Simon

Alex Steffen gives a pretty interesting presentation on climate change and cities and how they can "help save the future" here in this TED video: http://www.ted.com/t...ex_steffen.html He talks less about green roofs and more about whats below. Although he is a bit limited in his points it's definitely worth a look.

hehe yeah I know that feeling!

Your topic was moved to a more appropriate forum. Please also refrain from using CAPITAL letters in the topic title (need to remind myself to add that in the forum guidelines...).

I am a bit tempted to watch the new Tintin film. Has anyone here seen it already? Is it any good?

I've changed the reputation system a little today. I've replaced the up and down arrows with a simple "Like" button. As a result you cannot downvote posts anymore. But I think this new system with only a Like button is friendlier and a bit more familiar for people so hopefully it will get more usage (or likes!).

Many here seem to hold this opinion. That its the number of people in a country that decides how much it consumes and waste. I would say that this is wrong. Why? Just take the USA and greenhouse gas emissions as an example here. The US emits around 25% of the global total of greenhouse gases. But the country only has 4,5% of global population. Lets take another example. The 35 least developed nations in the world emits less than 1% of the global total of greenhouse gases. But together they account for over 10% of the world's population. Not satisfied? Well, lets use China (the world’s biggest polluter) and compare it with the USA. That would make it a bit more fair, don't you think? In 2008 they took the number one spot in greenhouse gas pollution from the USA. But China, still considered a developing nation, has more than 20% of the world's total population and they pretty much produces all the gadgets, clothes and other products that we, in the western world, consume. Just consider the greenhouse gas emissions that is being generated from being the world’s top manufacturing country! But if you compare China's greenhouse gas emissions with USA on a per capita basic you get completely different result. China still have a much lower per capita levels of pollution compared to USA. USA’s per capita levels are around five to six times higher than China’s. Well if an area in a city is dirty and there is a massive amount of trash lying around doesn't necessarily equal the inhabitants as the worst environmental offenders. A study was made in Sweden a year or two ago where they investigated a poor and dirty neighborhood with a much richer but more clean neighborhood. The results showed that the inhabitants in the rich area had a much higher ecological footprint, higher CO2 emissions and they generated a much higher amount of trash. The difference was that their trash was cleaned up and taken away to another area (most likely taken close to the poor people's area). They also could afford to drive around in expensive but gas-guzzling cars, buy expensive meat and exotic food with a high CO2 footprint and so on. This might be a bit too personal. But may I ask if you would consider adopting instead of giving birth to two children?

Well, we sort of did take action against the threats from the ozone hole. The Montreal and Kyoto protocols (ratified by 196 states making it the most successful international agreement so far) did set out a bunch of rules and procedures to reduce the concentration of the offending chemicals in the atmosphere. But they haven't been able to fully restore the stratospheric ozone layer. They have pretty much just lowered the acceleration of ozone damage. Some claim that if the international agreement is followed, the ozone layer is expected to recover by 2050. But I think its pretty clear these days that we need new and more rigorous standards. Related article on Green Blog: Arctic Ozone Hole’s Effect on Food Supplies this Winter

Sure, Lomborg acknowledges global warming. But he downplays the devastating climate effects and says we don't need to minimize our greenhouse gas emissions. Lomborg's main idea is that we should be directing our resources toward fighting poverty instead of "wasting them" on efforts to lessen future climate change. Why? Because, as he claims, the larger and more prosperous economy in the future will allow future generations to deal with the problems related to climate change. So really, Lomborg is preaching the age old capitalistic dream of constant, and never ending, growth and modernization fairytale. "No we dont need to deal with the problems today - in the future we will be even richer and then we can afford to combat the problems (and maybe even some kind of technology will come along and make it all effortless)". But this argument ignores the limitations on technology and economic progress there is. And if climate change limits economic growth (which it probably most likely will), there wont be no larger or prosperous economy. And even if there were to be a larger economy (if we completely ignore the earths limitations), it may not be enough to deal with the chaos associated with climate disruption. It should also be noted that Lomborg is not a climate scientist, or a economist. He has published little to none peer-reviewed research on climate or environmental policy. He is just a (distraction) talking head that corporations and politicians who doesn't want any limits or controls on greenhouse gas emissions fund and use.

A while back ago, during some human ecology lecture, this professor told us about some area in the rain forest where they we're going to clear-cut everything and construct something. I don't really remember if it was houses or some kind of motorway. Either way, in this particular area biologists discovered a certain kind of fruit fly which they later found out could help create a medicine for some awful disease - be it cancer or something else. It was a few years ago now so I don't remember all the details of the story but I think you get my point. Even small and annoying flies could potentially carry some major positive medical or scientific breakthroughs for us humans. Parasitic life forms you say? You mean like us humans? Joke aside, I do get your point. But if an ecosystem has been left intact from outside interference all the different animals and insects and what not would live in almost perfect harmony after thousands of years of evolution. On those places where we see one kind of animal that is a destructive force in the local nature its often because it has been brought to that area by us humans.

Watch this 1 hour long documentary on youtube about Chernobyl's radioactive wildlife: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6sdQ59g_xg There have been massive increases in large carnivores in the nuclear wasteland around Chernobyl creating a complete ecosystem and one of Europe's largest wildlife sanctuaries -- and yet it's radioactive. Where humans can't live, nature is rebounding and somewhere in this vast nuclear wilderness, there are packs of radioactive wolves, living in an archaic structure that has vanished from other parts of Europe. Here they can thrive, here they can live like real wolves in large packs as they used to. Before 1986, the zone was heavily farmed and populated, and wolves were scarce. In less than 25 years there are an estimated 300+ wolves making the most of this deceptively beautiful landscape. But are these they mutants? Have they been affected by nuclear contamination after the 1986 explosion which released 100 times more radio-nuclides than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined? I haven't had the time to watch it yet, but it sounds very interesting.

“He crushed workers rights… but he was someone you could sit down and have a beer with!”

Okay, so I decided to go with this 15 inch Sony Vaio laptop: So far I am really enjoying it! :)

The Guardian has an interesting interview with David Attenborough. Here is an excerpt: "The polar bear is the easy one, it's a very charismatic animal that people can identify with," [Attenborough] says. "It's beautiful, and also savage; it's got a lot going for it. But it's only a white grizzly bear, really. All these big issues need a mascot and that's what the polar bear is. But climate change is going to affect us much more profoundly than the loss of the polar bear." [...] "Attenborough's sense of himself as a non-expert, combined with the trust invested in him by his vast audience, has also held him back. It is the reason he was reluctant to speak publicly about climate change, although privately convinced of the evidence for 15 years." You can read the whole interview here.

Libyan TV is reporting that Muammar Gaddafi has been captured by NTC fighters (the article has been updated) in Sirte. I guess it was just a matter of time before he would be found and captured. Hopefully he will get a fair trial and then be punished for his crimes. Update: It has now been confirmed that Muammar Gaddafi has died of his wounds after being captured near Sirte. The Guardian reports that this image purportedly shows the arrest of Gaddafi. Al Jazeera has acquired exclusive footage of the body of Muammar Gaddafi. What do you think the death of Muammar Gaddafi means for the future of Libya? Would it have been better if Gaddafi would have gotten a fair trial? Or does his death now mean that the Libyan people can finally start a new and hopefully better and more democratic chapter in its country's history?

It's interesting though. The forum traffic keeps increasing for every day that goes. But for various reasons very few people decide to register an account. Is it too hard to find the register link? Or does the registration process require too many complicated steps? :unsure2: Thanks! :)

Yeah, it doesn't matter if we like it or not: our big cities are here to stay. They are the only realistic way to house our future populations of 8-9 billion people.

Greenpeace joins the Occupy Movement and links the protesters struggle for social and democratic justice with the climate change crisis. "The warning cry of the peaceful Occupy Wall Street protests is for the future of democracy. Greenpeace in the U.S. has always recognized we cannot have a healthy planet without citizens who are willing to collectively raise our voices and participate in a functional political process. When decisions are made only for the good of the few, human lives and ecological health are put in peril. We stand – as individuals and an organization – with Occupiers of all walks of life who peacefully stand up for a just, democratic, green and peaceful future." http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/greenpeace-supports-occupy-wall-street-peacef/blog/37414/ What do you think, is this something positive for both movements or will it cause troubles along the road?

Here is a "little" update: "Those weird faster-than-light neutrinos that CERN thought they saw last month may have just gotten slowed down to a speed that'll keep them from completely destroying physics as we know it." http://dvice.com/arc...dy-neutrino.php

In this video the political activist and Rev. Jesse Jackson is calling for the police to join the Occupy Wall Street protesters. But more importantly he says the movement needs to mature into real political power. I can only agree. The Occupy Wall Street protest (and the other protests taking place around the country) is a golden opportunity to create a real Labour party and break the democracy and climate killing two-party system in the US. Or what do you think?

Welcome to the forums. Be sure to check out our General Forum Rules and Guidelines.

There is nothing "green" about this. It just shows how sick our consumer culture is. The HTC Arrive is not even one year old and yet the phone is deemed too old.

Okay, Steve Jobs is dead. It's always sad when people die. But come on guys. Lets put things into perspective. Steve Jobs did not change the world. He made a fortune selling overpriced shiny gadgets with a short lifespan created by sweatshop workers. As someone else said: "Jobs wasn't a designer, engineer, inventor or a great innovator. Perhaps, he was a fighter for new ideas, but his major contribution was a brand and a business philosophy. If he did something beyond that for the world, I'm not aware of it." Also, to everyone who keeps posting cartoons with Steve Jobs in heaven, this one is for you.