The environment

[nik0tine]

BTW if people do staZRt buying it the prices will most likely go down.Its time for a abrupt change not a casual slow change.

An abrupt change is impossible.

And about your "Day After Tomorrow" comment... That movie was ridiculous. The ocean is not going to drop thirteen degrees in temperature over night like that. Global warming is happening, yes, however it isn't going to happen over night. It may happen in our lifetimes, and it more than likely will happen in our childrens or grandchildrens lifetimes. They WILL feel the effects of it, but we aren't going to wake up tomorrow and freeze to death.

[Sasquatch]

Global warming is happening, yes, but not because of human activity. There are weather and climate patterns that change every so often, and this is one of them. The world's been around for a long time, I wouldn't worry that it's gonna end in the next hundred years. And in a long time, we'll have another ice age. It happens.

[Little Miss Awesome]

I really worry about the environment, I have started to realise it is changing rapidly.
One of the reasons I like Leonardo DiCaprio so much is because of his work for the environment, he has made speeches and works toward a better world, as many others do. I think more people need to care for the world before it's too late

[Cloud No.9]

oil.... gonna run out in 50 years, then you'll be up a creek without a paddle. other energy sources take a large amount of land, time and money to be effecient, it can not be done overnight, if you want to be ready for the loss of oil then things need to change now. the 50 year map is only covered if oil consumption progresses as it has before, but it isn't and won't, developing countries are using far more than ever and it's usage is growing expotentially, america's use of oil has also risen dramatically. oil can not last for much longer. the 50 year mark is based on all extractable oil, alot of that is very hard to get to and would require more investment. money which could be spent on trying to save this god forsaken hell hole we live on.

global warming will serverly change this earth. the studies are there. what else do people think CO2 does these days? the hole in the ozone? just natural occurances? the greenhouse affect is a growing problem and has only one cause and it's not fairy dust. but america won't listen, too busy with it's own business making itself rich. who cares if the gurlf stream stops, who cares if there are famines in afirca, who cares if a few thousand eskimos villages fall into the sea, if the ports flood and if millions die due to famine. that's not the point america is making money and that's what important. because in 50 years time america will suffer.and that is what is important. that america's blind eye awkens when it runs out of oil and it's coast line gets closer, when the droughts start, when the flooding kills. when the snow cripples. that is when global warming will be important. when america suffers from it. who cares if africans die? they don't vote and don't pay for campaigns.

[Sasquatch]

global warming will serverly change this earth. the studies are there. what else do people think CO2 does these days? the hole in the ozone? just natural occurances? the greenhouse affect is a growing problem and has only one cause and it's not fairy dust.

Only one cause? Ever heard of CFCs? Chloroflourocarbons. Commonly found in aeresol sprays. They've been banned in aeresol because they break up ozone. Environmentally conscious, right? Sure. Guess what else makes CFCs? Volcanic eruptions. And they produce millions of tons of CFCs--they spew out of volcanic eruptions constantly. So, would banning CFCs from hair spray and spray paint and air freshener do anything at all in depleting the amount of CFCs? It would be like taking a handful of sand from the Sahara Desert.

"Ozone", as it's commonly referred to, is simply O₃ (I don't know how to do subscript). We breathe O₂, Ozone is O₃. The "Ozone Layer" is, just that, a layer of our atmosphere made up primarily of O₃ molecules. O₃ molecules are actually pretty light, and so they are very high in our atmosphere. But there's no proof that anything we do at sea level that might deplete the Ozone Layer actually gets into the upper atmosphere to do so. So we're depleting the amount of ozone on earth--ozone at ground level that doesn't do anything--but there's no proof that the chemicals and such that would deplete the Ozone Layer are actually getting to the Ozone Layer.

By the way, would somebody care to explain how the holes in the Ozone Layer can contribute to the "Greenhouse Effect"? Yes, a hole in the Ozone Layer would let in more of the harmful aspects of the sun. However, it wouldn't "trap" anything in our atmosphere.

Again. The climate is changing. Is there a "global warming epidemic"? Hell no. Are humans responsible for "global warming"? To a very slight extent.

edit by eest: use < sub > html tags.
(EDIT: Ah. Makes sense. Thanks.)

[edczxcvbnm]

Again. The climate is changing. Is there a "global warming epidemic"? Hell no. Are humans responsible for "global warming"? To a very slight extent.

This is almost too sad to the point where it isn't even funny...luckly it has not reached that point yet.

*points*

:laugh:

You should be a stand up comedian.

[AkiraMakie]

Only one cause? Ever heard of CFCs? Chloroflourocarbons. Commonly found in aeresol sprays. They've been banned in aeresol because they break up ozone. Environmentally conscious, right? Sure. Guess what else makes CFCs? Volcanic eruptions. And they produce millions of tons of CFCs--they spew out of volcanic eruptions constantly. So, would banning CFCs from hair spray and spray paint and air freshener do anything at all in depleting the amount of CFCs? It would be like taking a handful of sand from the Sahara Desert.

This is true. i dont think it would make much of a difference. But why add to it?

"Ozone", as it's commonly referred to, is simply O₃ (I don't know how to do subscript). We breathe O₂, Ozone is O₃. The "Ozone Layer" is, just that, a layer of our atmosphere made up primarily of O₃ molecules. O₃ molecules are actually pretty light, and so they are very high in our atmosphere. But there's no proof that anything we do at sea level that might deplete the Ozone Layer actually gets into the upper atmosphere to do so. So we're depleting the amount of ozone on earth--ozone at ground level that doesn't do anything--but there's no proof that the chemicals and such that would deplete the Ozone Layer are actually getting to the Ozone Layer.

But wouldnt O₃ be technically heavier than than O₂ since it has one more oxygen atom?

By the way, would somebody care to explain how the holes in the Ozone Layer can contribute to the "Greenhouse Effect"? Yes, a hole in the Ozone Layer would let in more of the harmful aspects of the sun. However, it wouldn't "trap" anything in our atmosphere.

The ozone layer has nothing to do with the "greenhouse effect" Greenhouse gases would accually get trapped in the layer of the atmosphere lower than the one ozone settles in.

Again. The climate is changing. Is there a "global warming epidemic"? Hell no. Are humans responsible for "global warming"? To a very slight extent.

who knows,, i wont worry about it though.

[Cloud No.9]

the ozone layer is a layer of o3 in the atmosphere which is pretty damn good at stopping lots of nasty stuff like radaitiona and uv rays. also creates heat loss which is jolly nice for a planet which is heating up.

the greenhouse is totally unrelated and is caused mostly by carbon oxides. same kind of stuff you breath out. normally the cycle went like so. air expired- plants take it in-make new-oxygen-breath in some more.

worked well when all that was expelling co2 was animals not cars and power stations in huge amounts. also helped when you weren't busy destroying the rain forests. so it builds up sitting happily in the atmosphere reflecting back heat which was gonna escape. so the planet heats up. this is global warming.

there is also something known as global dimming which is when heat was blocked out by air pollution and things like jet exhaust trails. (sept 12-14 2001 showed a great upsurge in average temperatures across the world) this for a time slowed down global warming. but we decided to cut down on air pollution so got rid of global dimming and so global wamring is now much faster than predicted.

the sequence would work like this for the global warming. world slowly heats up and ice caps slowly melt, gulf stream is cut off, heat deprived to europe and it freezes. southern hemisphere though would continue to heat. at the bottom of the sea there is a material who's name can't quite come to mind (it was on panorama or horison for anyone who saw it). this material is very sensitive to temperature and at the point where the temperature of the earth reaches a consistent 5 degrees higher for a length of a few years these deposist will be expelled from the sea as gas into the atmosphere. the gas released is 100 times more effective at the greenhouse effect than co2 and there are a few million tons of the stuff down there. which is a bugger. at this point there is no turning back. plant life will die due to intense heat or cold. this won't be another ice age. that was slow. animals evolved. animals don't eveolve in 50 years. so with the planet fast heating up. billions upon billions of animals and plants dead what then?

we are doomed to this fate until you put down that bloody gas can. stop burning all that bloody coal and gas and do something about it. america's view on this is sickening. a constant reactionist soceity. i have two hopes in this, that either america in the next few years turns around, agrees to kyoto and drops it's co2 levels dramtically. or come 50 years it suffers immensly for it's crimes against this planet and rues the day when it says it would never happen.

and i'm not sure as to the claim of cfc's being hugely a part of volcano's as far as i am aware and was taught that human releaseof the gas far out weighed volcano eruptions same is true with co2 and sulphur.

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

goes other the various gases released by volcanos.

[The Redneck]

I agree. We need another Jimmy Carter in the White House.

*shudder*
Cloud 9--
And we were supposed to run out 10 years ago, and we're gonna run out in 5 years, and in 20, and in 30, etc., depending on when it was decided. Every time they tell us we're about to run out of oil, we still somehow manage to find more.

AkiraMakie--
O₃ is heavier than air, but it's created (and destroyed, and recreated, etc; the supposed problem is that CFC's get into this cycle and bind up the Oxygen so it can't get recreated) constantly.

Likewise, CFC's are four to eight times heavier than air, which means if they're not put into the atmosphere, they're not getting there. Instead they go to the ground, where they're broken down by various ground-living bacteria.


As far as ANWR is concerned, the same dire predictions were made about Prudhoe Bay--it wouldn't supply enough oil, it'd ruin the environment, it would destroy the native species, and not only has it become one of our major sources of oil, but animal populations have skyrocketed since it and other oilworks (such as the Pipeline) were built.

The major problem, however, is not production, but refinement. Because of environmental restrictions, we haven't built any new refineries in decades, and the ones that are there are breaking down and generally getting old. All the crude oil in the world won't propel one car one foot until it's refined into gasoline.

And other sources of energy would be a great idea--if they worked. They don't, and putting the entire nation on a starvation diet won't make them work.

[fire_of_avalon]

And other sources of energy would be a great idea--if they worked. They don't, and putting the entire nation on a starvation diet won't make them work.

They don't work yet. With proper funding and the ability to safely research, the possibilities are endless when it comes to finding a clean (or cleaner) burning fuel source, that is safe to use.

I don't understand why people shun potential greatness in preference of present mediocrity. Honestly, the more I look at things and the more I learn, it's all a money issue. And I don't think it should be.

I'm not sure which part of GA you're from, Redneck, but if it's the northern part then you've surely experienced what a lot of us mountain people in Western North Carolina refer to as the hazing or the fogging. I've lived here for all of my twenty years, and every year since I was around eleven I've watched the summer sky get hazier and hazier. Why? Because the nationally mandated emissions standards for factories (the same kind of refining factories you speak of) and automobiles are so miserably low that the tourists who drive through here get away with murder, in what I feel is a very literal sense and the factories in Tennesse send so much pollution rolling down the French Broad river the plant and animal life in it are untouchable. Like it or not, both the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Great Smoky Mountains have (up until last year)* been going through a change very negative to both the enviornment and the people that dwell with it. Why? Because enviormental standards aren't priority. Because we would rather have the quick fix that causes harm than the go in for the long haul when it could possibly have much better results.

Digging this oil now is just another kick in the pants for people like me who can't stand this kind of change. I see effort being put towards something that seems pretty unnecessary to me when things that could use some real work go unnoticed and uncared for. Why save the white pine by finding a cleaner burning fuel source when we can dig more oil to drive bigger cars that cause more pollution and bring about more filthy rain to increase the disease and drought among the forest so the pine beetle has nothing to stand in it's way?

*Between the summer of 2003 and the summer of 2004, pollution levels in the Great Smokey mountains were significantly lower than in the previous fifteen years. Which is a good thing, I just didn't want to leave out the fact that good things are happening for our environment.

[The Redneck]

While I don't intend to say we've never done anything bad to our environment, let me remind you that there is a reason they're called "The Great Smokey Mountains"--haze and fog are not by any means a new phenomenon.

To continue upon the point, however--we've indeed done some stupid things (including some that were intended to help the environment--check out Mesa Verde or the presence of mon... mongeese? mongooses? Whatever... on various tropical Pacific islands.), ranging from the complete deforestation of much of Appalachia to various toxic dumping (Amusingly enough, that's how we discovered antifreeze--some company was dumping their byproduct into the local stream and folks couldn't figure out why it was the only stream that winter to not freeze over.) to the Erie River, which was so shrouded with trash and oil that the river itself caught fire at least twice.

However, far more common are the hoaxes, scares, and flat-out BS perpetrated in the name of the environment, so perhaps I tend to be a bit too leery when it comes to such matters.


As for government funding, there should not be. There is nothing within our government's rights or duties to stop people from using oil, and companies are already working on other sources of energy for the reason that companies always work on making new things--it'll make them a fortune.

Not only do I think that eventually we will find non-petroleum-based sources of energy, I'm sure of it. After all, think of what someone in New York City, circa 1900, would have said if you asked what would be the biggest problem by 2000. Most likely, it would be horses. (Just think of the biggest problem; a horse craps about 20-25 pounds a day. Assume that every 3rd person in 2000 owns a horse (after all, in real life about every second person owns a car in America) and you're dealing with more than 2 million horses. How are you going to dispose of more than 40 million pounds--upwards of 20,000 tons--of horse crap every day?) And yet, horses were a minimal problem in New York City in the year 2000--in fact, I don't believe it would be much of a stretch to say they weren't a problem at all. Science. And we didn't need a government grant to figure out how to make a car, either--it was some horrid capitalist who realized that if he figured this out it would make him filthy rich.

In the meantime, if you want these resources discovered, the best way to do it is not to thrust the invisible foot of government into the matter, which invariably screws up everything it comes into contact with and at best screws it up only slightly. What's going to solve the 'car problem' is exactly what solved the 'horse problem'--good ol' American ingenuity. And the way to help them is not to monitor, regulate, and generally screw them, but to give them--actually, to just step aside and let them get for themselves--what they need, and let them go to work.

[Sasquatch]

Nuclear power would be great, and extremely efficient, but environmentalists protest that the byproduct--usually depleted Uranium pellets, I believe--still gives off radiation and will therefore destroy the entire planet. However, these pellets, upon having outlived their usefulness, are collected into tubes/rods that are designed not to let any radiation or toxins in or out. Those tubes are set into barrels, which are designed not to let radiation or toxins in or out. Finally, these barrels are buried VERY far underground--much farther undergound than the water table--in, you guessed it, a hole dug, walled, coated, and filled in ways that don't let any radiation or toxins in or out.

[The Captain]

That's an interesting concept. My only question would be, how long could this process of storage last? In the extreme long term, would we only be hurting ourselves further by piling up waste, even if it doesn't effect us for hundreds of years?

Take care all.

[nik0tine]

Nuclear power would be great, and extremely efficient, but environmentalists protest that the byproduct--usually depleted Uranium pellets, I believe--still gives off radiation and will therefore destroy the entire planet. However, these pellets, upon having outlived their usefulness, are collected into tubes/rods that are designed not to let any radiation or toxins in or out. Those tubes are set into barrels, which are designed not to let radiation or toxins in or out. Finally, these barrels are buried VERY far underground--much farther undergound than the water table--in, you guessed it, a hole dug, walled, coated, and filled in ways that don't let any radiation or toxins in or out.

Im a proponent of nuclear power to a degree. Unfortunately, you can't run a car on nuclear power.

[The Redneck]

Im a proponent of nuclear power to a degree. Unfortunately, you can't run a car on nuclear power.

That's true in part--just like you can't run a car (at least, not efficiently) off of coal. But you can shovel the coal into a power-plant and run your car off of the electricity--and if we were to go to electric cars and increase the demand for coal, we wouldn't really be helping much; especially since coal is not only far dirtier than gasoline, but gives off more radioactive material than nuclear fission.

Nuclear power would do two things--one is to make electricity cheaper and cleaner; thus electric vehicles would be a more available and more attractive alternative. The other is to make not just the electricity for cars but electricity in general much cheaper and cleaner--we use tons upon tons off the stuff every day, after all.