• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it life Ad in USA

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 123456
Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:US ads praise carbon dioxide By Deborah Zabarenko in Washington 18may06



A LITTLE girl blows away dandelion fluff as an announcer says, "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it life", in an advertisement targeting global warming "alarmists", especially Al Gore.



Herald Sun Newspaper



Anyone know whats going on with this Competitive Enterprise Institute?????







confused


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete Topic

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:After this, I shall try to ignore, because on this thread I perceive a tendency to obstinacy. This perception will only cripple my answers by limiting them to a circular conversation, while I would prefer moving onward.
I apologize for you being unable to follow my ezra pound-esque stream of consciousness. Admittedly, it can get complex and cloudy.
If you are going to quote something, please keep it in context a) so that I can go back and review what I said and b) so that others can as well.
It's why I contested your claim that you used to have PROOF that the DATA the IPCC published was laughable.
Proof did not start with me. It started with Drudwyn. I inferred that he meant data, statements, and/or statistics that counter. You started the laughable. Do not quote yourself and leave your name off it. Getting a laugh can be considered different from laughable. Perhaps, solely in my mind. Something can be funny, and hold merit. For me, laughable is wholly without merit.
You may be right that so much has changed, except I have friends that still attend that university hearing much of the same message.
The conclusions made by IPPC have been considered alarmist. Others have questioned the revisions of the report. One of the things to remember is that consensus does not make something true. The majority of people used to believe that the world was flat or that the Earth was at the center of the solar system

If you take things apart, the original meaning is more difficult to find. Like this quote from you in the Firespinning/ecofriendly thread
Do you mean the delicate balance of atmospheric conditions necessary to sustain human - along with much animal and plant life - is being degraded? There's a world of difference between this and what you - along with a number of other people across several threads have been saying. A supernova, or black hole might wipe out the earth. Humanity's carbon emmissions cannot.

I believe in climate change but I see it as a shifting of the weather patterns. Summers seem to start later and winters sooner. With the prices at the pump, US people are thinking about consumption. Also from an earlier post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: faithinfire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions



As we all know, money is more important than people.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: jeff(fake)


 Written by: faithinfire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions



As we all know, money is more important than people.



Watch out jeff, you forgot to indicate sarcasm. Better hurry and edit before they jump on you.
ubbrollsmile


Delete

TheWibbler
GOLD Member since Apr 2003

old hand
Location: New Zealand

Total posts: 920
Posted:Just a quicky,

Mo-seph: Have you been following this thread? Patriarch said it was difficult to find data to show that the climate is looking pretty bad. So i said i'd spend 10 minutes on google. Pulled up those graphs from bbc etc, now obviously the graphs are not on their original website so what exactly is the point of your post??

see http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/r...o.y=0&go=go
br>
for the missing details

And patriarch, You keep on refering to Global Warming. It's not necessarily going to get hotter, that was more the idea in the 90's. Europe is more likely to have the same climate as Syberia in a few hundred years once the gulf stream stops.

Faith in fire, sorry for making you feel insulted when i spoke about 'dumb americans' i've already said that i din't mean dumb 'americans' (ie all are dumb) i was refering to 'dumb americans' (ie the dumb ones that tend to clump more in the middle)

Anyways, if your teach really did laugh at such results then thats an extremely serious accusation and that teacher need to be reported to the school. This only conretes my feelings about extremely bad schooling in the US.

gotta go,

m

oh yeah patriarch, you didn't answer my question. Are people who actively pollute gods planet going to heaven or hell? wink


Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Delete

Birgit
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005

Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 4145
Posted:Boo. Be nice!

Matt, in the context of faithinfire saying some of these graphs are a bit dodgy (and her stats prof would've laughed at them), Moseph was showing how that could be, and he did a brilliant job. The point is not finding random things on the internet (or you might as well add the temperature rise vs number of pirates graph from the flying spaghetti monster site), but find things that actually state a point, not extrapolate without an explanation.

Also, a very good point that faithinfire has raised has been completely neglected. The methane produced from cattle, and rice fields, does contribute to global warming. Of course this is not saying CO2 emissions don't, or shouldn't be targeted.

Apart from that this thread shows me once again why I'm spending less time in HoP discussions, especially if the topic is important to me frown Instead of trying to compete for the most cutting comment or the least comprehensible philosophic reference (funny as it may be if you're not the one it refers to), it would be nice if everyone would put more effort into the actual communication!


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

mo-seph


mo-seph

enthusiast
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Total posts: 524
Posted: Written by: TheWibbler



Just a quicky,



Mo-seph: Have you been following this thread?





Yup. biggrin



 Written by: TheWibbler



Patriarch said it was difficult to find data to show that the climate is looking pretty bad. So i said i'd spend 10 minutes on google. Pulled up those graphs from bbc etc, now obviously the graphs are not on their original website so what exactly is the point of your post??



see http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/r...o.y=0&go=go
br>






My point is that these aren't data that support what they're being used to imply, and that using statistics in a loose way like this means that no useful conclusions can be drawn.



I eventually found the graphs on the bbc website, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/evidence/warmer.stm) and they are presented entirely as-is, with no explanation, discussion or support, as evidence of climate change. I'm not suprised that faithinfire's professor laughed at these graphs - they're not really admissible.



I agree that it's hard to find *good* statistics on this, and data that really show causal linkage. There's not a lot we can do about this, as it's hard to verify.



Without labouring the point, presenting this kind of evidence is damaging to your argument - and I'm disappointed in the BBC for presenting it. I'm concerned about this because I believe that humans are responsible for affecting the climate, and I don't want to leave room for people to deny it.



Finally, I agree that the useful thing to do would be to find some examples of good data. Unfortunately, I don't have time to do that properly. Sorry. frown



Edit: because I forgot to say ditto to Birgit's post above. I agree totally with the whole thing smile

EDITED_BY: mo-seph (1148461126)


monkeys ate my brain

Delete

ickleMatt


ickleMatt

enthusiast
Location: L.O.N.D.O.N.

Total posts: 242
Posted:Hear, hear Birgit.

Cutting comments, although my make the author feel good about themselves contribute very little to the discussion. What we need is a summation I will take it upon myself to do this (cause I cant be bothered doing any real work at the mo) and suffer all the mud slung my way.

btw Ill be using my definition of natural - something not man-made - until somebody has a better way of separating what we do produce and what we dont - and therefore what we do have control over and what we dont.

So here goes:

An industry in the US which produces a large amount of CO2 is being affected by the negative press that CO2 is a pollutant. It has countered this by producing an advert which equates CO2 with life.

It is pretty much agreed that CO2 exists in nature and is a natural substance. However there are many sources of CO2 some come directly from natural sources (ie. with no human action) such as volcanos, others come indirectly from human action (ie. such as cattle) and others come directly from human action (ie. such as burning oil). If any one has the percentages of the sources of CO2 I think this would be helpful.

The definition of pollution is something un-natural (human action is implicit) that has a harmful or negative impact. So whether CO2 is a pollutant or not depends on:
a) it is having a impact on the environment
b) this impact is a harmful or negative one

Most scientists agree that CO2 is having an impact on the environment by contributing to climate change. What is not clear is if the CO2 produced from human actions (either directly or indirectly) is increasing this impact.

There is the question of whether climate change will have a harmful or negative impact? I think that most people agree that climate change will cause havoc to human and animal life across the planet. The most obvious is the rising of the oceans (if the earth gets warmer) and the risk of flooding in seaboard cities.

There also seems to be a debate on if the evidence for climate change is conclusive or not. I dont think this debate will be solved here, but can we not think about the consequences of either position?

We dont do anything about climate change:

1) Climate change is happening and human action is having a major impact. What will we tell our grandchildren (if we get to have any) when history points out that we could have made a difference but we decided that there wasnt enough evidence?

2) Climate change is happening and human action is a minor impact. Our environment changes anyway.

3) Climate change isnt happening. No loss.

We do something about it:

1) Climate change is happening and human action is having a major impact. The people of the earth finally pull together and do something worth while together rather than spending all its time killing each other.

2) Climate change is happening and human action is a minor impact. Our environment changes anyway.

3) Climate change isnt happening. We gain a greater understanding of how the earth works, we save large areas of environment which would have been lost such as the Amazonian rainforest, we develop alternative forms of energy before oil runs out and we stop the possibility of resource wars.

So next we need to think about what we can do about it. Some people have given examples of personal changes in life style that they have done.

I have argued that it is more at the political level that things need to change.

Cue cutting comments:


Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 493
Posted: Written by:

a very good point that faithinfire has raised has been completely neglected. The methane produced from cattle, and rice fields, does contribute to global warming.



Human farming practices contributing to climate change... Isn't that an argument for acc???

 Written by:

You may be right that so much has changed, except I have friends that still attend that university hearing much of the same message.



From an empirical study of all the peer reviewed papers to have appeared in scientific journals 1993-2003

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
br>
 Written by:

the 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.



These results have been disputed by Benny Peiser - for a list of the 34 abstracts which he claims disagree with the consensus position go to

http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/
br>
the only one that appears to support his claim is an article by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - the oil industry - as this was not peer reviewed and so it does not appear in Oreskes study which used more rigorous search terms.

given the stance of the bush administration this pentagon report into climate change raised some eyebrows

http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf
br>

 Written by:

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.



http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
br>
 Written by:

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'



which perhaps strikes a chord with one of faith's anti-anthropocentric climate change sources which concludes

http://www.policynetwork.net/uploaded/pdf/yandle_buck_ch_9.pdf
br>
'if global warming turns out to be genuine, those economies that maintain market flexibility will be best equipped to adapt to it.'

The article argues against Kyoto for a variety of reasons - mainly that it would adversely effect the US economy without preventing developing countries from industrialisng. As another one of Faith's sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
br>
shows, the average US citizen currently emits an average of 20 metric tonnes of CO2 a year compared to the average Indian's 1.2 metric tonnes. Yet the article argues that if the US curbs its emmissions then the world's poorest countries should too!!! A position which the rest of the developed world (labelled Baptists in the article) rejected. The article goes on to label the developing world bootleggers for wanting to enjoy some of the benefits of an industrialised society that US citizens enjoy...



So the Pentagon, along with the EPA (despite claims that the Bush administration has repeatedly pressured them into finding otherwise), IPCC, the national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, the US Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council, American Meteorological Society and the only empirical study of scientific papers containing the keywords global climate change from 1993-2003 - all agree that anthropocentric climate change is occurring - an we should take steps to avoid potentially disasterous results for the species.

On the other hand, the American Association of petroleum geologists (the Oil Industry), Benny peiser, a British social anthropologist who has had his research systematically shown to be deliberately misleading, the guy who wrote Jurassic Park (who won a literary prize from the Oil Industry for his fictional book) - one of Faith's sources being a wikipedia entry for the novel, World Climate Report - a blog edited by Patrick J Michaels who author Ross Gelbspan writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995 noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_J._Michaels)claim that climate change is not a result of human activity...

I dont feel the need to go on. There are as I have stated before, there are scientists who dont believe anthropocentric climate change is occuring. But they are few and far between and are often found to have links to the fossil fuel industries.

That your friends at university are being taught the opposite of what is the opinion of the vast majority of credible scientific opinion is quite frightening.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

TheWibbler
GOLD Member since Apr 2003

old hand
Location: New Zealand

Total posts: 920
Posted:mo-seph, the bbc lifted them from the ipcc graphs shown below, to quote from their site:



"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been established by WMO and UNEP to assess scientific, technical and socio- economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. It is open to all Members of the UN and of WMO."




Non-Https Image Link







Non-Https Image Link







Non-Https Image Link







Non-Https Image Link






I entirely disagree that it's hard to find this data, the bbc stuff took 10 minutes, the ipcc stuff took 20 mins, to read more about this go to



http://www.ipcc.ch/
br>
the ifo above can be seen in full here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf


Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Delete

ickleMatt


ickleMatt

enthusiast
Location: L.O.N.D.O.N.

Total posts: 242
Posted:Anybody who laughs at those graphs needs putting away in a padded room.

Thanks TheWibbler

Interesting the massive ranges in the sea level rise - they really don't know whats going to happen there do they.


Delete

Birgit
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005

Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 4145
Posted: Written by: dream


 Written by: me

a very good point that faithinfire has raised has been completely neglected. The methane produced from cattle, and rice fields, does contribute to global warming.



Human farming practices contributing to climate change... Isn't that an argument for acc???




Yes it is. So it would've been nice for someone to pick up on it, maybe point out the context for those who didn't find it blindingly obvious, and to see it as a valuable addition to the discussion. Instead you chose to pick up on her typo in "mispoke"... shrug


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

DeepSoulSheep
GOLD Member since Sep 2002

DeepSoulSheep

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Berlin

Total posts: 2617
Posted:Regarding disorting the truth, listen to the Nobel prize winners.



IMHO it's happening and as such it's important to try to do something about it.



I think we're responsible, but as pointed out, how can we hope to prove here what scientist can't conclusively prove...



These are my suggestions:



The first and most important thing to do is to educate yourself and actively investigate the consequences of your actions. For example eating Mcdonalds destroys the Amazon, which in turn messes with the balance of CO2. www.greenpeace.org.uk



Start a 2 wheel revolution by buying a bicycle.



If you must drive, buy a hybrid.



Buy energy efficient light bulbs.



Encourage friend and family to be more energy conscious. Buy them energy effient bulbs as presents (not a good valentines idea). smile



If you live in the UK switch to renewably generated energy.



If you have interaction with children, use your influence. This is the secret...



I am very intereseted in how to overcome indifference of the people we interact with on a day to day basis? As an extention of this how do you breach this subject with family and friends without them turning off?

EDITED_BY: DeepSoulSheep (1148465153)


I live in a world of infinite possibilities.

Delete

mo-seph


mo-seph

enthusiast
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Total posts: 524
Posted:They're much better statistics. Nice one wink

monkeys ate my brain

Delete

TheWibbler
GOLD Member since Apr 2003

old hand
Location: New Zealand

Total posts: 920
Posted:Just shrunk those graphs down, they were enormous at first, sorry bout that, and added the link to the original source

I must admit i had no idea it was this serious.

frown

m


Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted: Written by: Birgit


Yes it is. So it would've been nice for someone to pick up on it, maybe point out the context for those who didn't find it blindingly obvious, and to see it as a valuable addition to the discussion. Instead you chose to pick up on her typo in "mispoke"... shrug



and would it not have been better to carry on the discussion at this stage, or maybe expand on modern farming's contribution to acc as you told dream he should have done?

instead you chose to go back and point out where you think dream focussed on the wrong aspect of a post when he had a chance to move the debate on?

i'm getting confused between the pot and the kettle now...

personally, i still love hop's discussion board - even without birgit's (valid) observations, this discussion has been self-moderating to a level rarely seen on the net ubbrollsmile


dss - what exactly is 'renewably generated energy' please and what are the names of the power companies that offer this amenity?


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

ickleMatt


ickleMatt

enthusiast
Location: L.O.N.D.O.N.

Total posts: 242
Posted:I am interested to know if people think that using nuclear energy is a good way of reducing emissions?

I'm not against it per se - nuclear fusion would be a wonderful thing, but I am very concerned about the

a) costs (if it needs so much subsidies then why not subsidise renewables?); and

b) the problem of nuclear waste (I'm not happy about burying it at the end of the garden like you would your dead hamster).


Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted:not to mention the risks of meltdowns and other nuclear accidents...

but in short, i think that nuclear energy is actually the best solution for the short term.

as far as i understand it (though i'd be happy to be shown that i'm wrong) renewable energy sources are not at the stage where they can provide sufficient energy for our needs.

the subsidies that the nuclear energy groups would receive would be towards construction of new power station, not for the development of the technology to make 'renewable power stations' a reality.

again though, i would love to find that i am grossly misinformed on this topic.

the nuclear power debate is a hugely complex issue and though linked, is slightly apart from the 'is climate change occurring becaus of us' issue.

the socio-political arguments for and against nuclear power alone could fill a whole thread i.e. nuclear non-proliferation, iran, nuclear waste vs. greenhouse gas production...


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

ickleMatt


ickleMatt

enthusiast
Location: L.O.N.D.O.N.

Total posts: 242
Posted:Fair point Cole.



But if people want to start talking about what we can do about reducing emissions then it has to crop up doesn't it? We could limit the discussion to nuclear as a means of reducing emissions.



There is a debate going on whether renewables could provide us with enough energy in the UK. I think it boils down to the fact that we would need a base consistent supply which is not susceptible to variations. Nuclear certainly seems a good option; you can't turn it off.



The cost of wind farm energy in the UK no longer needs subsidies; its economical in its self. This is not the case with nuclear power, but the subsidy would also be paying for the huge costs of clean up as well as construction.


Delete

Birgit
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005

Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 4145
Posted::off-topic:

It might have been, Cole. But frankly, I don't care. I didn't like the way faithinfire was talked to (and not just by dream), so I pointed it out. In my opinion, reminding people of the point she'd made on farming was self-explanatory and didn't need much more elaboration.

And I'm actually tired of joining some of the discussions on here, self-moderation or not, in which it is more important to remind people of how insufficient their media/spelling/countries' governments/... are than the points they are trying to argue. Apart from disliking the style, I've just not got the time right now to add to every point I feel needs adding to, and answer to the responses, too.

Back on topic, for deepsoulsheep:
I think it's quite important how you present your point. To quote mo-seph again, the earth is too important that poor presentation, or even things that take "only" 20 minutes to find on the internet, can put people off caring.

I was trying to find my nearest glass recycling point (a 15-minute walk, but I'll do it!) on the web on Monday. Of the 5 pages that should've shown it, none did. 1 kept crashing, 1 didn't exist, 1 had java script that kept closing down the screen (and java usually works with my computer), 1 was a link to a link to a link that didn't work. The last one was a link that was programmed badly, so that you have to modify the url to make it work. I did, but a lot of people probably would've given up at link no. 3 or even 1. Or maybe not known what to do with the url.

A lot of the time people have great ideas but carry them out poorly, so that the "product" they show isn't convincing. Sure you can say "but people should care and put in the effort", but you have to catch their attention first so that they see it's worth it.


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

TheWibbler
GOLD Member since Apr 2003

old hand
Location: New Zealand

Total posts: 920
Posted:off topic

nuclear: Sadly we use so much energy that the only option at the moment seems to be nuclear fission. It seems cheap on paper but containing the waste is skipped over. For example, how do you make a sign that says "danger toxic waste under here" that lasts for 100,000 years without becoming ilegible?

I just don't think humans can be trusted to not bugger things up. Plus it's the most blatant target for terrorists. I mean flying a plane into a skyscraper and killing a few thousand people is one thing. But into a nuclear power station is serious!! A few power stations dotted round the globe at the same time, really bad news.

In europe they are building a nuclear fusion reactor (like the sun, with i think no toxic waste at all since they fuse hydrogen into helium, i think) Now it's a long way off making electricity. I think the first proper test will be 2010-2020 something like that. It is an increadible machine. Absolutely enormous and remarkably similar to a Warp engine. I think the energy it takes to power it up is equivalent to the entire consumption of america in 1 year. But once running it should produce much more than this.

Wind farms are a bit dodgy i think. I heard that if the entire planets surface was covered in wind farms, land and water, we still wouldn't have enough power. Howeverthey are excellent for local power solutions. I'd like to see communities grouping together and buying a few wind turbines. Using the energy locally and selling the excess.

Solar power tho is the way forward IMO. Generate electricity from the suns heat, turn it into hydrogen, store the hydrogen, then use a hydrogen fuel cell to turn the H back into electricity. It's pretty simple stuff really.

The hydrogen fuel cell is a fascinating technology.

quote from here http://inventors.about.com/od/fstartinventions/a/Fuel_Cells.htm
br>
"In 1839, the first fuel cell was conceived by Sir William Robert Grove, a Welsh judge, inventor and physicist. He mixed hydrogen and oxygen in the presence of an electrolyte, and produced electricity and water. The invention, which later became known as a fuel cell, didn't produce enough electricity to be useful."

1839 it was invented eek and by a welshman no less. I just could not believe that when i found out. This is a prime example of a technology that has been supressed for monetary gain.

The real solution is to stop being such energy whores. But it's so hard to know how much you use. I mean i can check my meter, but how the hell do i work it out. I can turn off a few lights but how do i tell what saves energy and what doesn't. Really i need to get an email from my electriciy board each week giving me a run down of the energy i'm using each day and suggestions about how to reduce this. And electricity companies need to be rewarded for lowering the average consumption. ie they earn more money, by selling less energy.

Does anyone know about the carbon credits system?

m


Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Delete

ickleMatt


ickleMatt

enthusiast
Location: L.O.N.D.O.N.

Total posts: 242
Posted:Check this out:

Smart meter

I think smart meters should be compulsory


Delete

mo-seph


mo-seph

enthusiast
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Total posts: 524
Posted: Written by: TheWibbler


The real solution is to stop being such energy whores. But it's so hard to know how much you use. I mean i can check my meter, but how the hell do i work it out. I can turn off a few lights but how do i tell what saves energy and what doesn't.



I was having similar thoughts, and wondered about making something to help with this. Then I thought someone's sure to have made one:

(Pardon the amazon link redface)
energy usage meter

You can also get non-contact ammeter/wattmeters which you can put around a cable and tell how much power is going through it (but I haven't found a link to one yet)


monkeys ate my brain

Delete

TheBovrilMonkey
SILVER Member since Sep 2001

TheBovrilMonkey

Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England

Total posts: 2629
Posted: Written by: TheWibbler


The hydrogen fuel cell is a fascinating technology.

quote from here http://inventors.about.com/od/fstartinventions/a/Fuel_Cells.htm
br>
"In 1839, the first fuel cell was conceived by Sir William Robert Grove, a Welsh judge, inventor and physicist. He mixed hydrogen and oxygen in the presence of an electrolyte, and produced electricity and water. The invention, which later became known as a fuel cell, didn't produce enough electricity to be useful."

1839 it was invented eek and by a welshman no less. I just could not believe that when i found out. This is a prime example of a technology that has been supressed for monetary gain.




I caught a part of a tv program on monday that was talking about the Honda FCX, which is a fuel cell vehicle. It looks pretty good, relatively efficient and is still quick enough to hopefully take care of the myth that only vehicles that run on petrol or diesel are enjoyable to drive.
Of course, then there's the small matter of the infrastructure needed to refill them, but that's nothing to worry about at the moment wink


But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Delete

TheWibbler
GOLD Member since Apr 2003

old hand
Location: New Zealand

Total posts: 920
Posted:Check out the new lexus hybrid http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3663697a30,00.html
br>
Just read about it yesterday in the newspaper. As i recall the brief was to develop a car that was faster and more powerful than their V8 and consumed as much fuel as their 2 litre. They did it, and to top it off, it's cheaper than the V8 smile

The excellent thing about electric motors is the torque and acceleration of them is immense.

I think the trick to getting hybrid engines to market is to show big businesses that they can save a lot of money each year on their company car fleet.

m


Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:actually, I did not think about farming, so it is a good point, but if we did not have farming, what about wild bovine, or equine, what about giraffes? Would their expirations of gaseous byproducts be a similar issue? There would be more green space and more wildlife. Would the extra foliage affect the CO2 and oxygen levels?
just playing devil's advocate


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

ickleMatt


ickleMatt

enthusiast
Location: L.O.N.D.O.N.

Total posts: 242
Posted:I don't know if anybody has studied whether a wild cow produces more gas than a domesticated cow - given that they eat different stuff.

But certainly in modern farming the aim is too maximise the density of cows per field size; therefore there are certainly more cows because of farming than there would ever be if they were only wild.

Besides we need all these cows to cow in to all those Burgers people insist on eating.

Reducing your meat intake or becoming vegetarian is a very valid way of reducing the amount of CO2 produced on your behalf.


Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:never
a little off topic and not meant to be rude. There was a bulletin board at school where students could post quotes and thoughts and pictures...
one of the best ones that created the most contraversy
"vegans wear leather sandals"


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: TheWibbler


In europe they are building a nuclear fusion reactor (like the sun, with i think no toxic waste at all since they fuse hydrogen into helium, i think) Now it's a long way off making electricity. I think the first proper test will be 2010-2020 something like that. It is an increadible machine. Absolutely enormous and remarkably similar to a Warp engine.




What sort of Warp engine did you have in mind?

Looking at all the data in the graphs seems to show that we have very little to worry about. Over the past 100 years, we've had less than a degree of variation in the temperature. Expand the graph to take in the past 5,000 years, and you will see that the Earth has done far more than this in the past. This is why the link between human activity and change in global temperatures is so weak. It happens to correlate with increased CO2, but it also correlates with a decrease in pirates.

Part of a difference of tenths of degrees in temperature between 100 years ago and now could simply be a difference of how we are measuring the temperature. I haven't heard the details of the methods, but I assume that right now we have highly accurate thermometers placed around the globe in static positions, year after year. Were they doing this 100 years ago? Were their thermometers precise to hundredths of degrees? Were the thermometers in the same places?

From what I hear, the climate is warming naturally, and the theory is that human activity is contributing to part of it. If this is accurate, then the impact of humans seems to be small enough to justify doubting whether it even exists, let alone whether we should impoverish people to try to avoid it.

If people want drastic changes in economies, they are going to have to explain how the benefits outweigh the costs. In other words, compare the economic impact on people's lives (jobs being lost, higher cost of living) to the benefits (the decrease in temperature).

We need goals, measured not in a decrease CO2 emissions, but in benefits to earth. It is little comfort to say "we have decreased CO2 emissions by 80%, and we think that may have made the Earth warm only 2 tenths of a degree over the past 50 years, rather than 2 and 1/2." Unless we can show that the reduction in temperature is actually good, and good enough to justify the costs, we shouldn't do it.

Measuring this is difficult. One of the classic cases is the graph of damage caused by weather, and how it has increased over the years. Some have used this data to try to suggest that the weather is getting worse, when really what it is measuring is that people have been building more (and more expensive) places near the coasts and in flood zones.

To make a convincing case for change, we need to explain why the change will make us better off. This case should be made to citizens, not to governments. In most democracies, politicians run for short terms of office. They have an incentive to sacrifice the future in order to obtain short term results.
Big business, on the other hand, are extremely familiar with the concept of making short term sacrifices for long term benefits. It's called "investing." Big "infrastructure" businesses such as energy companies know that the profits they make now are coming from investments made decades ago, and the success of their company over the next few decades may require long term investments as well.

Freedom works because when people are free, they tend to try to make themselves better off.

I am sure that we will move from an oil based society to deriving our energy from other sources. However, if we let people be free, they will only do this when they can see that they will be better off from it. I think the tipping point will come as other forms of energy become cheaper in comparison to oil. This may be done through oil getting more expensive (for example, if we were to run out of oil), or from other methods becoming cheaper (such as a viable fuel cell, or nuclear fusion).

The people that stand to benefit the most from new sources of energy are the energy companies. If they do not develop the newer forms of energy, then in a free market new companies will come along and compete with them. Big oil knows it has limited time before the other forms of energy start to take over.

However, they also know that this change will probably evolve slowly over time. People did not change from horses to gasoline engines instantly, and people will not just throw away their old cars and buy electric ones, especially if the price of the electric car would prevent them from affording health insurance.

Although alarmists have been predicting that we will run out of oil for decades now, I am beginning to suspect that this may not be the case. We know now that oil may not in fact be a limited resource, but may be created naturally under the ground. If so, this may explain why our reserves have lasted so much longer than we've thought they should, and why we keep finding new sources.

If this is the case, then the change will come when someone makes a breakthrough and starts implementing it. When change is offered as a sacrifice with only the possibility of a negligible decrease in temperature that may end up helping no one, people are not likely to embrace it. When change is offered as a lawnmower that runs off of its own grass clippings, people are going to go for it.

Can such advances be made before the next Ice age? I bet they will. I'm very optimistic about the future. Some see pollution as reason to eliminate humans (or certain races) from the earth. I see it as the motivation to advance humanity and make us all better off.

 Written by: TheWibbler


oh yeah patriarch, you didn't answer my question. Are people who actively pollute gods planet going to heaven or hell? wink



If people who actively pollute go to hell, and
CO2 is pollution, and
We all exhale CO2, then
Everyone who exhales goes to hell.

Clearly, if things produced by humans are not natural, then even our breathing is releasing unnatural CO2 into the atmosphere, thus running up even further our debt to return the earth to a pre-human state.


Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Warp engines utilise matter-antimatter reactions. Fusion is use only for general power on the Enterprise. Can't believe I know that...

As for human and animal respiration, our CO2 output is met by CO2 fixation of the plants that feed them and us, so it is essentially carbon neutral.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since May 2005

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:Front page of two newspapers today was David Attenborough saying that he had lost all doubt that climate change:

1. Is happening,
2. Is caused by humans,
3. Is bad.

(For those of you who don't know, David Attenborough has been writing, researching and presenting Nature documentaries for about the last 15 years)

I'd say he's a very public figure who many people (myself included) will trust to have enough experience in the matter to be able to work out what's going on. If he says climate change is happening and is bad and is caused by humans then I'm more likely to believe him than any number of politicians.

Not to be insulting, but I think he has much more knowledge and day-to-day dealing with the issue than anyone who's posted on here. Like I said, that's good enough for me. He's been telling me to look after the planet since I was 5 after all... wink


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

Page: 123456