----Global warming----

[Lentonius]

As ever, we are being told to cut down on petrol and energy, as people tell us if we dont we are going to be swimming down to tesco's in our hot wet mess...


I just want to see your opinions on the matter

Whether the americans are killing us all by driving their SUV's around their 'rugged off road boulevards'?

or if it is a load of hogwash and a natural process?

Personally I vote for a happy medium, being slightly annoyed at the US and their love of SUV's around urban areas, and thinking it may be semi-natural

But the earth is definately changing..

[Red Peasant]

Personally, I use public transport and a bicycle, but that makes sense, to me anyway, as a city dweller. However, I can see that many other people need cars.

SUVs are not just an american phenomenon, they are multiplying at a tremendous rate here in Britain too. I have to laugh at the local housewives in their 'monster' vehicles dropping the kids at the nearby school and shopping at Tesco. :no:

[jimmyM]

We're screwed whatever we do - compared to natural releases of methane from decaying organic matter and releases associated with underwater geological activity, ALL human activity accounts for a minuscule proportion. ~It seems that the current climate change (which is happening) is merely part of a recurring cycle of heating and cooling - we're over-due an ice-age, anyway...

So leave all your lights on, start a bonfire of CFC containing aerosols and dance round it shouting "we're all dooooooomed!", it seems we're in for the big interspecies "biomass reallocation" as middlemanagement would call it.


...came across a bit doomsday, there...any great change due to climate change will miss our generation, but you get the picture...:juggle2:

[Duke John]

Regardless wether SUVs or cars in general heat up the earth, I think car-owners in urban environments should be more aware of the effect of exhaust fumes has on public health.

[Rodion Romanovich]

As ever, we are being told to cut down on petrol and energy, as people tell us if we dont we are going to be swimming down to tesco's in our hot wet mess...


I just want to see your opinions on the matter

Whether the americans are killing us all by driving their SUV's around their 'rugged off road boulevards'?

or if it is a load of hogwash and a natural process?

Personally I vote for a happy medium, being slightly annoyed at the US and their love of SUV's around urban areas, and thinking it may be semi-natural

But the earth is definately changing..

That's about my view too. We're passing the point where our effects go from being of minuscule proporiton compared to natural processes to being the major heating effect on earth.

What we need is restrictions and control over the market to slow down market development of environment-harming products somewhat. It's nothing new really, we already have regulations of different kinds even in the most extreme capitalist countries. We just need the products to come to the market with a small delay, so that science gets time to catch up with new technology and make it environment friendly. Making the market lag just a decade or two after where it is today would make a huge difference, again reducing human impact to microscopic proportions compared to natural processes. Of course for such regulations to work it's necessary to make a more fair treaty than Kyoto if the USA is to accept it (but there are also claims from some that Bush wouldn't accept any trade restricting treaty no matter how fair it was).

[Lentonius]

just look at this, and our generation are gonna be affected i think...
https://img446.imageshack.us/img446/4956/39polarice0np.gif (https://imageshack.us)

by that time ill be around 42...:shame:

[Lentonius]

Also, if we could only use more nuclear power without people screaming 'chernobyl'

Nuclear power is safe if properly maintained

It is non-polluting

It is fairly cheap


Yet most developed countries are still shutting down their power plants because of a nuclear scare...

it was ukranian technology at it's worst- what more can i say?

[Lazul]

I agree, but the nuclear waste? :no:

[Ironside]

Also, if we could only use more nuclear power without people screaming 'chernobyl'

Nuclear power is safe if properly maintained

It is non-polluting


Although it has improved a bit though and new methods is tried, nuclear waste is still a problematic pollution issue.
Your correct that safety problems is almost a non-issue in western countries though.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I do believe that our atmosphere is being depleted, which would contribute to global warming.

I think walking places is a good idea, which is something I do, but I do get lazy:shame: , and when I do I make sure to get a carpool.:2thumbsup:

[Viking]

I agree, but the nuclear waste? :no:

Blast into space and send make it collide with the Sun, or dig it down in some secure places; as we already do today.

@Topic

The Americans aren`t killing us, but some(millions of) poor asians that live 1 meter above sea level.. I don`t see any natural causes to the current warming. What causes ice ages is the orbit of the Earth, but Earth is not in any special orbit for the moment.

[AntiochusIII]

Blast into space and send make it collide with the Sun, or dig it down in some secure places; as we already do today.Blasting into the sun sounds nice but it is way too costly right now. Throwing things out of the atmosphere requires some effort.

And "secure" sites are hard to find. Here in Nevada the Yucca mountains controversy continues; for those who're not in Nevada, the area is supposed to be the latest dumping ground of nuclear waste in the US (Nevada has always been a good prospect, what's with all the weird facilities and all) but the people opposed it stubbornly, citing radiation dangers, especially as the trains which will transport the waste will go through the heart of Las Vegas, as their core reason, and they feared any terrorist, or just a freak accident, can affect the fastest-growing city in America.

Nuclear waste is a problem.

Personally, I use public transport and a bicycle, but that makes sense, to me anyway, as a city dweller. However, I can see that many other people need cars.Be glad that you have one. In cities like Vegas or other sprawling suburban cities, cars are the only means of transportation that makes sense. The location (be it shops, schools, etc) you need to go is too far away to walk or bike, and the public transportation is nonexisting.

But of course, I still can't find a way to justify suburban SUV's. Sure, it's freedom, and we can't do a heck about it, except hoping the government (well, I never hoped :no: ) would finally put some environment-friendly regulations on SUV designs; but they'll never pass through the corporate lobbyists.

[kiwitt]

I agree, but the nuclear waste? :no:Once buried deeply in concrete (possibly in Antartica), it would do less harm than the current coal, oil and gas fired chimneys, to our health.

[master of the puppets]

i think that we are just speeding up a natural process.

[Lanemerkel1]

As ever, we are being told to cut down on petrol and energy, as people tell us if we dont we are going to be swimming down to tesco's in our hot wet mess...


I just want to see your opinions on the matter

Whether the americans are killing us all by driving their SUV's around their 'rugged off road boulevards'?

or if it is a load of hogwash and a natural process?

Personally I vote for a happy medium, being slightly annoyed at the US and their love of SUV's around urban areas, and thinking it may be semi-natural

But the earth is definately changing..



this is BULLCRAP


first of all the UN is constantly telling the US to lower it's pollution rate
1) We have lower total pollution than conturies half our size
2) China has pollution from it's little communist ass in california
3) most of the stuff the UN is telling us to get rid of is heavier than air chemicals (i.e. can't disturb th Ozone CAUSE IT CAN'T EVEN GET THERE)



nuclear waste I can see

but the Air Conditioning chemical we were forced to get rid of a few years back is like 10 times heavier than air,

Being a christian and believing that the entire earth was once tropical, I think we are returning to normal (i.e. no winter or snow....HUZZAH!) not getting "too warm" and with my belieifs by the time this stuff gets too serious even if your right, the human race will be long gone from this pathetic planet

[Sartaq]

believing that the entire earth was once tropical, I think we are returning to normal (i.e. no winter or snow....HUZZAH!)

Hey...I like winter, and snow :no:

[solypsist]

bad idea - what would happen if a rocket exploded on takeoff? or if the waste was released into the atmosphere futher up instead of successfully taken to the sun?



Blast into space and send make it collide with the Sun

[Rodion Romanovich]

Actually, contrary to what I've seen mentioned here, the USA still has more pollution than China, even though China have a MUCH greater population. However, China is steadily increasing it's pollution due to industrialization. But this very moment, blaming all on China isn't correct. It's China in 10-20 years we should worry about. USA and Western Europe together still have almost 40-50% of all pollution. Plus there's the end-user pollution which is more difficult to predict. Most European and American factories have fixed their chimneys and stuff, but the end-user often throws away the stuff, or the stuff pollutes poisonous stuff during usage. Such pollution has scientifically been shown to often being as huge as the factory-stage pollution once was, but it's very difficult to get a full overview of it's proportions.

BTW about nuclear waste: most containers containing them below earth eventually rust of degrade, so they need to constantly change containers, and one must count on leakage of perhaps 25 % of the contents. But Uranium is limited in quantity and it has actually been shown that we may run out of uranium in a century or less; contrary to what is widely believed about nuclear power it's a fossile fuel form. However there are experimental reactors which are more effective, but they produce materials that can be used for making nukes very easily, which makes some politicians want to forbid them.

[Ironside]

this is BULLCRAP


first of all the UN is constantly telling the US to lower it's pollution rate
1) We have lower total pollution than conturies half our size
2) China has pollution from it's little communist ass in california

We're talking about CO2 emissions, not general pollution. Although pollution certainly is an issue, CO2 is more important when it comes to global warming. At CO2 emissions, US holds the first place, both in total and induvidual levels.
BBC on CO2 emissions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/sci_tech/2001/climate_change/usa.stm)


3) most of the stuff the UN is telling us to get rid of is heavier than air chemicals (i.e. can't disturb th Ozone CAUSE IT CAN'T EVEN GET THERE)

but the Air Conditioning chemical we were forced to get rid of a few years back is like 10 times heavier than air,

Gases only got a tendency to follow thier molecular weight, they don't act as liquids. Thus even when most of it is at the bottom, some of the gas still rises to higher levels. Otherwise would water vapour be quite non-existant at the water level.
I'm not sure how the atmosphere affects this though, if it increases or decrases the tendency.


Being a christian and believing that the entire earth was once tropical, I think we are returning to normal (i.e. no winter or snow....HUZZAH!) not getting "too warm" and with my belieifs by the time this stuff gets too serious even if your right, the human race will be long gone from this pathetic planet

I'm curious on when you consider this tropical age to have existed.

[Duke John]

BTW about nuclear waste: most containers containing them below earth eventually rust of degrade
I can't believe how some people still think that barrels will contain nuclear waste that will radiate for millions of years to come. How short-sighted can one be...


But Uranium is limited in quantity and it has actually been shown that we may run out of uranium in a century or less
That is excellent news for me! Nuclear power is another example of how people cannot see beyond their own generation.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Duke John: On a side note, I was actually defending the same view you have in my post, by trying to explain that using a system yielding nuclear waste would need constant problems in the future that must be remembered (there are limits to how many investments resulting in work and material requirements etc. in the future we can make*). Usually the policy is that after 10 years people forget about such promises made when the materials/processes/technologies were taken into use.

* usually they require energy in the future, and if the reason we made the promises was to get energy we desperately needed and had problems getting, then the situation is very unstable...

[Lazul]

Being a christian and believing that the entire earth was once tropical, I think we are returning to normal (i.e. no winter or snow....HUZZAH!) not getting "too warm" and with my belieifs by the time this stuff gets too serious even if your right, the human race will be long gone from this pathetic planet

so, first of all you believe as a christian you dont have to care about polution becouse it will just take us back to the tropical past that you christians long for.
Second you dont Actually care about this planet that your god created for you... couse its Pathetic. Intresting.

Science has allready proven that it will be the next few generation that has to deal with the effects, human-made or natural. :book:

[Duke John]

@Duke John: On a side note, I was actually defending the same view you have in my post
I know. I was simply using your point to get my point across :medievalcheers:

[Viking]

And "secure" sites are hard to find. Here in Nevada the Yucca mountains controversy continues; for those who're not in Nevada, the area is supposed to be the latest dumping ground of nuclear waste in the US (Nevada has always been a good prospect, what's with all the weird facilities and all) but the people opposed it stubbornly, citing radiation dangers, especially as the trains which will transport the waste will go through the heart of Las Vegas, as their core reason, and they feared any terrorist, or just a freak accident, can affect the fastest-growing city in America.

Well, well; it doesn`t have to be transported through 'the fastest-growing city in America'. It`s always better alternatives.



bad idea - what would happen if a rocket exploded on takeoff? or if the waste was released into the atmosphere futher up instead of successfully taken to the sun?


I forgot about that, butI think the containers with waste could be made strong enough to survive an explosion, and should be sent up in smaller quantitys. Still security problems exist, so I will drop that idea. Hrmpf. :book2:

[Lentonius]

No offence to the yanks but when their government authorises countless billions of dollars to send a piece of metal into other planets, it makes it seem very vein.

I mean, why spend all that money peeking at other planets when our own is being destroyed

[Lentonius]

this is BULLCRAP


first of all the UN is constantly telling the US to lower it's pollution rate
1) We have lower total pollution than conturies half our size
2) China has pollution from it's little communist ass in california


But the thing is my friend, countries like china cannot afford to invest in more kind energy sources.

The USA being the richest nation on Gods earth can afford clean energy, and so can the UK and europe, but these developing countries shouldn't have their crude oil taken away just so the richer countries can slurp it up in a jiffy


Developing countries quite frankly aren't the ones who can really be expected to dig into their pockets and pay for clean energy if we dont

:no:

[Viking]

No offence to the yanks but when their government authorises countless billions of dollars to send a piece of metal into other planets, it makes it seem very vein.

I mean, why spend all that money peeking at other planets when our own is being destroyed


Their military budget, military budget, military budget, military budget. :idea2:

C`mon, that`s wasted money. Stayed out Iraq, and lots of money saved. The US have a twice as big military budget as Russia, wich is the nation number two when it comes to waste money on the military. Unfortunately, we need military, but to ceratin limits. The war on terrorism won`t be won with brute military force.

[Papewaio]

off the cuff CO2 emissions for humans:

Biggest emitter of CO2 per capita: Australia.
Biggest emitter of CO2 by country: USA (25%), While India and China combined emit 20% but have a combined population of about 10 times that of USA.

[Sartaq]

I would think the USA emits so much CO2 despite it's population partly because the individual ownership of CO2 emitting devices is much higher.

[Efrem]

But we don't count cause we have so many trees and are so spread out. Per land we'd be the very bottom.

[Lentonius]

yes, i agree.
why put so much money into an army that is generally prone to shooting its allies:no:

sorry i have issues with the us army

[master of the puppets]

allies today are foes tommorow, and foes yesterday are dependants today.

[Rodion Romanovich]

But we don't count cause we have so many trees and are so spread out. Per land we'd be the very bottom.

Actually that's an interesting political problem. Does per land, per capita or something else determine who should have the most rights of pollution? Against land you could argue that "just because your ancestors conquered and oppressed or had luck in colonization, should you get more rights today?", but against per capita one can instead argue that "just because you don't have any birth control and help increasing the overpopulation problems on earth, should you get more pollution rights because of it?". I've yet refrained from having any opinion in the matter so far, but it's definitely an interesting subject of discussion.

[Lentonius]

To be honest in my opinion the only countries who need these crude resources are developing countries and the poverty stricken nations...

Australia, being one of the richest nations, can afford solar panels and whatnot...

[Don Corleone]

Solar power is not a solution for power needs on anything but an individual basis...

For my final exam in physics class, I had to calculate the size of the array of solar panels to power New York City. New York consumes about 41 billion kilowatt hours a year. In order to supply that much solar energy, you would need an array of solar panels approximately 8000 square miles (still have the worksheet used for this problem in my Physics textbook). This assumes an average of 11.5 hours of sunlight a day (which between average day length and number of cloudy/rainy days, might be touch optimistic).
So, Long Island and the entire state of New Jersey would have to be converted to a gigantic solar panel, just to power the population of New York City. Guess we'd have to dispose of the populations of New Jersey and Long Island as we're encasing their land in photovoltaic cells, as they would drive the energy needs of other areas up if we allowed them to escape (given the people I've met from New Jersey and Long Island, we might be onto something here... :2thumbsup:) Just kidding.

There's another problem... photovoltaic receptors decay in terms of their charge transfer characteristics over time. You'd have to replace those panels approximately every 8-10 years, and then what are you going to do with all that n-type and p-type doped silicon?

Solar power IS good for heating houses and hot water. But for generating electricity, it's rather poor.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We simply must develop a workable fusion process. It is, after all, a fusion process which accounts for much of our energy as it is. If we can harness fusion....

[Papewaio]

For my final exam in physics class, I had to calculate the size of the array of solar panels to power New York City. New York consumes about 41 billion kilowatt hours a year. In order to supply that much solar energy, you would need an array of solar panels approximately 8000 square miles (still have the worksheet used for this problem in my Physics textbook). This assumes an average of 11.5 hours of sunlight a day (which between average day length and number of cloudy/rainy days, might be touch optimistic).
So, Long Island and the entire state of New Jersey would have to be converted to a gigantic solar panel, just to power the population of New York City.


What % of the area is roofs/windows that could hold solar cells?

Not only that but smarter building designs require less lights and less air conditioning.

I wouldn't look for an absolute answer, but a couple of smarter choices then current bog standard building designs could improve things quite nicely.

[Lentonius]

to be honest nuclear is the only reasonable energy source that wouldnt cost as much and would be a realistic substitute for our fossil fuels