of the globe's greenhouse gases every year. 174 countries adopted the Kyoto protocol to reduce carbon levels, however, the U.S. did not. The U.S. has resisted taking action on the global warming issue that threatens the survival of our coasts and farms, our health and the stability of our economy. For a full dialogue about global warming, you should check out http://www.onebiosphere.com

We have not achieved consensus on how to solve the problem. Industries on the one hand have made few positive plans and on the other hand, environmental groups have proposed wide-reaching solutions that may seriously harm economic growth. America needs to adopt an aggressive, effective plan that accommodates concerns of the environment as well as economic prosperity.

The U.S. needs to stop the negative impact of climate change and ensure the survival of our lifestyle for future generations without seriously damaging the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have not achieved consensus on how to solve the problem.

And that is because in order to solve a problem you have to clearly define the problem and the causes. That has NEVER been done because of the shallow mined "caused by man" label. Now we are starting to hear that the whole global warming mess is 80% bull. Bad science shored up by short sighted facts. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad science usually makes good politics.

But overall, I don't think climatology is bad science, per se, the problem is who makes use of its findings, and how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is because in order to solve a problem you have to clearly define the problem and the causes. That has NEVER been done because of the shallow mined "caused by man" label. Now we are starting to hear that the whole global warming mess is 80% bull. Bad science shored up by short sighted facts. <_<

Ah come on. Stop this. If you wont, or cant, give us any evidence to back up your claims then please dont post comments like that one.

The scientific consensus is that climate change is man-made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah come on. Stop this. If you wont, or cant, give us any evidence to back up your claims then please dont post comments like that one.

The scientific consensus is that climate change is man-made.

From your icon it appears that you have not turned communist on us! A communist environmentalist - now there is a mental leap! :lol:

The "100% caused by man" flag is getting ragged Simon. And with the current economic environment it just not likely that people are going to do a sudden shift that will harm them any further. Also with many places suffering from record breaking cold, trying to convince them it is really "warming" is a little hollow! :lol:

You do have to look on the bright side, people are slowing turning things around and here in the US, geothermal energy is making huge leaps forward with land leases being grabbed up quickly. Several companies are jumping into the fray and we should see rewards quickly because of all the energy solution, geothermal has the quickest ROI of any of them. B) Look for this to be an area new research around the globe as they look for "hot spots" where they can quickly drill and generate renewable energy.

This is "real science" that is being applied today. As real science gets applied you will see a reduction in coal burning as there is less ROI on it than things like geothermal. Running around waving the "stop burning coal" is a waste of time. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From your icon it appears that you have not turned communist on us! A communist environmentalist - now there is a mental leap! :lol:

The "100% caused by man" flag is getting ragged Simon. And with the current economic environment it just not likely that people are going to do a sudden shift that will harm them any further. Also with many places suffering from record breaking cold, trying to convince them it is really "warming" is a little hollow! :lol:

You do have to look on the bright side, people are slowing turning things around and here in the US, geothermal energy is making huge leaps forward with land leases being grabbed up quickly. Several companies are jumping into the fray and we should see rewards quickly because of all the energy solution, geothermal has the quickest ROI of any of them. B) Look for this to be an area new research around the globe as they look for "hot spots" where they can quickly drill and generate renewable energy.

This is "real science" that is being applied today. As real science gets applied you will see a reduction in coal burning as there is less ROI on it than things like geothermal. Running around waving the "stop burning coal" is a waste of time. <_<

My new avatar comes from Red Alert 3 :D

Lots of talk there but little to no content or evidence to support your claims. :sceptical:

La Nina temporarily cools down global temperatures during first half of 2008

Very warm 2008 makes this the hottest decade in recorded history by far

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...-disproved.html

Check this out! Maybe you need to be reading the news.....

You cant come up with anyone better, like IPCC, than nut-case Christopher Booker? :lol:

The Bias and Logical Fallacies of Christopher Booker’s ‘Freezing Heat’

The patron saint of charlatans is again spreading dangerous misinformation

From wikipedia:

Booker's scientific claims, which include the false assertion that white asbestos (chrysotile) is "chemically identical to talcum powder" were also analysed in detail by Richard Wilson in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008). (The chemical formula for talc is H2Mg3(SiO3)4 or Mg3Si4O10(OH)2, while the formula for chrysotile, the primary ingredient of white asbestos, is Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4).

Wilson highlighted Christopher Booker's repeated endorsement of the alleged scientific expertise of John Bridle, who has claimed to be "the world's foremost authority on asbestos science", but who in 2005 was convicted under the UK's Trade Descriptions Act of making false claims about his qualifications, and who the BBC has accused of basing his reputation on "lies about his credentials, unaccredited tests, and self aggrandisement".

Christopher Booker's scientific claims about asbestos have been criticized several times by the UK government's Health and Safety Executive. In 2002, the HSE's Director General, Timothy Walker, wrote that Booker's articles on asbestos had been "misinformed and do little to increase public understanding of a very important occupational health issue.".

In 2005, the Health and Safety Executive issued a rebuttal after Christopher Booker wrote an article suggesting, incorrectly, that the HSE had agreed with him that white asbestos posed "no medical risk".

In 2006, the HSE published a further rebuttal after Christopher Booker had claimed, again incorrectly, that the Health and Safety Laboratory had concluded that the white asbestos contained within "artex" textured coatings posed "no health risk".

In May 2008, the Health and Safety Executive accused Booker of writing an article that was "substantially misleading". In the article, published by the Sunday Telegraph earlier that month, Booker had claimed, falsely, that a paper produced in 2000 by two HSE statisticians, Hodgson and Darnton, had 'concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was "insignificant", while that of lung cancer was "zero"'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, As our resident communist environmentalist you should not be so hard on those of the working class, and this guy seemed to me like he has been working hard! Did take me a while to find him since he is not exactly on the "leading edge". :lol: :lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, As our resident communist environmentalist you should not be so hard on those of the working class, and this guy seemed to me like he has been working hard! Did take me a while to find him since he is not exactly on the "leading edge". :lol: :lol: :lol:

Nah, it's not hard to find lunatics on the Internet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Running around waving the "stop burning coal" is a waste of time. <_<

Indeed. The simple fact is that the vast majority of people would not support actions/policies which caused their current lifestyles to be impacted. While most people probably feel that burning coal is not the best way to produce energy, they’d rather see coal being burned than to face an energy shortage. Similarly, while most people probably know that SUVs are not the most environmentally-friendly vehicles, not many are willing to trade in their SUV for a Smart car. People are willing to do the easy and painless stuff, but are unwilling to do the not-so-easy and not-so-painless stuff. Example: in the post How did you green your holidays?, Treehugging_family talks about wrapping gifts in old magazines and using a rosemary bush instead of a Christmas Tree. Ok. Great. But then in her blog, she talks about jumping into her car to take the kids to the airport to catch a flight. Hmmm. Cutting out the car ride and the flight would probably have had a much more positive environmental impact than cutting out wrapping paper and a Christmas tree. But that wouldn’t have been so easy and painless, would it?

We need to accept that, like Treehugging_family, the majority of people are not willing to do the things that would substantially reduce their environmental footprint. Yup, they may be willing to do the small stuff such as using recycled paper or energy-efficient lights, but they are not willing to give up their cars, travel less or abandon their TVs and tumble dryers. Note that I am not being critical of Treehugging_family here. The majority of people - myself included - are unwilling to radically overhaul their lifestyles, give up modern comforts and start living like the Amish.

So, instead of encouraging people to reduce their energy consumption (which simply isn't going to happen in any meaningful way), we need to work on encouraging governments to develop environmentally-friendly policies and support environmentally-friendly technologies through grants, tax breaks, etc., etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of people - myself included - are unwilling to radically overhaul their lifestyles, give up modern comforts and start living life like the Amish.

So, instead of encouraging people to reduce their energy consumption (which simply isn't going to happen in any meaningful way), we need to work on encouraging governments to develop environmentally-friendly policies and support environmentally-friendly technologies through grants, tax breaks, etc., etc.

Yep, have to agree, environmentally-friendly technologies have to come first, then people have an alternative that we can only hope will be cheaper and make it a no-brainer for people to switch.... B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what kind of "green" choices have you two made that impacts your way of life in a big way?

Me? I haven’t done anything that has a substantial impact on my lifestyle, but then I do not believe that individual lifestyle choices will ever provide a solution to our environmental problems. Drinking eco-beer is not going to help the environment. Making a sweater out of the hair dropped by your Chihuahua is not going to help the environment. Refusing to buy a Christmas Tree is not going to help the environment (in fact, as we discussed in another thread, it may actually harm the environment). And putting MountainHiker in a pair of methane-absorbing charcoal-lined underpants is not going to help the environment.

The only real way for people to help the environment is for them to push their government into creating policies which encourage the development and adoption of environmentally-friendly technologies. In Canada, the Green Party proposed a carbon tax and such a tax has now been implemented here in BC. This is completely the wrong approach. People will still use exactly the same amount of energy, they’ll simply end up paying more to get to where they need to go and to keep their homes warm. What’s really needed is more investment in public transportation, more investment in renewable energy sources, more grants for companies working on energy-efficient technologies, more tax breaks for energy-efficient technologies, etc., etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easy to point fingers at people like Treehugging_family. But what kind of "green" choices have you two made that impacts your way of life in a big way?

Actually I moved to a smaller house about 4 times as energy efficient as the old one, but also spend time supporting more investment in renewable energy sources, more grants for energy-efficient technologies and more tax breaks for energy-efficient technologies. Geo-thermal energy is what I am researching now because it appears that it will have a much faster ROI than some of the other technologies. The current economic environment is going to slow some things down speed others up.

I suspect that obama is going to have some impact, not clear at this point what direction he will take, but am concerned that he may have a rude awakening when it comes to getting things thru the government waste land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I moved to a smaller house about 4 times as energy efficient as the old one.

In September, BC's electricity company introduced a tiered charging system under which people pay one amount for the first 1,350 kWh of electricity used and then a higher amount for each additional kWh over and above 1,350. The scheme is supposedly intended to encourage people to use electricity. But, of course, it will not. In the north of the province where winter temperatures dip to -30C/-22F, people use more than 1,350 kWh simply to keep their (usually highly insulated) homes warm. The scheme is simply a money-grab. And I wonder why people are suspicious about green initiatives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In September, BC's electricity company introduced a tiered charging system under which people pay one amount for the first 1,350 kWh of electricity used and then a higher amount for each additional kWh over and above 1,350. The scheme is supposedly intended to encourage people to use electricity. But, of course, it will not. In the north of the province where winter temperatures dip to -30C/-22F, people use more than 1,350 kWh simply to keep their (usually highly insulated) homes warm. The scheme is simply a money-grab. And I wonder why people are suspicious about green initiatives?

No matter how good the cause, their is always someone who can figure out a way to scam people out of money.... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scheme is simply a money-grab. And I wonder why people are suspicious about green initiatives?

That's the problem. Instead of companies and factories paying for their pollution they have via their corporate lobbyists managed to offset everything onto ordinary people like you and me. A fine example of this is the new EU climate deal:

"Basically, Europe just decided to off-set about two thirds of its own greenhouse gas emissions, to have consumers pay for emissions permits that polluting companies get for free and to avoid supporting poorer countries in the fight to climate change. This is not quite the third industrial revolution we were expecting. The result of this race to the bottom is that Europe will reduce its own greenhouses gas emissions significantly less than the proclaimed 20% target by 2020."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the problem. Instead of companies and factories paying for their pollution they have via their corporate lobbyists managed to offset everything onto ordinary people like you and me. A fine example of this is the new EU climate deal:

"Basically, Europe just decided to off-set about two thirds of its own greenhouse gas emissions, to have consumers pay for emissions permits that polluting companies get for free and to avoid supporting poorer countries in the fight to climate change. This is not quite the third industrial revolution we were expecting. The result of this race to the bottom is that Europe will reduce its own greenhouses gas emissions significantly less than the proclaimed 20% target by 2020."

I think they call that "creative accounting", considering the target is 11 years away you have to wonder if they are not betting on the rules changing again between now and then! In the mean time, the consumer foots the bill. Win win for Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me? I haven’t done anything that has a substantial impact on my lifestyle, but then I do not believe that individual lifestyle choices will ever provide a solution to our environmental problems. Drinking eco-beer is not going to help the environment. Making a sweater out of the hair dropped by your Chihuahua is not going to help the environment. Refusing to buy a Christmas Tree is not going to help the environment (in fact, as we discussed in another thread, it may actually harm the environment). And putting MountainHiker in a pair of methane-absorbing charcoal-lined underpants is not going to help the environment.

The only real way for people to help the environment is for them to push their government into creating policies which encourage the development and adoption of environmentally-friendly technologies. In Canada, the Green Party proposed a carbon tax and such a tax has now been implemented here in BC. This is completely the wrong approach. People will still use exactly the same amount of energy, they’ll simply end up paying more to get to where they need to go and to keep their homes warm. What’s really needed is more investment in public transportation, more investment in renewable energy sources, more grants for companies working on energy-efficient technologies, more tax breaks for energy-efficient technologies, etc., etc.

So what you are saying is that you are just whining and not doing anything to help the cause?

By now you should know that I am all for strong government actions but there wont be any strong environmental actions from them if not the public is doing their part.

Actually I moved to a smaller house about 4 times as energy efficient as the old one, but also spend time supporting more investment in renewable energy sources, more grants for energy-efficient technologies and more tax breaks for energy-efficient technologies. Geo-thermal energy is what I am researching now because it appears that it will have a much faster ROI than some of the other technologies. The current economic environment is going to slow some things down speed others up.

I suspect that obama is going to have some impact, not clear at this point what direction he will take, but am concerned that he may have a rude awakening when it comes to getting things thru the government waste land.

:cute:

Win win for Europe.

Next week I plan to publish a lenghtly blog post on Green Blog about how Europe and the rest of the western world have created a win-win situation for themselves and todays ecological problems. Be sure to check it out! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are willing to do the easy and painless stuff, but are unwilling to do the not-so-easy and not-so-painless stuff. Example: in the post How did you green your holidays?, Treehugging_family talks about wrapping gifts in old magazines and using a rosemary bush instead of a Christmas Tree. Ok. Great. But then in her blog, she talks about jumping into her car to take the kids to the airport to catch a flight. Hmmm. Cutting out the car ride and the flight would probably have had a much more positive environmental impact than cutting out wrapping paper and a Christmas tree. But that wouldn’t have been so easy and painless, would it?

We need to accept that, like Treehugging_family, the majority of people are not willing to do the things that would substantially reduce their environmental footprint. Yup, they may be willing to do the small stuff such as using recycled paper or energy-efficient lights, but they are not willing to give up their cars, travel less or abandon their TVs and tumble dryers. Note that I am not being critical of Treehugging_family here. The majority of people - myself included - are unwilling to radically overhaul their lifestyles, give up modern comforts and start living like the Amish.

So, instead of encouraging people to reduce their energy consumption (which simply isn't going to happen in any meaningful way), we need to work on encouraging governments to develop environmentally-friendly policies and support environmentally-friendly technologies through grants, tax breaks, etc., etc.

Actually, you are being critical of me and you make a pretty big assumption about who my family is and how we live our lives because you read one blog entry intended for my family about them flying to see their Nana for the holiday. I will have you know though that they were not just your average holiday traveler. We make alot of sacrifices in our daily lives in an effort to be ecoconscious and to spread awareness and gather new knowledge about what we can do to tread more lightly and spread what we have learned. In the decision to fly home for the holidays, I opted to remain behind in part because of the environmental impact it would have. Were it up to me my entire family would live in an off-grid self sustaining community somewhere in the Pacific Northwest. However, in reality we live clear across the country from each other....my Mother loves the southland and lives in Georgia. We love the mountains and live in Colorado. My children love their Nana very much and miss her throughout the year. I did not fly to visit my Mother, but while I am willing to make the sacrifice to travel less in the name of conservation, I did not ask my Mother or my children to make such a sacrifice. We did discuss the impact that their trip would have, so that they were educated on the subject. Most children have no idea of the impact travel has. They don't think differently. Our kids do... they are constantly asking themselves what impact their actions have on the planet, and those around them. In addition to them not taking any luggage with them other than a small carry on to reduce their impact.... we also donated 150 dollars of carbon offset. While purchasing carbon offsets doesnt excuse pollution that we create it does provide us with an opportunity to take personal responsibility for the impact that we have. It sends a message that there is a demand for renewable energy, that more and more people are demanding an increase in energy efficiency in their products and their travel methods. Carbon Offsetting - by some of the certified companies - sends funding to increase awareness and for scientific research. While there are plenty of companies that are taking advantage to snatch up a profit, there are quite a few out there that are making a difference..... for now. Until we see that major paradigm shift we are all hoping for.

As far as the other sacrifices we have made in our lives.... I can assure you that my children often make tough choices that in my opinion have a tremendous payoff. At my daughter's school they did not have a recycling program, it is because of her decision to use her free time (which she could have spent playing in the park, playing video games, riding a bike, etc. like most children her age) that they now have implented a program. She spent a great deal of her time and put forth a valiant effort, speaking with members of the community (adults and children) and gathering signiatures on a petition to create the program that they have now. My daughter has made the choice to become a vegetarian which as a child can be very difficult. In school the kids often tease her about it. Most kids just want to fit in, it isn't easy or painless to be repeatedly teased by your classmates. The adults in my family frequently donate our money rather than spending it on ourselves..... rather than going through my employers for a 401k which invests in oil companies and other places which I do not support morally, I've invested in my own portfolio which invests funds in renewable energy, conservation and education. I volunteer my time to teach 'Green Kids Awareness' at schools, rather than spending it watching movies and eating bonbons or playing video games. We discuss with the children the affects of their day to day choices, how to affect change (writing legislators, volunteer work, speaking out, hosting fund raisers, etc.)

I think you're quite wrong about the majority. I think the foundation to encouraging a majority paradigm shift does come from individual choices, from one family taking down their christmas lights, and talking about it. There are still surprisingly plenty of people who really don't have any clue about their impact.... I know it took us a while to change the way that we live our lives and we are constantly learning new things. Im not nieve enough to think that this will create a major change..... however it will bring about a paradigm shift in the masses. Already you can see places selling cute shirts that send messages about conservation, recycling, upcycling, reducing, reusing..... like I said - that is the foundation, the beginning. Once enough people jump on the band wagon then the collective voices raise, and yes it is quite important to request of our governments that these things become priority. In order for people to give up their cars and travel less changes in urban development and planning must be addressed. Nearly every person that I talk to about making sacrifices and small changes admits that while they want to make these changes it isn't always easy to do so.... but if there is a demand for it - it will become easier. I live near Boulder. They've got an excellent system for biking and riding on hybrid buses. The place is encouraging. Looking across the globe and watching these things become more and more prevelant in media is a great sign...... so now that I've written you a novel.... I would just like to encourage you to be a little less judgemental - perhaps encourage people... to encourage people... who will eventually encourage people... who work day in day out to work for the people..... and what are governments, but people??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, you are being critical of me and you make a pretty big assumption about who my family is and how we live our lives because you read one blog entry intended for my family about them flying to see their Nana for the holiday. I will have you know though that they were not just your average holiday traveler. We make alot of sacrifices in our daily lives in an effort to be ecoconscious and to spread awareness and gather new knowledge about what we can do to tread more lightly and spread what we have learned. In the decision to fly home for the holidays, I opted to remain behind in part because of the environmental impact it would have. Were it up to me my entire family would live in an off-grid self sustaining community somewhere in the Pacific Northwest. However, in reality we live clear across the country from each other....my Mother loves the southland and lives in Georgia. We love the mountains and live in Colorado. My children love their Nana very much and miss her throughout the year. I did not fly to visit my Mother, but while I am willing to make the sacrifice to travel less in the name of conservation, I did not ask my Mother or my children to make such a sacrifice. We did discuss the impact that their trip would have, so that they were educated on the subject. Most children have no idea of the impact travel has. They don't think differently. Our kids do... they are constantly asking themselves what impact their actions have on the planet, and those around them. In addition to them not taking any luggage with them other than a small carry on to reduce their impact.... we also donated 150 dollars of carbon offset. While purchasing carbon offsets doesnt excuse pollution that we create it does provide us with an opportunity to take personal responsibility for the impact that we have. It sends a message that there is a demand for renewable energy, that more and more people are demanding an increase in energy efficiency in their products and their travel methods. Carbon Offsetting - by some of the certified companies - sends funding to increase awareness and for scientific research. While there are plenty of companies that are taking advantage to snatch up a profit, there are quite a few out there that are making a difference..... for now. Until we see that major paradigm shift we are all hoping for.

As far as the other sacrifices we have made in our lives.... I can assure you that my children often make tough choices that in my opinion have a tremendous payoff. At my daughter's school they did not have a recycling program, it is because of her decision to use her free time (which she could have spent playing in the park, playing video games, riding a bike, etc. like most children her age) that they now have implented a program. She spent a great deal of her time and put forth a valiant effort, speaking with members of the community (adults and children) and gathering signiatures on a petition to create the program that they have now. My daughter has made the choice to become a vegetarian which as a child can be very difficult. In school the kids often tease her about it. Most kids just want to fit in, it isn't easy or painless to be repeatedly teased by your classmates. The adults in my family frequently donate our money rather than spending it on ourselves..... rather than going through my employers for a 401k which invests in oil companies and other places which I do not support morally, I've invested in my own portfolio which invests funds in renewable energy, conservation and education. I volunteer my time to teach 'Green Kids Awareness' at schools, rather than spending it watching movies and eating bonbons or playing video games. We discuss with the children the affects of their day to day choices, how to affect change (writing legislators, volunteer work, speaking out, hosting fund raisers, etc.)

I think you're quite wrong about the majority. I think the foundation to encouraging a majority paradigm shift does come from individual choices, from one family taking down their christmas lights, and talking about it. There are still surprisingly plenty of people who really don't have any clue about their impact.... I know it took us a while to change the way that we live our lives and we are constantly learning new things. Im not nieve enough to think that this will create a major change..... however it will bring about a paradigm shift in the masses. Already you can see places selling cute shirts that send messages about conservation, recycling, upcycling, reducing, reusing..... like I said - that is the foundation, the beginning. Once enough people jump on the band wagon then the collective voices raise, and yes it is quite important to request of our governments that these things become priority. In order for people to give up their cars and travel less changes in urban development and planning must be addressed. Nearly every person that I talk to about making sacrifices and small changes admits that while they want to make these changes it isn't always easy to do so.... but if there is a demand for it - it will become easier. I live near Boulder. They've got an excellent system for biking and riding on hybrid buses. The place is encouraging. Looking across the globe and watching these things become more and more prevelant in media is a great sign...... so now that I've written you a novel.... I would just like to encourage you to be a little less judgemental - perhaps encourage people... to encourage people... who will eventually encourage people... who work day in day out to work for the people..... and what are governments, but people??

Excellent response Treehugging_family, I live in the mountains of North Georgia which is a nice place to live a lot greener. Boulder area has a lot of great places to live and you have some great hiking trails in that area. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent response Treehugging_family, I live in the mountains of North Georgia which is a nice place to live a lot greener. Boulder area has a lot of great places to live and you have some great hiking trails in that area. :D

Boulder is definitely an incredible place to go hiking. I love Mount Evans in Idaho Springs, and in Boulder my fave place is Eldorado Canyon! Have you spent alot of time hiking in Boulder? My Mother lives in Sylvester GA. I personally have not spent a great deal of time there.... a little warmer than I like my weather ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0