|
Post by FlyingScotsman on Dec 15, 2006 13:38:48 GMT
Split from: Species+Re-IntroductionsThat is a good point. At the risk of going off-topic (lucky we have that fork button), we can't have it both ways with the environment. Back on topic, I hear there are plans to bring wolves back to the UK. So I thought, "Fork this!" and decided to create a new thread on the subject of environmentalism. Specifically, the question of what happens when our own interest conflicts with the environment. At the simplest level, we need to build to house our ever-growing population, but in so doing we destroy natural habitats. Cars pollute the atmosphere, but nobody's willing to give theirs up. One that particularly interests me is the question of renewable energy. Britain is heading for an energy crisis (so say the politicians) if we don't build more power plants. Nobody wants nuclear power and the government don't want to go for fossil fuels for environmental reasons. The solution (or at least part of it) is wind farms. But people living in suitable areas don't want wind farms. So what's to be done?
|
|
SRapi
Main Line Engine
Pronounced: Ess-Are-Ay-Pie.
Posts: 1,543
|
Post by SRapi on Dec 26, 2006 4:54:03 GMT
This reminds me of a very wonderful organization, which I would love to be a member of, called the Institute of Ecolonomics. It was founded by actor Dennis Weaver, and sticks with the principle that he created that: in order to have a stable economy, you need to have a stable economy, and visa versa. It's all very interesting, and here's the IOE website: ecolonomics.org/
|
|
|
Post by Skarloey on Dec 26, 2006 22:50:54 GMT
No, we do want nuclear power stations, especially around here. For while people who live hundreds of miles away from them think that they are a hazard, we who were born nextdoor to the most infamous in the UK love it - it's a source of employment and is a massive boost to the local economy, and it stopped generating power years ago! Wind farms are fine, so long as they're in fields in the middle of no-where. Stick them beside motorways, that way they might make journeys a little interesting. If British Rail hadn't been destroyed by the Tory governments then perhaps Britain would still have a decent railway system rather than 25 groups of tossers all trying to get enough money so that they can spend it all on god knows what.
|
|
gotSTEAM?
Branch Line Engine
Still dreaming <3
Posts: 1,234
|
Post by gotSTEAM? on Dec 27, 2006 0:09:50 GMT
Well, I know they've come up with hybrid cars to try and wean off of oil, but I've got little faith in it, honestly. Also, the problem with corn-based ethenol is that it builds up - prompting a purge every ex amount of miles driven - and takes less time for this to occur. In other words, my mom's Chevy Impala needs an oil change every 3000 miles it's regestered on the gauge - for corn-based ethenol, it has to be done more often.
Also, one BIG thing people could do is stop driving huge cars! I mean, it's all right if you need a huge pick-up for your job, like working in construction or some hauling job, but to have one just to boost your masculinity? Idiotic! Mind, where I am I seldom see anyone who owns one of those giant Dodge pick-ups or SUV's who isn't male or has a heavy job. Not dissing guys, don't take it that way! Same goes for those Hummers too - they're millitary vehicles, and I believe they shoud stay as such. They burn an insane amount of gasoline very quickly, making them uneconomical and bad for the enviroment. If people drove more cars, and not pick-ups, SUVs, Hummers or other large vehicles, then we'd be better off.
Mind again, I'm not putting down people who really NEED these vehicles, like workers, handicapped people (I should know, my Grandma is wheelchair-bound), and people who do a lot of road traveling. I'm talking 'bout people who have these these things as status symbols or as things to boost theit you-know-what XD
~Elizabeth
|
|
|
Post by edwardblue on Dec 27, 2006 3:04:19 GMT
^ I highly agree with you on that one Liz. I'm not crazy over these big gas-guzzlers either. The Car I drive is my mom's old car that I inherited when I got my licence (<--- UK spelling here), and she in turn got herself, you guessed it... AN SUV (Ford Escape for those curious.)
For me, I've converted to a simple, yet effective method of preserving the environment. I now use CFL's for my lights and am encouraging friends and family to do the same. They're really great too because not only do they last 7x longer than standard bulbs, but they also use a lot less energy. The power that a 20 watt CFL that I use is equivalent to the of a 75 watt incandescent bulb. They only have one flaw: When you turn on a light, they start out dim and take a few seconds to get going. But for those who haven't already, make the change! It's a simple way for you guys to help conserve the environment.
|
|
|
Post by sillyevan on Dec 27, 2006 3:28:55 GMT
I just did a paper on this ;D Yay!
Well Nuclear is still a viable means of obtaining energy...but the plants are large and the waste created doesn't have a shelf-life, it has a HALF-life. I don't know many points in the UK that have geothermal possibilities...
Wind power or tidal power are the two best bets. Constructing long structures which utlitize the energy found in waves creates a constant and usually consistant flow of energy. Wind power can either be utilitized on land or off shore. Giant wind turbines out at sea would create considerable amounts of energy. Off Cape Cod, Mass. here in the US we've got a wind farm and it delivers HALF of the energy used by the Cape every year. Wind farms on the land are a good outlet as well, but if you want to get he people to support it, perhaps individual turbines placed in various cities would be a good start. If people can see for themselves how efficient wind turbines are, that might just win 'em over.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Dec 27, 2006 14:05:48 GMT
Personally, I think we're heading into a situation where it's becoming more and more apparent that the only way things are really going to change effectively are if enough people or everyone is shocked and forced into doing it.
Of course, the only time that's ever liable to happen will be when it's all too late. Coal's due to run out within our lifetime, approximately within the next forty years or so, oil hasn't got much longer to last either, in fact I believe it's lifespan is even shorter. So undoubtedly their huge inevitable loss is contributing to the need to change to new forms of fuel and other materials which could benefit the environment.
I'll admit I'm not "keen on green", but if there are viable sources of fuel and other materials to work with, which both benefit the lifestyle that Western society has become accustomed to and the environment as a whole, I'll be glad to use them.
But that said, until the hole in the O-Zone layer was picked upon by scientists and broadcast on world news, I doubt anyone actually gave a toss. And even after that, there are things in the world now that you can't live without. Mobile phones, public and personal transport, as well as other items that benefit the individual, but not the enviroment as a whole. People can't always be expected to change the way of life they've come to know; put it down to laziness, ignorance, stupidity or even pure dependence, the problem is in the hands of the officials to rectify it because you can't force people to give up their way of life, that's why more incentives need to be employed by the world Governments in order to help make a difference.
Make it worth the people's time and money, and they'll do it. Otherwise, that big hole in the O-Zone layer is only going to widen further...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2006 21:19:08 GMT
Its the green house gasses that we need to worry about more now, the CFCs which damage the Ozone layer have pretty much all been suspended. As a result some research has shown that it started to heal back in early 2002, although we do need to show concern about it to prevent the same mistakes happening in the future. Hybrid cars are good in theory with their battery powered engines, although in practice with the building of the huge batteries and then disposing of them actually uses more CO2 than petrol cars. According to someone who is fairly bright in the pub, I don't know if this is true ot not but its worth looking into. I also think that we aren't building enough wind turbines and those that are should be built differently. If you look at the verticle axis windmill, shop front signs they don't kill birds and they don't need to be pointed into the wind. If you were to place these down the middle of the motorways the problem caused when there was no wind should hopefully be cured by cars driving past. Even though Wikki isn't a reliable source, this is a good page; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbineI'm against big windmill type wind turbines as they are responsible for many bird deaths, for example in Norway a windfarm has been responsible for the loss of about 17 breeding pairs of White Tailed Sea Eagles with similar results around the world. As for nuclear I'm all for it, its mostly fear that stops it from being used, but it produces far more electricity than any other method.
|
|
douglas
Main Line Engine
Posts: 2,256
|
Post by douglas on May 20, 2007 21:07:01 GMT
(Swiffers dust off thread)
I'd agree with the above points; it's ridiculous that people have to drive Hummers or Chevy Suburbans to look cool. One thing that just might get people to be eco-friendly is if celebrities start doing it. Yeah, I know about Al Gore (I had to watch An Inconvienient Truth in school) but if people like Tom Cruise, Britney Spears, Brangelina, and other high-profile celebrities stopped being so goddamn greedy and "blingin" and cool with the Escalades and massive houses that suck up water and oil faster than they can be replaced, maybe people would think "hey, if (celebrity)'s doing it, maybe I should."
And that could be one of the most far-fetched theories since the Scopes evolution theory.
But, hey, it just might happen. In a million years.
|
|
|
Post by edwardblue on May 21, 2007 1:20:08 GMT
Leonardo DiCaprio is also for preserving the environment, so there's still hope there as well. Besides, he not only appeared on the 'Green' issue on Vanity Fair magazine here in the US, but there have been talks that he is also thinking about making his own Environmental movie, much like Al Gore did last summer.
Aside from that, in an Environmental debate I did last month, I displayed a chart showing that between 1990-2004, While the U.S. has decreased it's emissions of SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide) and NOx (Nitrous Oxide), they still have yet to do so with CO2. And I often ask myself: What's up with that? If we can decrease the emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming, acid rain, and other harmful effects to the environment, why can't we lower emissions on the most harmful of them?
|
|
|
Post by FlyingScotsman on May 22, 2007 16:22:04 GMT
Part of the problem is economics. While it's cheaper to be polluting than not, then industry will continue producing fumes. The only way we're going to see real change is if there are changes in the laws. But I can't see that happening any time soon, because industry boosts the economy.
|
|
|
Post by edwardblue on May 22, 2007 17:14:03 GMT
Well, we've already won some battles in the issue. Earlier this year, there were plans to build ELEVEN coal plants in Texas that were quickly scrapped. And another major accomplishment is that NYC's Taxicabs are all going to be hybrids by 2012. Here's the article: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070522/ap_on_re_us/green_taxis
|
|
|
Post by CabForward on Jun 3, 2007 5:44:28 GMT
The solution is not being more "environmental", it is, in fact, creating more pirates. Arr! Because /everybody/ knows that the number of pirates in the world is inversely proportional to the amount of ozone we have. That, my good friends, is why I pirate every movie I watch. I am not doing it because I want to steal, I am doing it for the good of mankind!
Seriously, I think the best solution is not a "get rid of everything bad", because it won't work. A better solution is making better options. Hybrid cars might not be very good at the moment, but with a little more research, we could find we are building very successful Hybrids. Or something else very awesome. (Also, this will eventually become cheaper than the cars of today - I remember when petrol was going for 30 cents a litre. Now we're up to $1.50.) Public transport is also another alternative, that is not only good for the environment, but it is also cheaper.
I think that as long as people begin to shift this trend, others will follow. Yes, most people today aren't going to bother doing things that benefit the environment, but if a small number of people do, these things become better researched, and then better as a whole. Once we get alternatives that are not much more difficult, and cheaper, than todays options, the general community will follow suit.
Once upon a time, women were treated as objects. Look at how far feminism, and other movements, have brought us. It's quite significant. All it takes is time.
Yay for cake!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2007 12:45:32 GMT
I really do need to cut out the bits of my paper that interest me!
An area in Spain produces about 70% of its energy through renewable sources, specifically solar and wind. It was also on the Politics Show, Yorkshire that Drax is the largest coal power plant in Europe but also one of the cleanest because it burns a lot of woodchippings, anyway. I don't think that is the way forward for these power plants to go forward. For example why don't we make them put solar pannels on the roof of all the buildings along with wind turbines. That way the power station at least runs the lights and much of the computors on renewable sources making the CO2 electricity go that bit further in the National Grid. It also allows the manufacturers of wind turbines and solar pannels to invest in research to produce them more efficiently in both economic and environmental tearms. I also think that pylons should be looked at for generating electricity, as they are all tall and therefore are already in the wind, why not stick a shop front type wind turbine up there and make the most of it?
Thats another law that would add to Amber's suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by edwardblue on Jun 3, 2007 20:26:41 GMT
We could sure use some more wind powered turbines and solar panels here. I just read a report on which U.S. States put out the most CO2, and not surprisingly Texas topped the list. But some surprising figures were that least populous states like Alaska and Wyoming weren't that far behind. Alaska in particular has emissions from all the transportation due to its size. As many of us know, this is largely due to the usage of coal-fired power plants in many states. States such as Texas and Wyoming are some of the biggest carbon emitters. Wyoming, though it is the least populous state, emits more CO2 than any other state with 276,000 pounds of it per capita a year. However, states like Vermont and Idaho are very low emitters. Idaho in particular doesn't have a single coal plant in the state, making it the lowest emitter of CO2 in the U.S. with 23,000 pounds per person a year. To see the article where I obtained all this info check out the page here: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070602/ap_on_sc/global_warming_states_1It's actually more interesting than what you might initially think.
|
|
gotSTEAM?
Branch Line Engine
Still dreaming <3
Posts: 1,234
|
Post by gotSTEAM? on Jun 7, 2007 3:11:24 GMT
Picked up this little tidbit from MSNBC News...
"By 2010, fossil fuels such as coal and oil will be in its terminal decline"
...Which means that by the projected 2010, we'll have exhausted our sources. Not sure I'm ready to believe that, but after being in a parking lot full of vans and SUVs...
~Elizabeth
|
|
|
Post by FlyingScotsman on Jun 10, 2007 23:43:36 GMT
I don't know, people have been saying that we're going to run out of fossil fuels for quite some time. I can't vouch for oil, but I know there's lots of coal still to be had (as anyone who worked at one of the many closed pits in the UK can testify).
|
|
douglas
Main Line Engine
Posts: 2,256
|
Post by douglas on Jun 10, 2007 23:58:40 GMT
Yeah, we're not running out of coal anytime soon... not in the US anyway. Apparently we've got enough coal to last us, at current usage rates, another 240 years.
|
|
Thomasfan
Passenger Engine
Ex-ter-mi-nate!
Posts: 571
|
Post by Thomasfan on Nov 8, 2009 2:41:22 GMT
OK here are some of my opinoins on the subject. I'm all for helping the environment, but I think that we get rushed into some of these things. Some examples: For me, I've converted to a simple, yet effective method of preserving the environment. I now use CFL's for my lights and am encouraging friends and family to do the same. They're really great too because not only do they last 7x longer than standard bulbs, but they also use a lot less energy. The power that a 20 watt CFL that I use is equivalent to the of a 75 watt incandescent bulb. They only have one flaw: When you turn on a light, they start out dim and take a few seconds to get going. But for those who haven't already, make the change! It's a simple way for you guys to help conserve the environment. There is one more flaw. They contain more mercury than incandescent bulbs. And if they break - Did you read the directions that came with them? That's right CFLs come with directions. Unbelievable, no? Could we not find something more safe before making these? Picked up this little tidbit from MSNBC News... "By 2010, fossil fuels such as coal and oil will be in its terminal decline"...Which means that by the projected 2010, we'll have exhausted our sources. Not sure I'm ready to believe that, but after being in a parking lot full of vans and SUVs... ~Elizabeth Well, it's almost 2010. I guess they were wrong. But what else is new? They've been saying that were going to run out of this, that, and the other for years. (As others have said.) OK so we didn't get rushed into this per se, but I'm willing to bet several (hundreds maybe thousands perhaps?) believed this. And (just to give another example) did you know that during the 50's, scientists said there was going to be another ice age? Now we have "global warming"? How I ask you, that, in about fifty years we go from an ice age to global warming? The answer? Cycles. The weather goes through cycles. It's as simple as that. Example of cycles is the so called "little ice age": "A cold period that lasted from about A.D. 1550 to about A.D. 1850 in Europe, North America, and Asia. This period was marked by rapid expansion of mountain glaciers, especially in the Alps, Norway, Ireland, and Alaska. There were three maxima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals." Found here: earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Glossary/?mode=alpha&seg=l&segend=nNow, I know what you might be thinking, "300 years! That's plenty of time to go from cool to warm!" But wasn't evolution supposed to take millions of years? And weren't there severl animals that were supposed to have evolved both before and after the last glacial maximum (a.k.a. the last ice age)? Were there even slight changes to the animals during that time? I think you know the answer. I think I'm done now. Do you guys/gals have any thoughts? P.S. I only added the global warming part because that thread is locked. (As well as to give an example.) P.S.S. Evolution was also used to give an example.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2009 3:00:03 GMT
Britain has had to build new pipelines to import gas from Russia and there is a huge gas depot on the Welsh coastline for ships to bring gas into the country. Britain is a net importer of gas now, it was formally a net exporter. This is a sign of gas in terminal decline. Other signs of oil can be attributed to the high price, I know that this is mostly controlled by OPEC, but none the less part of the increase in oil prices is the decline in stocks.
Also for your global warming cycles, look at the data for average temperatures and CO2 in the atmosphere, there is a direct correlation in the results. In Iceland the mini Iceage ended in 1950, and its amazing to see how far the Ice has retreated since then. Year on year the retreat is worrying.
|
|