How do you make your footprint lighter?
- Thread starter Easydoesit
- Start date
legendaryfrog
Tactical Refreshment Action
While I dont take part in all these hip new green activities, I still try to be a clean person.
By that, I mean:
-keeping car up to performance by maintaining tire pressure and minimizing load.
-turning off my tv, computer, and other electronics while im not using them
-buying efficient appliances (well, this was more of a money saver, if anything)
-avoiding bottled water
-staying away from any chinese restaurants
What evidence do you have that it doesn't exist? I've put up a whole bunch of evidence, explained what I've learned from people actually in the field, and people come with buzzwords like "skeptic" (which scientists are by definition...). To be blunt, most people have been saying "I believe" or "in my opinion" and not posting any evidence, simply taking from the circumstantial experience around them.
Furthermore, nuclear reactors have come a long way since cheranobyl and the breaches which happened in the famous meltdowns involved an unbelievable amount of negligence. Of course, they don't know what to do with the waste.
Edit: here is another source from someone at Yale: http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/ClimateFAQ.html
Quote:
Is "global warming" really happening?
No question. Every global indicator shows warming: three independent instrumental networks, sea ice (retreating), permafrost and glaciers (melting), species migrations (poleward), borehole and tree-ring-derived temperatures (upward), and spring thaws (earlier)....and don't forget bathing suits
The warming has varied regionally, but the global average temperature now is about 1.2 F warmer than 100 years ago and probably the warmest in at least a millenium [NRC 2006]. Europe and Asia have warmed more than the US, and the Arctic the most, enough to significantly affect indigenous peoples and wildlife.
It does state that we aren't sure that the cat 5 hurricanes themselves are caused by this, but I'm pretty sure we will soon. Even the IPCC and the EPA have agreed under the BUSH administration that climate change is going on. See here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
Quote: "
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:
Furthermore, nuclear reactors have come a long way since cheranobyl and the breaches which happened in the famous meltdowns involved an unbelievable amount of negligence. Of course, they don't know what to do with the waste.
Edit: here is another source from someone at Yale: http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/ClimateFAQ.html
Quote:
Is "global warming" really happening?
The warming has varied regionally, but the global average temperature now is about 1.2 F warmer than 100 years ago and probably the warmest in at least a millenium [NRC 2006]. Europe and Asia have warmed more than the US, and the Arctic the most, enough to significantly affect indigenous peoples and wildlife.
It does state that we aren't sure that the cat 5 hurricanes themselves are caused by this, but I'm pretty sure we will soon. Even the IPCC and the EPA have agreed under the BUSH administration that climate change is going on. See here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
Quote: "
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
- Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
- The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
- An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
- The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
- Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet."
Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:
- Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.
- Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.
- Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.
- Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change."
Last edited:
i believe you schiz lol. well, i believe the charts too. i think there needs to be truth all over about it though, printed in all the newspapers on the front page or something. idk, i think everyone needs to see the charts and facts about what is KNOWN and what is unclear about global climate change. i still dont think it would hurt 1 bit for people to change things to help the environment. people also should find ways to explain it without boring people, because sometimes if i hear a bunch of mumbo jumbo words that i dont understand with people talking too fast i just tune it out lol.
ps- people should still feel free to post what they do or have changed to be more environmentally friendly/energy saving/economical.
thanks for all those links and that info schiz
ps- people should still feel free to post what they do or have changed to be more environmentally friendly/energy saving/economical.
thanks for all those links and that info schiz
so you don't believe that that coal burning and pollution cause asthma or any other breathing problems? i'd expect it to be worse than smoking by now...
the environment and climate change can be different things that can interlock.
like pollution causing multi legged frogs, or without river-side trees to give shade it would be hard for some fish to spawn(and cause erosion) or turtles thinking that pastic bags are jellyfish and eating them etc. not all environmental hazards are burned into the atmosphere to trap sunlight.
the environment and climate change can be different things that can interlock.
like pollution causing multi legged frogs, or without river-side trees to give shade it would be hard for some fish to spawn(and cause erosion) or turtles thinking that pastic bags are jellyfish and eating them etc. not all environmental hazards are burned into the atmosphere to trap sunlight.
Last edited:
ive seen a couple articles in the news and on tv about hybrid cars being worse for the enviroment because of what it takes to grow and make the ethanol fuel or watever the hell it is. and thats also one of the reason food is so high to,aparently.
and what let it mix with the lava so when a volcano erupts green gas comes out and we all choke to death and die?
I have a hard time believing GW when there are reports of weather stations located right next to air conditioning vents (proven) and the ICE CAPS ARE EXPANDING (uh--- hello, anyone home?) and overall decrease in the "global temp" of a full degree C, IIRC the earlier alarms was that the earth had warmed only half a degree.
If you want to go off on some country about pollution, talk to China and India, don't force stupid idealistic restrictions on the U.S. that will basicly cripple the economy. And if you don't think thats will happen, then you sir are a fool.
Look, don't get me wrong, I don't like pollution any more than the next guy, but like I've said before, DON'T CRASH THE ECONOMY ON A STUPID THEORY. Because that is exactly what "climate change" is, a theory. You want a solution, then come up with something that doesn't involve crashing the economy.
Hell, a volcano puts out more "greenhouse gasses" in one eruption than all the cars in the world can put out in a year.
Oh, and Kuhli, I'm honored to know you, I have never met anyone so pessimistic as you.
If you want to go off on some country about pollution, talk to China and India, don't force stupid idealistic restrictions on the U.S. that will basicly cripple the economy. And if you don't think thats will happen, then you sir are a fool.
Look, don't get me wrong, I don't like pollution any more than the next guy, but like I've said before, DON'T CRASH THE ECONOMY ON A STUPID THEORY. Because that is exactly what "climate change" is, a theory. You want a solution, then come up with something that doesn't involve crashing the economy.
Hell, a volcano puts out more "greenhouse gasses" in one eruption than all the cars in the world can put out in a year.
Oh, and Kuhli, I'm honored to know you, I have never met anyone so pessimistic as you.
It's global climate change, and I don't know where you got the overall decrease in temp, all the sources I linked to say an overall increase. There was considerable discourse in the topic as little as a year ago, I mean, one guy actually accidentally fudged his data.
As you can also see from the links I posted and from the link to Yale, it's not really all that fair to ask developing countries who can't afford it to go first. The economy does not have to be crippled and there is considerable opportunity for jobs. Again, if you look at the sources I posted, it does not have to be harmful to the economy. And it's not a theory.
Hybrid cars don't use ethanol? Ethanol is actually worse for the environment because it releases less energy than gasoline, which means you must produce much more of it for the same amount and it still isn't that great, this is true. One of the first things I learned in Bio, lol.
I...have no idea what you're saying now, Kuhli. Lol.
From (just!) the yale link I just posted:
Is this something we'll just have to live with? Wouldn't taking real action destroy the economy?
No. Economists calculate that stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at a safe level (low enough to avoid the most serious impacts) can be done by spending only a few percent of global GDP. This is equivalent to delaying economic growth by a few years so that, for example, per capita wealth that would have been attained in 2030 is not attained until 2033. Quantifying the economic impact of climate change if we don't change course is quite difficult and estimates (more uncharitably, guesses) range considerably. Some economists say don't worry. My guess is that we will be surprised and that these surprises could be far, far nastier than a few percent loss of GDP--or not.
It is too late to prevent some more climate change in the next few decades, but not too late to forestall severe consequences for our grandchildren and many generations after them; many now see the key goal as keeping the warming to less than about 3-4F in order to prevent the eventual melting of Greenland. I do advocate "wait and see": wait and see what kind of technologies we can develop before we build any more old-fashioned infrastructure! The US, China and India are gearing up to rapidly expand their electricity generation and refining capacity, and they are currently planning to stick with old, polluting 20th-century technology even though others are available. This would be a disaster, committing us to a huge, additional belch of greenhouse gases over the next few decades that would more than double our previous emissions and guarantee more serious impacts down the road. Now is a pivotal time in world history.
The point is that we are already "acting" by building more stuff. And since we'll never know exactly what climate change will bring until it's far too late, waiting for "better science" is a de facto decision to give up.
Technological progress is the key but only happens when spurred by markets or government mandates. Meanwhile, gases are building up relatively rapidly, and removing them from the atmosphere (though technically feasible) will probably remain impractical. Geoengineering to counteract climate change could help, but might not go as planned, would have to be maintained by our descendents for centuries, and would not address the the non-climatic effects of CO2. There are a few "no regrets" actions that would have economic or health benefits even in the absence of a climate problem (like eliminating subsidies that now prejudice us toward fossil fuel use, or pursuing more sensible coastal development policies). These would at least get us started.
Ultimately, to achieve meaningful reductions in emissions would require some combination of wholesale shifts to nuclear power, massive increases in energy efficiency, or capture and storage of carbon dioxide before it reaches the atmosphere (check this out—it may be our best option).
Annnnd Edit Edit: One of the main concerns is that it is changing too fast in general. Warming or cooling. Parts of the world have cooled! But it is changing too fast. Though the temps in the Northern Hemishpere would be a record.
As you can also see from the links I posted and from the link to Yale, it's not really all that fair to ask developing countries who can't afford it to go first. The economy does not have to be crippled and there is considerable opportunity for jobs. Again, if you look at the sources I posted, it does not have to be harmful to the economy. And it's not a theory.
Hybrid cars don't use ethanol? Ethanol is actually worse for the environment because it releases less energy than gasoline, which means you must produce much more of it for the same amount and it still isn't that great, this is true. One of the first things I learned in Bio, lol.
I...have no idea what you're saying now, Kuhli. Lol.
From (just!) the yale link I just posted:
Is this something we'll just have to live with? Wouldn't taking real action destroy the economy?
No. Economists calculate that stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at a safe level (low enough to avoid the most serious impacts) can be done by spending only a few percent of global GDP. This is equivalent to delaying economic growth by a few years so that, for example, per capita wealth that would have been attained in 2030 is not attained until 2033. Quantifying the economic impact of climate change if we don't change course is quite difficult and estimates (more uncharitably, guesses) range considerably. Some economists say don't worry. My guess is that we will be surprised and that these surprises could be far, far nastier than a few percent loss of GDP--or not.
"ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?'"--Dirty Harry
Should we act now, do we have time to "wait and see", or is it already too late?It is too late to prevent some more climate change in the next few decades, but not too late to forestall severe consequences for our grandchildren and many generations after them; many now see the key goal as keeping the warming to less than about 3-4F in order to prevent the eventual melting of Greenland. I do advocate "wait and see": wait and see what kind of technologies we can develop before we build any more old-fashioned infrastructure! The US, China and India are gearing up to rapidly expand their electricity generation and refining capacity, and they are currently planning to stick with old, polluting 20th-century technology even though others are available. This would be a disaster, committing us to a huge, additional belch of greenhouse gases over the next few decades that would more than double our previous emissions and guarantee more serious impacts down the road. Now is a pivotal time in world history.
The point is that we are already "acting" by building more stuff. And since we'll never know exactly what climate change will bring until it's far too late, waiting for "better science" is a de facto decision to give up.
Technological progress is the key but only happens when spurred by markets or government mandates. Meanwhile, gases are building up relatively rapidly, and removing them from the atmosphere (though technically feasible) will probably remain impractical. Geoengineering to counteract climate change could help, but might not go as planned, would have to be maintained by our descendents for centuries, and would not address the the non-climatic effects of CO2. There are a few "no regrets" actions that would have economic or health benefits even in the absence of a climate problem (like eliminating subsidies that now prejudice us toward fossil fuel use, or pursuing more sensible coastal development policies). These would at least get us started.
Ultimately, to achieve meaningful reductions in emissions would require some combination of wholesale shifts to nuclear power, massive increases in energy efficiency, or capture and storage of carbon dioxide before it reaches the atmosphere (check this out—it may be our best option).
Annnnd Edit Edit: One of the main concerns is that it is changing too fast in general. Warming or cooling. Parts of the world have cooled! But it is changing too fast. Though the temps in the Northern Hemishpere would be a record.
Last edited:
