• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by EcoNrgized

  1. Nuclear power is not only expensive, it's potentially the most insidious vehicle of climate change. Granted, it's not yet implicated in today's problems but its widespread use will most surely destroy the earth. Don't forget that there is no know means of eliminating the extremely radioactive waste - waste that is toxic to all know forms of life. Increase the number of nuclear power plants and the intensity of their use and it'll be only a matter of time before we irradiate the entire planet.

    One another note: we're being sidetracked again by the big energy. Solar energy is simply the ultimate green energy so only two primary issues need to be addressed when it comes to our energy needs; 1- who owns/controls it, and 2- how cheap is it. The two are the primary objectives of big energy giants and they do their best to distract us from this truth.

    To the point of how much space it takes to generate sufficient power - there is no need to use any more space than the buildings we already have. In most cities, buildings and parking lots make up the major use of land space. simply requiring these building to be outfitted with solar panels and tied into the grid would provide sufficient energy for most of a city. Big energy is wasteful in almost every aspect. They must necessarily use extra space for solar because they must over-generate in order to compensate for the waste of transmission lines and must waste energy because they generate based on anticipated rather than actual need.

    On the other hand, when we own our own solar energy generation system we can make energy more cheaply. Individuals can be encouraged to outfit their own buildings with solar power at the same cost as a few years of energy bills from their friendly neighborhood utility and after that they'd pay only minor dollars to upkeep their system. The potential cost saving is staggering when you consider the lifespan of most buildings and most people. For most of our 40-60 years of adult life we could be living nearly cost free for clean green solar energy. How's that for cheap energy with no added environmental stress from land use or big energy companies!

    Simon Leufstedt likes this

  2. I am impressed, you sound just like a democrat <_<They are the ones saying they are going to raise taxes, and obama just wants to play the robin hood role, rob from the rich (any one that has a job) and not give back to anyone..... :lol: Truth is that neither the democrats nor the republicans have a real good handle on what is going on and neither wants to budge from their current position.....

    :sceptical: The problem the US economy is too much dependence on a virtual economy... people making money by lending borrowed money (can you say inflationary..?). That wouldn`t even be so bad except that the people they`re borrowing from are not receiving any of the benefits. Most bank accounts LOSE money from low or no interest + high service charges. Which one don`t? - the ones of people who`re making money on borrowed money. Sucked the poor dry hence the reason for the current financial crisis.

    :info: The US needs to get back to doing what made it a great economic power - invest in innovation and productivity. That means improving its education standards, fund R&D and help business bring innovations to market. McCain has no interest in these things. He want to keep the people down and dumb and firmly attached on the teats of BIG ENERGY.

    :yuck: That`s why he picked Palin. He knew full well that she`s not qualified to be VP or President if he kicks the bucket. But interest of the country be dammed, McCain wants power and a fight to feed his bully nature and knows he can side-line the people Bush has already dumbed down and the people longing for another Hilary Clinton with Palin. Knowing her nebulous ignorance he`s locked her away hoping he could keep us from finding out until it`s too late to reverse his presidential rise (look I have no other problem with Palin except she needs time to become more seasoned and on-the-job training under war-mongering McBush is not where she should get it).

    Now they`re riding on the coat-tails of BIG ENERGY and other parasites who want us all to become dependent on them ("drill baby drill" zombies!) and parasitic on mother earth. Obama is right, tax them for their parasitic behaviour and use the proceeds to fund education and alternative energy R&D. Not only will this plan generate more innovation and real productivity (ie. increase GDP) but it will eventually stifle BIG ENERGY and get people back on track to live in symbiosis with earth... which is what we all here on enviro-space are trying to do.

    Get Energized with Eco Powered Tech and other innovations.

  3. Recently, I purchased a kit to convert my minivan to run on water for GAs. This was done through a hydrogen generator which I built from part from our neighborhood hardware store.

    Have any other folks on this board heard of this type of green technology?

    If anyone is interested in reading up further how this works and the details of what I did, you can

    check out my website/blog at

    Pleas leave a note at the bottom of the blog and let me know what you think.



    Here`s another more professional Hydrogen Booster I came across and liked so much I listed it with products that help you to reduce energy use.

  4. :ph34r: After the Presidential debate, over 80% of the polls found that people thought the debate was won by Obama. Most of the news stations gave both Macain and Obama a close match with Obama better at the economy and Macain better overall at war and foreign issues. But Fox News commentator overwhelmingly insist that Macain won by a huge margin, making a big deal of minutia like "Macain said I`ve got a soldier`s tag and Obama tried to one-up him by saying he`s got one too", focusing on Macains touching reason to make the war count but not even mentioning Obama`s equally valid reason that people are telling him to stop the war and not make any more.

    :crazy: Not surprisingly, when Fox asked it`s viewers to vote on who won, their results show Macain winning by a majority. Makes you wonder what percentage of their viewers are Republican or are swayed by their comments. In general people tend to focus on the news channels that agree with their views ad Fox`s clear bias and faux-impartiality certainly suggests that they are aligned with the Republicans.

    Call me crazy but I call it how I see it.

    Get Energized with Eco Powered Tech

  5. I have seen that advertisement Simon posted some time ago. The way they advertise cigarettes is pathetic. Wonderful women becoming more attractive by smoking a certain brand,and now this one saying doctors prefer Camel..Even if it is true it doesnt mean they are healthier.

    They say smoking in public areas will be banned in Greece by 2009. Cant wait to see that. :P

    :huh: won't make a real difference. In Canada it's already banned in public places, offices, restaurants etc. but the ban is rather silly. You can't smoke in a restaurant but you can stand around smoking at the entrances. Now there's no way to avoid smelling or getting the stench of the smoke on yourself as you try to enter the restaurant. Smoking needs to be banned in all open spaces that others can't avoid. Let the smokers wallow in their own stench! :mad:

  6. John McCain's plan to revive the U.S. nuclear power industry with 45 new reactors may cost $315 billion, with taxpayers bearing much of the financial risk.

    The Republican presidential nominee wants the plants built in time to help the U.S. meet a 29 percent increase in electricity demand by 2030. Industry estimates put their cost at $7 billion each. Barack Obama, McCain's Democratic opponent, is less specific about his plans, saying he wants to "find ways to safely harness nuclear power.''

    Global warming and the rising cost of fossil fuels have boosted chances that atomic energy will supply more U.S. electricity. Public concerns remain about reactor safety and disposing of waste that stays hazardous for millennia. Investment bankers, citing the industry's cost overruns in the 1980s, say they won't finance its long-sought ``nuclear renaissance'' without federal backing.

    Via Huffington Post.

    Related: Nuclear Energy is Expensive, Dangerous, Not Cost-Effective and Will Worsen Climate Change

    You're right on all counts.

    In his speech Obama had mentioned nuclear waste reprocessing, which will increase the energy yield, reduce the amount of radioactive waste and reduce the possibility of using the waste to make bombs. I hope he remembers it if he ever considers using nuclear energy.

    Much as I hate to consider it, this waste reprocessing option does appeal to the recycle, reduce, reuse rules of environmentalism so I might supporting the upgrade or replacement of current nuclear facilities with ones capable of also using reprocessed waste. I certainly would not support adding more facilities not just because it's too costly, but because their insidious lies are making us complacent with the radioactive time-bombs that they're cranking out in the background. :yuck:

    Use Solar and Wind power with Eco Powered Products then we won't need energy excess.

  7. I don't know why it keeps being interpreted as an "either-or" choice. I don't see why we can't abandon unsustainable technology and use new sustainable technologies to mitigate some of the alterations we've made.

    I'm all for abandoning unsustainable technologies for sustainable ones but I do think Simon has a point. I dislike capitalism mainly because certain despicable people tend dress it up and parade it around as democracy.

    Anyway, the link between capitalism and the natural order of things is quite strong. All living things seem to exist for the mainly to reproduce and attempt to dominate a niche. Reproduction requires growth and the consumption of resources and these are the links to which capitalism has tapped into. The unfortunate thing is that capitalism drives this natural tendency to the extreme. It makes us lose focus of the essentials and broadens the scope so as to affect all niches in the environment. The bi-products from capitalism are the technologies which give us such comfort or pleasure that we now feel they are essential and no-one wants to give up.

    I wrote a related article on Eco Powered Tech to highlight the fact that our science and technologies are giving us the way to use capitalism to curb the excesses without necessarily abandoning the comforts and pleasures that the technologies bring. I feel strongly that eco powered technologies are the missing pieces of the recycling puzzle that will appeal and appease the masses while furthering the goal of sustainable living.

    Once we achieve sustainable living, capitalism will be exposed for what is really is; just mind games fueled by the ambitions of egomaniacs. B)

  8. Yeah, and those floating white plastic discs could come in handy for polar bears! ;)

    :lol: Thanks for the laugh... might be a good temporary replacement till the ice comes back.

    Seriously though, most of the proposal are scientifically unfeasible and downright dangerous.

    Sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere!? The atmosphere is not static. Remember in the 70/s how much damage was done to the environment by acid rain? yup - sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere would just rewind us back to those days.

    Lenses in space!? - that's too far out to even touch... maybe we could just use lots of Hubble telescopes, at least then we'd get the added benefit of seeing more of what's out there

    partly cloudy all the time? - hmmm, let's see... on cloudy days the local temperatures actually increases. I think they blame it on the comfy blanket effect - clouds act as blankets trapping any heat that penetrates it. And let's not forget trapping any heat we generate too.

    Greening the oceans - this is an interesting one. The theory sounds good but I don't think we know enough about the longterm effects. I'm not so sure that it would actually sequester enough CO2 to make a difference and then there's always the food web to consider. There could be some short-term benefits like increasing the biodiversity which would be the primary means of returning the CO2 back into the atmosphere.

  9. 1. Gold Medals cost money ($100 million each for Australia's 14).

    :huh: Then again, what doesn't..?

    2. 16 million people die avoidably each year from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease - they can be saved by expenditure on health, education, food and related resources (9,000 Indigenous Australians die avoidably each year, largely due to the warped policies of climate criminal, racist White Australia e.g. its $100 million each for Australia's 14 Beijing Gold medals; according top UNICEF, 327,000 Afghan under-5 year old infants die each year in US-, UK-, NATO- and Australia-occupied Afghanistan, largely because the racist, war criminal occupiers only permit a "total annual per capita medical expenditure" of $26 per person per year [according to WHO data] - the "annual death rate" of Occupied Afghan infants is 6.2% as compared to that of 10.2% for Australian prisoners of war of the Japanese in World War 2 or 17% for Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe, 1941-1945).

    :o There ya go with the numbers again... Be more responsible or at least add more clarity. We're on the topic of the olympics and it's greeness (yeah, I put that there) so we can clearly say that people are not dying because of money spent on olympic goals (or golds, whichever you'd like)... those athletes and fans and country reps look pretty healthy to me. As for greeness, I'll give you that... the excess CO2 caused by such exertions is bound to have an impact on the nearby environmental conditions, even if only in the short term.

    Secondly; no one with a mind would voluntarily spend $100M for a gold medal no matter how criminal or racist or warped their mind is, 'cause I'm sure if it were an auction they'd probably stop bidding after $1M each and instead go bribe the judges or competitors for far less!

    Thirdly; I'm certain that you'd be hard-pressed to find any documentation or word of mouth proof that anyone has decreed that Afghanistan or Ethiopia or any other impoverished country may not spend more than $26 on medical care for any person in any year (maybe except if they're being tortured).

    And lastly; you lose people when you put a number like 6.2% up against a number like 17%, whatever your reasoning. Most people will say "well 6.2% is clearly almost 3 better than 17%"

    3. CO2 pollution is directly related to GDP in our carbon-based energy world.

    Yeah, maybe, depends. Countries like Jamaica whose GDP is mostly dependent on tourism, and the fact that the tourists really don't travel much while they're there might dispute this claim... unless you count them indulging the tourists to over-consume carbon based fuels such as ethanol (they have 75% or higher overproof rum down there you know?) and plant and vegetable matter.

    4. GDP is what people produce from investment (including Gold Medals).

    :blink: Are the Gold medals the investment (gold can fund a lot of investments) or are they also a part of the GDP (gold is also a pretty valuable comodity)? Again, I think you'll find that the Jamaican runners didn't see much of the Jamaican GDP... heck, I don't even think most Jamaicans saw any of it either!

    5. The higher the CO2 pollution, the higher the GDP and - as a rough estimate - the higher the investment in Gold medals.

    :mad: Here you've gone and done it!

    Your numbers, which is what we're disputing here, paint some countries as innocent just because they weren't able to win any gold, or enough gold to represent their populations size, and others as guilty just because they have a small population or highly focused talent. Clearly they all spent money on trying to win gold so you should be damning them all.

    6. Disproportionately spending GDP on Gold Medals when 16 million people (9.5 million of them under-5 year old infants) are dying avoidably each year is obscene.

    :) No argument here.

    We're all here to try to even the odds. The more we can stop this crazy dependence on burning things and move back to decentralized energy production and self-sufficiency the more we'll be able to direct aid and care to those who need it most.

    If anyone disagrees with propositions 1-7 please say so.

    If anyone has a better measure than my admittedly crude Olympic Gold Medal Tally Green-ness Index then please apply it to several hundred countries and inform everyone of the results.

    Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity.

    :whistle: I've said my peace (pun intended) so no-one can accuse me of being silent.

  10. It's easy actually!

    Click on any users name while you browse a thread and choose "View Member Profile".

    If you click on my name you will come to my profile here:

    To the left you can see an (old) photo of me. Below that you see five stars. Use them to rate people. :)

    On that very same page you can add people as friends, send messages to them etc.


    consider yourself well rated! :thumbup:

  11. Fairy Tale time! :thumbup:

    :blush: wishful thinking that it will happen maybe, but the fact is that every home or business complex has enough surface area to support the solar panels needed or attachment points to attach a wind turbine to make it energy self-sufficient from the combined generating capacity. This includes the added capacity to top up the batteries of a solar-assisted electric vehicle. <_<

  12. There have been a lot of discussions about the high gas prices in USA the past months and what exactly should be done to curb this trend. Some politicians, like McCain, Bush, and Gingrich, are taking advantage of the situation and tries to push for the ending of a 27-year moratorium on offshore drilling along the coastlines of USA.

    What do you think? Are you for or against offshore drilling?

    Related: Offshore drilling is not the answer to high gas prices

    :celb: Spend the money on developing wind and solar and electric vehicles and we'd no longer need oil as a source of energy. The current levels of domestic oil will do for all other uses!

  13. Being a science and tech geek I get a lot of questions from friends, family and friends of theirs asking how they can make simple, inexpensive changes to become more eco friendly. Most of them already understood the recycle - reduce - reuse process for everyday garbage items, but didn't quite see what else they could do.

    What I found was that most people wanted to change but didn't know how and when they found out how they really needed convincing to keep going. They didn't want to go back to the basics... at least not until they're comfortable with where they were and could see where they're going. And most of all they love their gadgets and tech.

    So I decided to collect whatever useful gadgets I could find and created a site that mixes useful info with affordable products and give you significant savings when possible plus tips on what to do next and how to tie each one into the previous and next to really start to see major changes.

    Check it out, I called it Eco Powered Tech to signify the use and merging of eco friendly gadgets with energy saving gadgets and clean energy sources. The main aim of is to save you money to show you that eco powered tech contributes to sustainable living by giving back to the environment and to your wallet. If you step through the site in the order presented on the left menu you'll get the idea. Or you can peek ahead to some of the juicy tidy-up tidbits to help you reduce cost, reduce energy, reduce waste and help to reduce global pollution.

  14. If you watch the full episode of the daily show:

    And 7 mins into the show they compare John Mccain's speech with George Bush's speech.. That pretty much says it all on how much "change" John McBush will bring to Washington and USA.. :info:


    You're absolutely right.

    McCain promises to try every possible means of alternate energy but notice the major focus on drilling for oil. He started with it and finished with it, even rousing that despicable "drill baby drill" chant... makes them look and sound like oil addicted puppets of big oil.

    Apparently Republicans are not environmentalist if they believe that you can reasonably replaces all foreign oil sources with domestic ones while making any reasonable advancement in other green or clean energies. After stuffing the pockets of their oil cronies there will be no more funds remaining to do any R&D or implementation of renewable energies and hence the money will be spent, just not on stimulating jobs or the economy. The Democrats are right, this policy is no different from the old Bush platform and where has it gotten us?

    Americans who care anything about the environment or future generations must vote for Obama who promises to focus energy spending on renewable and clean sources such as solar and wind. With the recent promising discoveries in renewable energies, especially solar power which is the only real clean and green form of energy, this kind of focus will yield true results, create tons of jobs and stimulate the economy.

    :crazy: The Republicans seem blind to the fact that, yes, we use oil for many things but in almost all cases where oil is used to produce energy, including car and truck and other types of engines which make up 80-90% of most people's concern for available oil, alternate energies can be used effectively. In other words, why drill for more oil if we won't need it when it finally arrives?

  15. Had vegetables looked more like that when I was a kid, I probably wouldn't eat as many mad cows as I do today!

    Seriously, those plantimals are SWEET!!! :crazyhappy:

    GMOs can certainly be helpful and I'm with you... if we could get some cauliflower to taste like crab or green peas to taste like grapes I'd be gobbling them up :rolleyes:

    The DNA of genetically modified plants may contain the genes of insects, animals or even viruses. These products may potentially cause harm to your health.

    :thoughtful: There is only a remote chance that GMOs could contain harmful genetic material because the GMO manufacturers take care not to incur peoples wrath in this way. Besides, we don't absorb large molecules when we eat. Our digestive system breaks them into tiny pieces and usually this makes them harmless. Plus, what we digest doesn't go from our blood directly into our cells so any genes we absorb are unlikely to be expressed (ie. treated as genes by our bodies) and human cells don't adopt free floating genes into our DNA so they can't be expressed that way either.

    The GMOs manufacturer's know this and the lawyers know this, which is why they will never lose a court case that charges them for making harmful foods. The case we can win, and the one no-one seems to realize is that GMOs are environmental disasters waiting to happen.

    It's a serious enough topic that I think deserves a new posting so watch for it.

  16. So scientists are thinking of making these drastic changes to ecosystems with species relocation. For example, moving big game to American Prairies, and Polar bears to Antarctica.

    But won't that just mess up the whole eco-system?

    I'm really partial to polar bears, so I'm really interested in the antarctica idea. I just think that since penguins are not used to surface predators, they'll totally suffer.

    But should we just let them die because of habitat loss???



    I'm with you there sorrymom.

    It's a tough problem and the fact is that the Antarctic ice is also receding so putting them there is not a long term solution. And yeah, the loss of the sea ice would only worsen the problem for penguins because their habitat would get a whole lot more crowded and full of predators.

  17. The direction that cars will go in the future, function over flash.

    Saw one of them up close today and it got me thinking... for something that small it shouldn't even have a gas powered engine. I'm sure an electric motor and a few batteries should do to give it the same performance ratings and it'd be a 0 pollution vehicle. Top it off with some solar panels on the top and back and we'd be laughing all the way to the bank to save our wads of ex-gas money. :thumbup:

  18. Hi everyone,

    To help out people who love their gadgets, I thought we could all pitch in and make a list of gadgets that are environmentally more friendly than most items on the market.

    Pick gadgets that are:


    reduce waste compared to the alternatives

    reduce energy waste compared to the alternatives if any

    use less energy than the alternatives

    use alternative energies

    make other gadget more environmentally friendly

    please add any other eco-friendly attributes

    and tell us which attributes (from the list above) they have

    I'll start off with 2 easy ones see how it goes:

    - rechargeable batteries: reduce waste compared to the non-rechargeable

    - battery chargers - use them mostly at non-peak hours and they reduce wasted energy from power stations

    now lets see what else comes up! :thumbup:

  19. These are glib and facile responses to a careful analysis and a serious problem dramatized by genocidal, climate criminal, war criminal, racist White Australia reportedly spending $100 million on each Gold medal while over 400,000 under-5 year old Occupied Iraqi and Occupied Afghan infants die each year (90% avoidably and due to US, UK NATO and Australian war crimes) ** in the US-, UK- and Australian-occupied Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories (the latest UN Population Division data)..

    To repeat, for any sensible analysis it is necessary to first "normalize" the Gold Medal Tally on a per capita basis (unless you believe, like the racist Bush-ites, Zionists and neo-Bush-its that some people are worth more than others).

    Then, to estimate the CO2 pollution-related national investment you could multiply the Gold/person by the CO2 pollution/person to get a GoldxCO2 pollution measure..

    Clearly there are more sophisticated ways of doing such an analysis (however, for example, actual data on dollars spent on Gold is only readily available to me for Australia and China) and both high Gold/low CO2 and lowGold/high CO2 combinations could yield the same value.

    However the analysis shows huge disparities best illustrated by (A) climate criminal Australia, one of the world's worst CO2 polluters and biggest investors in Gold medals with a score of 14.1 ; (B) China with a world average Gold medals per capita and CO2 polution per capita yielding an average GoldxCO2 value of 0.159 (100 times lower than Australia's value) and © India which has a CO2/person 4 times lower than the world average and whose investment in Gold Medal glory was evidently commendably minimal yielding a score of 0.0010 (about 10,000 times lower than Australia's).

    If people have a better means of quantitating the Green-ness of the Medal Tally I invite them to apply it to the several hundred countries involved and publish the results.

    My preliminary method is quite useful - scientists are usually very impressed by 100-fold and 10,000-fold differences in parameters such as those described here.

    ** I am a thanatologist with a 4 decade biological sciences career. UN and UNESCAP data indicate that the "annual death rate" is 0.6% for under-5 year old infants in both the Tibetan Autonomous Region and China as a whole; 6.2% for under-5 year old infants in US-, UK-, NATO and Australia-occupied Afghanistan (about 10 times higher and due to due to US, UK NATO and Australian war crimes) ; and 10.2% for Australian prisoners of war of the Japanese in World War 2 (for which war crime Japanese were tried and hanged).

    One of the reasons these war criminal countries (US, UK NATO and Australia) get away with this mass murder is because of racism, lying and obfuscation by the racist, lying, holocaust-ignoring mainstream media of the Western Murdochracies.

    Chill dude, your bias is showing… I admire your tenacity for humanitarianism but we are on an environmental blog, yah? Your article make no sense environmentally. Are you attributing the ability to win gold medals to a propensity for committing atrocities, the propensity to waste money, the propensity to choke the atmosphere with CO2 gas, or your propensity to fill blogs with hot air?

    If you'd wipe the froth from your mouth and eyes you'd see how blind you are to the fact that relationships your trying to link are far fetched at best. If you want to investigate the relationships of gold medal wins you can't arbitrarily normalize to a generalized population, your normalization should be done on the Olympic population because only they could possibly win a medal. Not because they're worth more than anyone else but because they are the only ones competing and the rules say that only they can get the medal.

    Following that through, your ratios should then include only the gold/team and CO2 incurred by that team through the course of the event from beginning to end to give your precious gold/CO2 pollution for the olympic event. By your own admission, you don't have the dollar figures to even begin to compute the CO2 that the money could afford for all involved so your arguement should end there.

    How you made the leap to bigotry and atrocities and all other manners of evil and link them back to some environmental conscience would boggle even Einstein (wait, is he one of those racist Bush-ites, Zionists and neo-Bush-its? if so, my apologies). And by the way, you left out the rampant class discrimination, bordering on socialized racism, that is endemic to India... or didn't you hear about it?

    Only heartless people wouldn't feel for the deaths of babies but are you saying that the death rate discrepancies are due to the olympics and the CO2 it generated?.. I mean, these are the only two factors that can be coherently linked in your article.

    Point is, you’re letting your numbers clump the environmental innocents who just happen to win a few medals with the worst of the evil ones while the numbers themselves obfuscate some of the guilty ones who were simply unable to win some gold to make themselves stand out.

    Leave the innocents out of it or at least exonerate them. Don’t let your bias show you to be passing over some of the guilty ones at the same time as you’re flogging the innocents. It’s bad for you and bad for the environmental movement at the same time.

  20. "green" being a relative term as is"left" in this country. The democratic party in this country is suffering from the far left looking down on those who thought they were on the left but not in 100% agreement with the far left. Now you have to be a "true believer".


    come on guys, the GreenBlog Bot is partially right... many people who make excuses for not living greener are lazy, but mostly they're ignorant and misinformed. And they mimic what they see around them, even the excuses that they give come straight from other sources. Unfortunately those sources tend to be greedy self-serving politicians, sensationalist news media and sometimes just plain bigots. "They say a man in a crisis falls falls back on what he knows best..." (from some old Cowboy Junkies song, can't remember the title)

    Think about it, most of us who are trying to make the effort and become eco friendly have learned it from people around us. The difference is those people were caring strangers, parents, educated teachers and good friends. So GreenBlog Bot, we really shouldn't just blame those lazy, ignorant and misinformed people:) we should help them become informed and wean them off their laziness.

    You see, your commenter was also partially right - rich people are not immune. They get their crap from the same source poor people do so they're just as lazy and ignorant and misinformed as the rest of them. And as you pointed out, just because they have money doesn't mean they don't think they have crappy jobs, they may have health insurance but they ill-treat themselves so it really doesn't matter, and they can certainly afford enough to eat but the continue to eat crap... all because of their life experiences.

    What we need to do is be more compassionate and help them out. It's amazing what they'll see when we open their eyes, but we can't get them to open their eyes by shouting and degrading them. Teach them how like in one of my earlier responses (nothing implied about you biker if you're reading this) so it becomes what they know best so that in this crisis it'll be what they fall back on. :thumbup:

    This teaching also means electing the politicians that say the right green things too, even if we'll have to force them to do it later :whistle: .

  21. Hi!

    I want to do more for the environment. I basicly just recycle my rubbish, use bike and bus instead of car, try to do my shopping wisely (eg. more bio products). But I find it difficult to change everything at once, it demands a lot of effort and knowledge. Would you have any other tips how to reduce my consumption, starting with some "small and easy" things, so that I wouldn't feel so overwhelmed but at the same time I could gradually accumulate the good impact on the environment? Thanks :)

    Hi Biker,

    :whistle: I hope I don't seem to be pushy but I've lived off-the-net for a while now and being a science and tech nerd I get your questions a lot from friends, family and friends of theirs so I decided to try to help out by getting online. This thread and this site are certainly good places to learn and I hope I can help make it better for everyone with some of my science and tech background.

    What I found was most people wanted to change but didn't know how and when they found out how they really needed convincing to keep going. They don't want to go back to the basics... at least not until they're comfortable with where they were and could see where they're going. And most of all they love their gadgets (admit it guys, this blog couldn't be here without them... internet, computer, mouse, keyboard etc.)

    So I decided to collect whatever useful tech I could find and create a site that mixes the info with the products and give you tips on what to do next and how to tie each one into the previous and next to really start to see major changes.

    Check it out, I called it Eco Powered Tech to signify the use and merging of eco friendly gadgets with energy saving gadgets and clean energy sources. If you step through the site in the order presented on the left menu you'll get the idea. Or you can peek ahead to some of the juicy tidy-up tidbits to help you reduce cost, reduce energy, reduce waste and help to reduce global pollution.

    I've only recently begun it as I said, but I'm finding some really good deals (some cool wind and solar home kits on the way soon!) and trying to pass them and as much savings as possible on to my visitors. You won't find anything frivolous or gratuitous there (eg. I promote rechargeable batteries to wean you off wasteful non-rechargeables but I don't promote frivolous gadgets with custom rechargeable batteries because custom batteries break the reuse green rule - you can't use them to power anything else... unless you're a techie like me). If you do see anything you don't like please drop me comments or suggestions and I'll do what I can to change it.

    Hope this helps and sorry for the near-sales-pitch :rolleyes:

  22. CARS

    If you use a car it should be better to full up your tires cause they have little contact with the road.That means less energy-less gas!!!

    It should be better for the enviroment to use high rpm's (4000-6000) cause with high rpm's the engine needs less gas to move the car. (Don't kill yourself though)

    Better to use a basket for your car wash... Fill at least 5 times the basket,it's enough... saves a lot of water than using the waterpump!!!

    That's for a start!!!Any desagrees or more opinions are welcomed!!! <!-- s:thumbup: --><!-- s:thumbup: -->

    I'm glad I found this post. I like these ideas. :crazyhappy:

    One thing daim, High RPMS can waste lots of gas if the car isn't moving as fast. Fast is not necessarily good either, the faster you're going the more energy is being wasted to fight against drag (air friction). The best way to gauge it is to check your RPMs vs speed. I find my vehicle does best near 80-90 kph. at this speed my car is in its top gear (no overdrive) but doing only 1800-1900 RPMs. You'll notice that as you rev to change gears, your RPMs will always overshoot this optimal RPM. As I increase RPMs above this rate to go faster than 90 kph I gain way less speed so I try to drive near this optimal speed whenever possible and legal. :thoughtful:

    Try this to help cool item to reduce energy use by your cars. :thumbup:

  23. To save the economy, we must quit shipping food thousands of miles when it can be locally sourced, so that less food will spoil and less will go to waste. It's not that Americans are eating too much, it's that the restaurants and stores throw half of it away.

    Throw it away or sell it for less? Apparently throwing away food and other stuff cost these places less than selling them cheaper so that more people could afford it... at least that's what they want us to believe, and that's what many small businesses are lead to believe as well.

    The western philosophy of waste suggests that selling for less will make people only want to buy for less and therefore cut into your profits. It's funny how many of the consumer products businesses that are at the top of their class actually sell for less than their competitors... Walmart, McDonalds, Tim Hortons etc. Less waste is what we need, less waste = less need = less energy use. Recycle, Reduce, Reuse - these three Rs are still the best tenets of eco friendliness.

    And while we're at it, I'm trying to help others look at more ways to reduce energy use as well as more ways to recycle and reuse energy.