Global Warming! We're all going to die!

[IDMclean]

I walk. I ride a bike. I skate. I advocate Public Transportation, and love the bus system, just wish it was a little more wide spread. Really I see no point in 256 million people, with two cars a piece, driving around with their AC blaring, all by themselves in a half-ton to 2 ton vehical, going between 10 and 70 MPH.

 

This just boggles my mind, I can do the math for all that and it comes out completely unreasonably stupid numbers. I mean, we can approach the impracticality of this from either end, from the society in the global, or from the economy of the individual, plus their risk factors and other such concearns in the local level.

 

I am somewhat glad that we will most like have oil barrel costs as high as 200 dollars a gallon in the next two decades, if not more. It will (hopefully) curb the beasts. I just wish something, or someone would wake up the unthinking, unknowing, blind, deaf, dumb, and leperous masses. It's like they (as in on a whole, or majority; on the societial level) don't want to acknowledge this wasteful, dangerous lifestyle that they have become dependent on.

 

Trust me, weather or not GW is real, there will be suffering, and dissatisfaction. There will be much bitting and gnashing of teeth before the end of the Oil Age. The Transition will not be easy, I am just hopeful we come to realize our ignorance, and accept our responsibilities before it comes to that point...

[sebbysteiny]

I walk. I ride a bike. I skate. I advocate Public Transportation, and love the bus system, just wish it was a little more wide spread.

 

I feel for you. How can we make it more widespread? My opinion is that it is no use whatsoever for one person to put himself at a disadvantage to the rest of society considering the impact one person will make regarding climate change.

 

Instead, there must be a radical revolution all over the globe. This can only happen from the top down. The government must ban energy wasting appliances (like standby TV's) and maybe even do targetted bans that will maximise energy savings and minimise loss of economic growth. However, the government can only do such bans if it has strong support from the people.

 

Instead of riding a bike, we need to lobby our government and inspire other citizens to do the same all over the globe to give our governments the support they need to save the world.

[IDMclean]

That wouldn't work for the fact that the Goverment is a regulation agency given it's power by the people, ostensibly.

 

I don't "deny" myself anything, I hate cars. I can't stand them. I hate driving, I hate riding in them, I hate dealling with them.

 

I am healthier for my effots, and I can stand up and say honestly, and without hesiation that I think the damn dirty creatures should all be replaced. I don't rely on them, I don't put money (votes) into them, I do not support them at all. I am the change I wish to see in the world. Revolution is not the province of the goverment, infact it is on the opposite end of the spectrum.

 

The goverment isn't made to change, It is the will of the people, and their actions, individually and collectively that institute meaningful, lasting change.

 

It is in the interest of the Goverment, and the Establishment to convince people otherwise. It is in the interest in the Oil Empire to convince the people that they need these car creatures. it is in the interest of the Media (Oil interests) to censor, alter, and otherwise tamper with the information regarding your powers and alternatives.

 

Beware of he who would deny you information, for in his heart he sees himself your master.

 

I am moved by great compassion, and pity for when the oil empire comes crumbling down, and it will real soon, it will be painful for those who concider it a "disadvantage" to be without a vehical.

 

 

-Biking 15 miles a day

The Clown

[Boerseun]

Can't agree with you more, KAC.

 

It was calculated (don't know how trustworthy the figures are, but there is some truth to it - go check out http://www.dieoff.org) that the average First World citizen's daily energy consumption is equal to having 200 slaves dedicated to him/her. For instance, the energy you consume by driving to town would be the same as having fifty or so slaves pushing you on a two-ton chariot. Then there's your heating bill, lighting your home, lighting the streets, your office, etc. It would amount to two hundred humans pushing vehicles, turning dynamos, all for your personal benefit. The next guy would need two hundred slaves of his own.

 

So, in effect, if we want the whole world (all 6 billion of 'em) to advance to our Western standards, it would be the same as if the world was supporting 1,2 trillion humans living in Third-World conditions.

 

Could the world support 1,200,000,000,000 humans? Or should we face reality and instead of lifting them to our standards, maybe we should drop our standards as well, and meet somewhere in the middle...

 

I know, I know - it's speculation at best. And I can't remember where on that site I read it, but it's still an interesting analogy, nonetheless.

[Zythryn]

Interesting analogy but what exactly are they measuring? The carbon footprint of each person compared to the carbon footprint of each individual in ancient Egypt? Or is it the amount of work performed by machinery and how many people it would take to do the same work?

 

If it is the later, the analogy falls apart quickly as the earth doesn't need to support the 200 'slaves' per person. They eat no food, require no space (or at least not the amount of space 200 people would actually require) etc.

 

As an example, I can use an incandescent light bulb to give me light. I can also use a florescent to give me the same amount of light, but at one quarter the energy use (and it lasts many times longer as well). Did I lower my standard of living? No, I have the same amount of light and use less energy.

 

The coming crisis will require a change in our behavior, but I don't think that necessarily means a lowering of standards of living.

[sebbysteiny]

The coming crisis will require a change in our behavior, but I don't think that necessarily means a lowering of standards of living.

 

Exactly what I am talking about. As long as light fightings and bulbs aimed at wasteful bulbs are allowed by law, they will exist. The government must ban them. They must ban all appliences with a 'standby' mode. They must increase the costs of fuel for wasteful cars, and they must take money out of education and hospitals for more expensive renewable sources. They must bring back nuclear power, and they must pass regulations limiting energy usage such that each household has enough to live the life it wants, but any wastage comes at a heavy financial cost.

 

These changes must take place all over the world.

 

This will all take support from the people because hundreds of lobbiests would fight tooth and nail to prevent each one.

[Boerseun]

True, Zythryn, it's a flaky analogy at best. But still rather interesting. I think the point they were making was the amount of energy required to produce all the benefits an average Westerner enjoys through the run of an average day.

 

There are common pitfalls with the incandescent lightbulb theory as well. Granted, one of these 'power-saving' lighbulbs do save a lot of power, but they contain dangerous chemicals and gasses, and the production process of some of these things actually generates more toxic gasses than a powerplant would have produced to run one of the old globes. So they don't benefit the environment. They do more damage to the planet even before they're switched on than a normal globe would have done through burning for a couple of years.

 

This is not true in all cases, however, it's just something to keep in mind in the whole environment debate. For instance, the production of solar panels are incredibly polluting, and they need to run for quite a few years before breaking even with the pollution they caused.

[IDMclean]

Solution to most of this:

Get nasty *** industry off my beloved planet. The sun provides enough power in the vacuum of space to perform most any industrial process needed.

[Zythryn]

OOOO, space borne industry, I love it:) I can see some major issues, but it is definately a start. Or perhaps lunar based industry?

 

Boerseun, you raise some excellent points about the construction of the energy saving devices.

Wind power is one of my favorite ways to generate some of the energy we use (it will never replace all our energy needs, but it can certainly replace some).

I am interested where you found the information about the enviornmental 'unfriendlyness' of the construction of the bulbs? I would love to look into that side of things more (as long as it isnt from http://www.co2science.org=))

[Lancaster]

When asked wheat we were going to do with shrinking space for landfills and their effect on global warming, a classmate of mine said, "could we launch our garbage into space?"

 

He was afraid to speak in front of me for a while.

[IDMclean]

Really in the end, we have to open what is now a closed system. In order for the earth to sustain civilized life we must do our best to make a balance. If we are to institute space-borne industry, then for what we bring in, we must take something else out.

 

It makes sense then, to make things in space, to accumilate Material where it is easiest to accumilate, and plentiful without fear of enviromental repercussion.

 

It further makes sense then, to take what is no longer needed and return it to that place where we make things, whihc would be space. Think of it as interstellar recycling.

 

Remember children it is: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Not Recycle, Reuse, Reduce as the industries would have you believe.

[Boerseun]

I'll get you the links pronto, Zythryn.

 

Regarding wind power, I'm not such a big fan (pardon the pun) of it, because of the unreliability of it. Same with solar power - at night you're kinda stuffed, and will need plenty of battery storage capacity to make it worthwhile. And the production of batteries are very dirty indeed.

 

My candidate for future power would be the ocean. Not tides and waves, but permanent currents like the North Sea current, the Agulhas and Benguela currents, etc. Harnessing the power of these currents is in effect harnessing solar energy (same as wind), but much more torque is available in water, and because of the momentum of the medium they are available day and night, year in, year out. Not sure about this, but I've heard that for the same velocity there's something like a thousand times more energy available in water than air. This power source could be exploited to produce predictable electricity. Imagine you have a lot of windmills producing power for a vast megalopolis like the New York/Boston conurbation and then for no apparent reason the wind stops blowing! :naughty:

 

Sea power! Yay!

[IDMclean]

The future lies in all of those solutions.

 

Reduce. reduction of the world's power needs by moving Industry to where the free power is.

Increased Production. As boon from the industry where the free power is.

Increased Extraction Methods. As boon of technological advance.

 

Solar alone is not enough, and Wind alone is not enough, but Solar, Wind, Geo, and Hydro together? enough for Residential needs, I think.

 

the main thing is to get the Industry off planet, to streamline Transportation (one of the biggest power suckers on the planet right now. bye bye cars!). To advance Power Production, to tap untapped, previously unfesible sources, like Geo, Tidal, and Orbitial.

[Michaelangelica]

 

There are common pitfalls with the incandescent lightbulb theory as well. Granted, one of these 'power-saving' lighbulbs do save a lot of power, but they contain dangerous chemicals and gasses, and the production process of some of these things actually generates more toxic gasses than a powerplant would have produced to run one of the old globes. So they don't benefit the environment. T.

 

I was browsing the Phillips site last night (looking for lights to grow my plants under) and they seemed aware of the environmental issues and were trying to address them!

I got the site address from a globe (Energy Saving-of course he says, hunched over his electric heater):naughty:

http://WWW.apr.lighting.philips.com

[Zythryn]

Thanks for the link! I found mention that Philips was working to lower the toxins involved. No specifics yet, did I miss anything? I'll do some more digging.

 

There is no issue what-so-ever with the reliability of wind power, as long as you are not using it as your sole source of energy.

For example, use a car to get me to work even though it won't get me to my desk. The car will take me most of the way there so I use it, then I walk from the parking lot:)

 

Most wind and solar solutions in the USA are 'on grid' solutions. Your wind generator produces power. If it is not producing enough, you draw energy from the grid. If your wind generator is producing more energy than you are using, the excess is sent into the grid. There are a number of places in the USA where you could produce all your annual needs with wind power. It just wouldn't be a steady flow, so you would run a deficit at some times and a surplus at others which will balance out.

 

True, it doesn't eliminate the need for the power grid, but if it cuts it in half (or more) then that is a huge improvement.

 

As mentioned above, it is one peice of the solution, if you add the other renewable resources, we get less and less dependant on greenhouse gases.

[Lancaster]

What a lot of people don't realize is that recycling is VERY expensive, in most cases more expensive than just using new resources to make a product. The only advantage recycling gives you is conservation of resources.

[Michaelangelica]

Thanks for the link! I found mention that Philips was working to lower the toxins involved. No specifics yet, did I miss anything? I'll do some more digging.

 

There is no issue what-so-ever with the reliability of wind power, as long as you are not using it as your sole source of energy..

 

Glad to be of use.

I am still looking for my light bulb

 

Wind power has gathered some opposition here because of the noise and the "visual polution" personally I think they look amazing but maybe not in my backyard.

Tidal power has never been harnessed(to my knowledge) probably because the biggest tides are in the most remote unpopulated regions eg Broome

Tidal power should be more constant and reliable than wind power shouldn't it?