User Comments

1. 

   8/29/08

   clioandme

   I thought you didn't want to do politics on these boards? Now I feel myself compelled to remind people that John McCain is wrong and Barack Obama is right.

   [reply]
   1. 

      8/29/08

      Anok

      
   2. 

      8/29/08

      timethief

      @Mark
      Ahh ... what the heck. I agree.
   3. 

      8/29/08

      timethief

      wrong spot
   4. 

      8/29/08

      polybore

      I have to disagree. This issue is not politics it is science. Politics should have as much to say on this issue as it has on the boiling point of water.
      
      Imagine if politicians stood around arguing about the boiling point of water.
      
      "Ah" says one politician
      "if we heat the more slowly then we will be able to get it above 100C".
      "No" says another
      "if we heat the water more quickly it will boil before 100C."
      
      Crazy. The facts are known and it is time for the politicians to butt out.
2. 

   8/29/08

   Anok

   I second those wants, TT.
   
   And that's all I have to add, really
   
   I have been biking, or walking and driving only when necessary. My husband has taken to using the motorcycle instead of a less efficient car, and I am STILL working on my car that I am restoring, and am trying to put in a hydrogen on demand system so it will run mainly on water, not gas.
   
   The husband and I are also looking into alternative energy sources that can be used right here at home, for heating and electricity. (Take that utility bastards!!)
   
   AND - I am very proud of this - this week we recycled more waste than we threw away in the garbage bin!!!!!!
   
   I am very happy, and proud that we have reduced our waste that much.
   
   We switched to non disposable everything, save for paper towels for certain really nasty messes (including using cloth napkins, and cleaning cloths and rags instead of paper) I have recycled a great deal of waste into arts and crafts stuff for Punky's school time - and have begun using things that can be recycled by the city, instead of stuff that they won't take, and must go to the dump.
   
   Yay me!

   [reply]
   1. 

      8/29/08

      timethief

      @Anok
      We have also spent the last 6 years making such changes and so have others that we know. Let me know when you are ready to immigrate.
   2. 

      8/30/08

      Anok

      We're ready when Canada is
3. 

   8/29/08

   Blogette

   comment removed by the community.

   [reply]
4. 

   8/29/08

   melindaville

   You're preaching to the choir with me. Conservation has been part of my world as long as I can remember--so this has personalized how I view recycling, reusing, and protecting our environment. My mother was and is an extreme environmentalist and as long as I can remember, we recycled and reused everything. My mother preached constantly about the need to protect the earth and to leave a gentle footprint.
   
   No one was even doing this when I was growing up--but my mother was and she passed this along to me. My mother, who just turned eighty years old, still rides her bike around Bozeman, Montana, with a large sign on the back that says, "Save Gas, Try Biking!" My mom is so cool.
   
   Because I was raised that way, I became habituated to conserving. I can't imagine not recycling and reusing (I do it to a point where it irritates my husband). My point is that this type of behavior change takes constant reinforcement. What it will take is parents raising their children to respect and protect the earth--and I don't see that happening in the mainstream.
   
   It has to become personally important to people--and I don't know how to bring that about. We are already talking about, seeing direct evidence of the ice cap melting, yet still few people care deeply enough about this issue to modify their own behavior.
   
   You CAN modify behavior with social marketing--that's been proven. Thirty years ago, no one wore seatbelts and now almost everyone does. This changed because of the smart social marketing campaigns that directly linked the danger of not wearing seatbelts to people. Personally.
   
   We need to somehow personalize the importance of conservation--to make it important to us. People need to see what is in it for THEM if they conserve--and it's (so far) way too easy for people to simply ignore it because they don't see the importance to their own immediately lives and families. I fear people won't see it until it is too late.
   
   I really enjoyed the articles you provided by the way, TT.

   [reply]
   1. 

      8/29/08

      timethief

      @mtyler77
      I'm amazed at how much we have in common. I was also raised on the conservation model - reduce, reuse, recycle - wast not and want not. And, I take the same position you did in your post above. I'm glad you enjoyed reading the articles.
5. 

   8/29/08

   Blogette

   OK, howz this: "You pay $100,000 for a custom roadster and never have to buy another gallon of gas EVER"
   
   Hybrid? Why bother?
   
   Because the gov't is giving you a big fat deduction for it. What does that tell you? They were giving those away for buying SUV's eight years ago, and look what happened. Don't be a victim of gov't marketing, make your own choice.

   [reply]
6. 

   8/29/08

   timethief

   Thanks for sharing.

   [reply]
7. 

   8/29/08

   jackpayne

   Global cooling seems to be setting in. Net temperature drop since 1998, now a prediction, based on long-term analysis of ocean currents that the world will continue cooling for the next dozen years. What ever happened to man-made global warming?

   [reply]
   1. 

      8/29/08

      LoveIan

      Global cooling... can you cite your sources for this?
8. 

   8/29/08

   timethief

   Here is a set of videos I recommend wonderingmind42.com/
   
   For more information check this site www.desmogblog.com/
   
   Here is a partial list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:
   
   * NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
   
   * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
   * Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
   * National Academy of Sciences (NAS): books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
   * State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
   * Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
   * The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
   * American Geophysical Union (AGU): www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
   * American Meteorological Society (AMS): www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
   * American Institute of Physics (AIP): www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
   * National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
   * American Meteorological Society (AMS): www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
   * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
   
   Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (PDF) that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report. The statement was issued by:
   
   * Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
   * Royal Society of Canada
   * Chinese Academy of Sciences
   * Academie des Sciences (France)
   * Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
   * Indian National Science Academy
   * Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
   * Science Council of Japan
   * Russian Academy of Sciences
   * Royal Society (United Kingdom)
   * National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
   
   You can also read this statement [PDF], which includes all the above signatories plus the following:
   
   * Australian Academy of Sciences
   * Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
   * Caribbean Academy of Sciences
   * Indonesian Academy of Sciences
   * Royal Irish Academy
   * Academy of Sciences Malaysia
   * Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
   * Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
   
   But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing:
   
   * BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has this opinion:
   
   There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.
   
   * Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:
   
   Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.
   
   * Eighteen CEOs of Canada’s largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:
   
   Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
   
   Have the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn’t seem very likely.

   [reply]
   1. 

      8/29/08

      LoveIan

      Wow that was great.
      
      I still can't believe that people don't realize that there is no real scientific debate going on about global warming anymore. Among the scientific community, global warming isn't a question or an idea to be looked into. It's very clear.
      
      The only debate is among some political and industrial factions and the research that suggests global warming is untrue is neither scholarly or peer-reviewed.
   2. 

      8/29/08

      timethief

      @lovelan
      I don't take Jack's quicky posts seriously. I look down the forum and see he's added a few words to many posts tonight.
   3. 

      8/29/08

      LoveIan

      Ah fair enough - even still I know that there are people who do believe these things, and distort current scientific knowledge to try and dispute global warming.
      
      I think it's ridiculous that people can be so selfish and ignorant about such an important issue and just dismiss it. I think it's good to have debate, and investigation into possible contradictions and other explanations are critical to the scientific process. However, most people who I hear tying to dispute global warming tend to be people with little or no scientific background and don't really understand what they are quoting.
      
      The best example has to do with Milankovitch cycles: the natural changes in the Earth's tilt, obliquity and eccentricity. Since these cycles cause natural changes in CO2 and global temperatures - apparently this means that global warming is just a natural cycle. Even though the natural cycles can no where near account for current atmospheric emissions. The problem is, people who don't really understand these concepts but use them as arguments can't understand what is fundamentally wrong (and don't want to understand) with their arguments.
   4. 

      8/29/08

      timethief

      Here's an example of a climate change denier who has just been appointed as McCain's Vice Presidential choice. She supports off shore drilling and states she states that climate change is not caused by human activity.
      
      Can you imagine McCain dropping dead in office and her replacing him? www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/palin-denies-climate-change
9. 

   8/30/08

   Anok

   I just wanted to add that recycling and living "green" has a lot more to it than just "global warming" or climate change.
   
   People need to understand that we only have so many resources, finite amounts of space, and when we take up considerable amounts of space with construction, waste, and rip through forests and natural habitats at record speeds to use the materials we "need" to make the products we want rather than being responsible we are damaging the very planet we rely on to sustain our life.
   
   Clear cutting forests has an ecological effect, draining the earth of oil, gas, and other resources as well as precious stones and metals to the extent at which we need to for businesses to survive has an effect on this planet. Throwing away toxic chemical laden products into the land where it seeps into water sources and the changes the nutrients of the dirt we need to grow food has an effect on the planet, and us.
   
   As a Pagan, I was taught that when you use a plant for medicinal/religious purposes you NEVER take more than 2/3rds of it, less if you can help it. The reason? Don't decimate the resources you need just because you want more of what you can reasonably use - or else you will have none for later, or future generations.

   [reply]
10. 

    8/30/08

    timethief

    11 things you should know about Sarah Palin www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/palin-denies-climate-change#comm...

    [reply]
11. 

    8/30/08

    carlgalloway

    We have sold our car and now rely on our own abilities to walk or cycle, and use public transport when needed. We recycle as much as we humanly can. We have replaced all light bulbs with low energy types and are progressively replacing other electrical items with smaller more environmentally friendly versions, for example laptops instead of desktop computers, portable oven/grill combo instead of a built-in oven that uses more power.
    
    We try to grow as many of our own herbs and vegetables, and even though we have to grow them in pots we feel it's worthwhile. We're also looking into small scale solar systems to reduce our dependency on grid electricity, for example solar powered battery rechargers, solar BBQs and ovens, solar powered heating for winter.
    
    It isn't much yet but we believe if everyone did just some of the stuff we're doing then our environment would be given a much needed break and perhaps a little more time for us to find other solutions.

    [reply]
12. 

    8/30/08

    KiefersCorner

    The time was 8 years ago when the peak oil report came out stating that in 2007 2008 we would have this supply and demand problem. Anyone who thinks we can go totally green without more supply to hold us over is in for a wakeup call. Who is going to pay to replace all the planes, trains, trucks, ships, farm equipment, cars, etc? You think the cost of goods is high now LOL
    
    Unless you think the economy can afford 7 to 10 a gallon gas in the next 4 years? Even Obama has finally figured it out and changed his position

    [reply]
    1. 

       8/30/08

       Anok

       No one is in for a wake up call. There are many ways to reduce the use and dependency on oil (thus reducing the cost) without replacing every car and truck at the same time.
       
       Why is it that everyone always just assumes that oil affects our ability to drive a car? There's a lot more to it than that, and all of that can be changed, it can be changed right now - so long as we stop suppressing new technology, that is.
       
       By the way - there is already technology for cars as an add on that reduces the use of gas without buying a new car. So there ya go.
13. 

    8/30/08

    KiefersCorner

    Let me guess you also support using bio fuels from corn also. Even though to convert corn it takes 1.3 gallons of regular gasoline to make that 1-gallon of bio fuel. Not to mention we are paying for it in food shortages.
    
    So where is this technology for cars? Why are they still trying to develop cars to get over 100 mpg? Why are they coming out with new hybrids ?
    
    According to you all we have to do is stick something on our car and crisis solved. Oh and by the way cars only use 45% of our oil consumption
    
    Hey Anok for president ? LOL

    [reply]
    1. 

       8/30/08

       LoveIan

       There are now cars that run completely on electricity, they are being built and sold. The biggest problem is where to get that electricity.
       Which, as you say, only 45% of oil consumption is from cars. So that conversion is only one step.
       But people need to reduce the amount of energy they use overall in their homes. Turning down the A/C in the summer, making sure homes are properly insulated. Using geothermal energy where available.
       Solar panels on roofs.
       Nuclear power, wind power, hydroelectric power (where it's available and can be low-impact on local ecosystems). Tidal power and solar power.
       
       There are other options too: some BMW factories are being built next to landfills and using the methane gas that results from decomposition as an energy source. This not only reduces fossil fuel consumption, but prevents that methane gas from entering the atmosphere (methane is a greenhouse gas 20x as strong as CO2).
       
       You're right though, some of options for fossil fuels are still being developed and some aren't sustainable either. But there are MANY different ways to reduce fossil fuel consumption, and it's important to be aware of those and make reductions wherever possible.
    2. 

       8/30/08

       Anok

       It's called hydrogen on demand - it's everywhere. I will be installing a system in the car I am restoring when I get to that point.
       
       You run the car on water. And, no, I did not imply that you stick something in the car and have the crisis solved, in fact I said gas consumption by way of car was one of MANY problems. I simply offered that as a rebuttal to your insistence that we can't replace all cars and trucks simultaneously as some sort of reason for maintaining gas dependence.
       
       But there you have it, a lack in ability to comprehend simple ideas does explain a lot on the irrational perspectives on practical, achievable solutions to our dependence on gas.
14. 

    8/30/08

    voodooKobra

    To deny global warming is like denying the Holocaust. Too much evidence.
    
    However, can we prevent global climate change? Chris from How to Not Suck doesn't think so:
    
    www.howtonotsuck.com/viewarticle.php?id=37
    www.howtonotsuck.com/viewarticle.php?id=38

    [reply]
    1. 

       8/30/08

       LoveIan

       That's one of the biggest argument that I keep seeing: does only a few % of a couple % make a difference?
       
       No, in your personal finances, if you're off by a couple percent, you'll probably get by. It's not a big deal. If you add .5% to your daily caloric intake will it make a big difference to you personally? Probably not. That's why it makes it difficult to see the ability of such a small amount to make such a big difference.
       
       His argument: "It means the collective CO2 contribution of all mankind across the planet is a whole 0.115% We couldn't change the planet's temperature if we tried."
       
       When you're talking about a global climate that amount is hugely significant though. With the enhanced greenhouse effect, you're trapping more of the sun's heat energy every single year - the greenhouse gases trap that heat in for longer, creating a greaterwarming effect. While that trapped energy continues to heat the Earth (admittedly by a small percent) MORE energy is trapped year after year.
       
       That's why, when looking at 10, 20, or more years it is a HUGELY significant amount. Because it has a cumulative effect that continuously heats up the Earth.
       THATS THE WHOLE PROBLEM.
       
       He's right though -- the Earth does go through cycles of heating and cooling based on the Earth's relative position to the sun (Milankovitch cycles). What we are facing right now though, can't be accounted for solely because of the Milankovitch cycles. And that .1% does make a difference -- even if it doesn't seem like alot.
    2. 

       8/30/08

       voodooKobra

       Tell that to him.
15. 

    8/30/08

    jackpayne

    With all the jumping up and down about alternative fuels in the 1970s, only 7% of our total energy requirements are yet met by alternative fuels. Does this monumental shortcoming tell anyone anything?

    [reply]
    1. 

       8/30/08

       LoveIan

       Aye, people are lazy.
16. 

    8/30/08

    LoveIan

    By the way, in 2007, in the US, 6.8% of energy was from renewable sources; 8.4% from nuclear power.
    
    France's power is 80% nuclear.
    Britain has rapidly been developing wind and nuclear energy (over 23%); and Gordon Brown has just signed a £1billion deal to develop nuclear power in the Britain with the Saudis. Renewable energy sources only make up about 3% currently - by 2010 it's projected be 10% and 20% by 2020.
    Canada's power is 25% hydroelectric, 7% nuclear, 1% other renenwable sources.
    
    The world is shifting away from fossil fuels - countries that don't are going to be left behind, and shamed at an international level.

    [reply]
    1. 

       2/16/09

       timethief
17. 

    1/21/09

    HouwLiong

    comment removed by the community.

    [reply]
18. 

    2/16/09

    HouwLiong

    comment removed by the community.

    [reply]
19. 

    2/16/09

    LynneaUrania

    Support non-fossil fuel integrated energy farming. We have to take a radically different approach to energy if we are ever to make a dent in the global warming issue. That includes development of water resources.
    
    Desalinization needs to be part of the development, using sub-atmospheric systems. Water boils at 45 degrees Fahrenheit at 1 cm psia. That requires less energy to desalinize.
    
    Hydrogen and oxygen need to be taken from water without the use of fossil fuels. Currently, this is treated as unfeasible, even with fossil fuels. Yet every high school demonstrates this in the laboratory off of batteries without burning a scrap of coal or a drop of oil. Power for this should come exclusively from wind, solar, and tidal sources. Some good research on solar is coming out of MIT already.
    
    Products of such farming would be hydrogen fuel, oxygen for medical and industrial use, fresh water, and electricity.
    
    Algae production for food can be accelerated through the use of exhaust gases from existing steam plants, potentially changing the carbon footprint to an oxygen footprint.
    
    We must rebuild the oceanic plankton if we are to stand a chance of reversing global warming.
    
    We are limited by a widespread lack of vision.

    [reply]
20. 

    2/16/09

    Stillthinking

    The Bush administration was notoriously anti-science, anti-conservation, and anti-research. One of Obama's first acts in office was the reverse the Bush policy on banning funding for any research groups that funded family planning initiatives overseas. That pretty much cut off funding for any womens health research that mentioned the words abortion or birth control.
    The Bush administration was notorious for its vigorous denial any scientific research that explored issues of global warming. Let's not forget, sneaking through off-shore drilling and trying to allow timber logging and oil drilling on the Alaskan Wildlife refuge.
    
    More than the Bush blindfold, there is also a lack of education available to the American public about how much industrialized farming affects our environment and our own health. Bush's support for the Meat industry pretty much put a gag on any Mad cow discussion, abuse of antibiotics, and the enormous amounts of methane gas and biological waste generated by factory farming of cattle, pigs, and chickens. There are literally toxic waste lagoons and clouds of methane gas hovering over the rural landscape. These lagoons eventually find their way to our water resources and oceans, creating dead zones.

    [reply]