Changing environment due to pollution

[Student Pilot 0]

I don't think anyone's going to try and sweep oil-replacement technologies under the rug, just too much demand for them.

Is there really demand for these technologies? It seems the main pushers are political organizations and the government. I really have not seen the average Joe clamor for electric cars and alternative energies. I think for demand to pick up for alternative energies, we will have to see the price of oil go back up, and that probably will not happen for some time without government internvention. Hopefully, such intervention will not happen because of risk of political backlash.

[echo1 0]

Well, there's large scale demand to get rid of things like oil for environmental, political and economic reasons. This puts pressure on governments who then pour money into finding technology that can replace oil. The end consequence is that when tech like Hydrogen Fuel Cells et al are perfected is that we end up with cars that are cheaper to run, less pollution (even leaving aside stuff like global warming whose validity is debatable, all those fumes from cars are really not good for people's health) we no longer have to send troops off to Iraq to protect oil etc etc.

What I'm trying to say is that maybe demand for specific technologies isnt all that high, but the demand for their advantages are, if that makes sense.

[Student Pilot 0]

That makes sense, and I absolutely agree with it. As I said before, I think demand for alternative energy technologies will pick up once the price of oil rises and/or alternative energies become cheaper and as efficient as or more efficient than oil.

I also do not doubt that increases in the price of oil will happen, it is just a matter of when. My hope is the government does not force it by adding carbon taxes and hiking the gas tax. I think the transition to alternative energies should come about from market demand for them, not from government regulation and taxation. This is where my skepticism about man-made climate change comes in. If I were truly worried about a cataclysmic catastrophe, I would not hold this view.

-Student Pilot

[riffleman 20]

I think if we want to save this earth from pollution ,than all government should come togather to take decision . Just like global summit.there is already a UNO agency working,but nobody listen to its.countries have various arguments so they have no decision about it.some says or promise and after some time forget about there promise.people should care nature.because nature care all of us.

[wooly-back-jack 10]

the weather is upsetting my fishing too!

spawning times for different species are all over the place, lakes not warming as they should be.

Not just weather effect but commercial sea fishing has caused cormerants to come inland and devistate fish stocks.

now for the important thing to ponder...

why is there like loads of windfarms but electricity bills are still too high? :D

[Student Pilot 0]

people should care nature.because nature care all of us.

Like it did at Mt. St. Helens, New Orleans, Pompeii, the large tsunamis a few years ago, krakatoa, countless mudslides all over, the creation of the Sahara desert, the dust bowl of the 30s, the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, the Mozambique flood, the great blizzard of 1888, the many tornadoes that ravage the US each year, the many viral outbreaks (SARS, swine flu, black death, ebola), ect ect ect. ;)

.....now that I have mentioned all of that, I am thinking we need to wage a war against nature. Take off the scrubbers, sell more hummers, throw nuclear waste around!

-Student Pilot

[karensman08 10]

i would like to make a proposal to solve all the world's issues!!

all of us who live in industrialized, polluting nations need to give up all our wonderful comforts. this way we will no longer be creating anymore issues for the fragile environment in which we all live. we all need to go back to the ways in which our ancestors lived; no electricity, no fossil fuels, and the worst of the polution is coming from the cows that we are living off of and horses that we will use to get around with.

as for all those wonderful comforts that we have (i.e. computers, TVs, cars, and yes even bicycles), we need to give them all up and cease using them. stop producing them (because producing them and disposing of them is just as hormful); and hand them all over to the under-developed, third-world nations. this way, those poor nations can share in the comforts that we had so long over used and they will no longer be under-developed.

just imagine how great the world would be if we all lived like people did in the 17th and 18th centuries!! :D

disclaimer: YES! this is a sarcastic response.

[max power 21]

Nice scare tactic.

What scare tactic?

[Student Pilot 0]

What scare tactic?

So poison air is acceptible to you?

That statement is not debatable and is only meant to scare people into agreeing with you.

-Student Pilot

[Guest]

So poison air is acceptible to you? Perhaps you don't live in an area that has poor air quality, but I assure you that it is a problem.

I live in central london ;)

Humans aren't doing anything to this planet, we are nothing but scum living off its supplies. The world will heat up, and then it will cool down. And that will happen again and again, like it has since before humans were around.

The politics involved are ridiculous, they always fail to tell you that the planet has gone through MUCH worse climate changes before the invention of fossil fuels and coal etc.

The world controls us, we don't control the world. When its had enough of us it will get rid of us. Nothing we can do about it.

Also, add that to the fact that our planet is practically non existant in this large, ever expanding universe, and you will understand that we don't mean anything at all.

We are nothing.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Guest

[GoOB 0]

The demand for alternative energy isn't something that has sprung up due to the (relatively) recent fuss about a changing enviroment - Here in Sweden for instance several organizations, mostly economical ones as opposed to enviromental ones, mind you have been pushing the government to move towards energy sources that makes our nation independent of Russian, Danish and Norwegian oil and or gas. This has been going on since the eighties and late seventies. Mostly to free ourselves of potential shortages, sudden increases in price, issues with delivery and so on and so forth.

This alternative energy lobby has become an even more active and important lobby over the last five-ten years. And even more so since the gas crisis in eastern europe last winter. Alternative energies is about something (that is perceived to be) much more important than the enviroment, it's about the budget of countries and the citizens of those countries. The very moment a new source of energy that is cheaper and more effective than the current ones is developed every country and it's mother will come running for it - People want to save money more than they want to save the planet they have to live on, that goes for governments and it goes for dare I say mostly every person living on this green earth. And what is indeed interesting is that several Swedish industrial companies have found ways to do what they are paid to do in a greener and cheaper way. That is the way forward, making "greener" industry cheaper than dirty industry. And it isn't impossibe, far from it.

And let's face it - Atleast for Europe alternative energies is a must, trade with Russia for gas is a wonderful thing in theory. But hardly the most stable, or most beneficial of business deals.

Edited August 16, 2009 by GoOB

[riffleman 20]

I think that we all can make pollution less by doing certain steps.make resouces use when there is need for them.

[max power 21]

That statement is not debatable and is only meant to scare people into agreeing with you.

-Student Pilot

So would you say that air polutants that cause a significantly higher instance of respiratory disease in all demographics but especially children, as in california and mexico city, are poison or not poison? Do you think that air of such poor quality that they needed to build an airtight stadium to hold the olympics and that citizens walk around with particulate masks as on in beijing is acceptible or not acceptible?

Would it be a scare tactic for me to point out a bear to you, and then say, 'don't go over there, there is a bear'?

Edited August 17, 2009 by Max Power

[riffleman 20]

Yes for bejing olympicis government stop all pollution causing industry.due to its game played at good environnment

[Guest]

If you wan't to protect the enviornment, throw your pc out. It uses electricity.

Also, throw your washing machine out. And your TV. In fact, just turn off all power to your house :)

[max power 21]

Hydrogen is an alternative energy I can get behind. I think in the long run it is also the most viable. No matter what alternative energy we go to, infrastructure is going to be a problem. I would much rather we use hydrogen gas instead of corn, algae, electric (coal powered), or any number of the rediculous "solutions" out there that deliver less performance and are much costlier.

However, I have a nagging suspicion that eventually, if we go to hydrogen, it too will become the target of environmentalists. What is the most prevalent greenhouse gas in our atmosphere? What is the byproduct of hydrogen engines? The answer to both questions is water vapor.

Hydrogen is usually made through electrolysis, which is an energy intensive process. You get energy back through the combustion of hydrogen, but not all of it. What you are doing is you are storing the energy you put into electrolysis in the form of hydrogen to use again later. To assess the 'cleaness' of hydrogen you have to figure out where the energy for the electrolysis is coming from. If it is coming from a coal power plant, all of the energy used to extract the coal from the ground, to refine it, to transport it to the power station, and then to maintain all of that equipment goes into the environmental footprint of the hydrogen fuel.

If you wan't to protect the enviornment, throw your pc out. It uses electricity.

Also, throw your washing machine out. And your TV. In fact, just turn off all power to your house :)

Actually, my electricity comes from hydroelectric power, and I turn the computers that I can't sell or donate into special recyclers that can extract the heavy metals and toxic materials from the components before they recycle the metals.

Also, look up 'Tu Quoque' on google.

[Guest]

Hydrogen is usually made through electrolysis, which is an energy intensive process. You get energy back through the combustion of hydrogen, but not all of it. What you are doing is you are storing the energy you put into electrolysis in the form of hydrogen to use again later. To assess the 'cleaness' of hydrogen you have to figure out where the energy for the electrolysis is coming from. If it is coming from a coal power plant, all of the energy used to extract the coal from the ground, to refine it, to transport it to the power station, and then to maintain all of that equipment goes into the environmental footprint of the hydrogen fuel.

Actually, my electricity comes from hydroelectric power, and I turn the computers that I can't sell or donate into special recyclers that can extract the heavy metals and toxic materials from the components before they recycle the metals.

Also, look up 'Tu Quoque' on google.

Wow. Its very obvious you are an enviorenmentalist enthusiast. I got no issue with that, i respect it :)

But i personally am not too bothered, so i won't bother you or this thread anymore, i'm not really adding much.

[max power 21]

Well, I live in a municipality that is very pro conservation and therefore I have access to that kind of stuff. I mean, if it's there, why not? Not every CRT computer monitor can be filled with gasoline and shot with a shotgun, filmed, and put on youtube.

[Student Pilot 0]

So would you say that air polutants that cause a significantly higher instance of respiratory disease in all demographics but especially children, as in california and mexico city, are poison or not poison? Do you think that air of such poor quality that they needed to build an airtight stadium to hold the olympics and that citizens walk around with particulate masks as on in beijing is acceptible or not acceptible?

Would it be a scare tactic for me to point out a bear to you, and then say, 'don't go over there, there is a bear'?

It was a scare tactic because you just threw it out there with nothing else to support it. Now that you have named some specifics, it has become a debatable argument. That's the difference. I cannot debate "so poison air is acceptable to you?". I can debate the paragraph of yours that I quoted in the text.

And with that, I will not debate your argument :p I would have to do research into your claim and find evidence either way, and I simply cannot do that right now on account of life. Although, in parting, you will notice I never said I am for polluting technologies. I am just against inefficient, costly, "green" technologies. As you pointed out so well, even hydrogen is not perfect. I think we still need to wait until we find the next true replacement for oil.

-Student Pilot

[riffleman 20]

Whats about solar energy and hydro energy.here hydro is best source of energy and less pollution.whats about you region.

[max power 21]

It was a scare tactic because you just threw it out there with nothing else to support it. Now that you have named some specifics, it has become a debatable argument. That's the difference. I cannot debate "so poison air is acceptable to you?". I can debate the paragraph of yours that I quoted in the text.

Because what I omitted the world history of air polution does not mean I was using a scare tactic. What Richiespeed13 was saying didn't make any sense to me, and I wanted him to present his argument without any input from me. The premise that air polution was a real problem was present in my previous post.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I would be banned for saying a certain truth that is dear to a lot of great people in the history of the human civilization, and I don't imply tyrants & dictators. Since that truth has always been instantly marked as inhumane, or violation of human rights, at least as the average Joe, Mary & occasional Ivan interpret it. The average people.

So, instead let me give you something else: If you think that what you hold is true, what the arrogant present to you that you think is true, is indeed a reality - global warming, et cetera, then no matter what action you take, the technology you develop (except for something out of sci. fiction, perhaps) will improve your situation & the situation of your children, their children's kids and this planet.

For the average people: not the people in Hawaii, or the US, not even the whole Western Civilization have a say in this; I'm not talking about morality.

For the average people in China, India, almost any "developing" country would rather face death before even a thought of reduced consumption enters their mind; there can be no pre-industrialized civilization, not anymore, but there can be a stone age.

For the average people would be stamping on your face, if you ever tried anything mentioned above; no politician could stop it, no agitation, no scientific theories; billions human beings would have to be murdered in order to achieve what you strive for.

That is the truth that is now & always been there, someplace, where the average Joe has been afraid to look since as long as he can remember; the thought of the mass of people viewed as cattle.

[riffleman 20]

I think you should read the data which country create most pollution.if you think that if developing countries die due to its,you are wrong.all living on same earth.so everyone have to face situation .where ever you live you will also suffer from this.

[Akira 0]

Whats about solar energy and hydro energy.here hydro is best source of energy and less pollution.whats about you region.

The problem with hydro is its "green" claim. Yes it pumps out little or no carbon, but the very act of damning up a river/estuary/water source damages the environment and generally produces extreme ecological impacts.

---------- Post added at 02:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 AM ----------

I would be banned for saying a certain truth that is dear to a lot of great people in the history of the human civilization, and I don't imply tyrants & dictators. Since that truth has always been instantly marked as inhumane, or violation of human rights, at least as the average Joe, Mary & occasional Ivan interpret it. The average people.

So, instead let me give you something else: If you think that what you hold is true, what the arrogant present to you that you think is true, is indeed a reality - global warming, et cetera, then no matter what action you take, the technology you develop (except for something out of sci. fiction, perhaps) will improve your situation & the situation of your children, their children's kids and this planet.

For the average people: not the people in Hawaii, or the US, not even the whole Western Civilization have a say in this; I'm not talking about morality.

For the average people in China, India, almost any "developing" country would rather face death before even a thought of reduced consumption enters their mind; there can be no pre-industrialized civilization, not anymore, but there can be a stone age.

For the average people would be stamping on your face, if you ever tried anything mentioned above; no politician could stop it, no agitation, no scientific theories; billions human beings would have to be murdered in order to achieve what you strive for.

That is the truth that is now & always been there, someplace, where the average Joe has been afraid to look since as long as he can remember; the thought of the mass of people viewed as cattle.

I assume you are talking about over population or is my sake impairing my reading comprehension?

[max power 21]

The problem with hydro is its "green" claim. Yes it pumps out little or no carbon, but the very act of damning up a river/estuary/water source damages the environment and generally produces extreme ecological impacts.

I agree 100% with the point you bring up. I was going to bring it up earlier myself. I do call into question your definition of what is 'green', though. The selection of a sight or sights for a hydroelectric dam can be made to reduce the impact on the surrounding landscape. Near where I live, for instance, the Cleveland dam creates a man made lake above the Capilano river, however the environment below the dam and above it is flourishing. Plus, once the sight is selected and the dam is built, its further effect on the environment is much less than other forms of energy. The system uses the sun (in the form of water evapouration to move it up stream) and gravity (as it moves downstream) in order to generate electrical power, rather than chemical energy. The downside to this kind of power plant is that not everywhere is suitable for them, and it is not wise to build a dam on every suitable stream.

I should say that the Cleveland dam is not used for hydroelectricity, but for the watershed, but it is the only dam that I come into close contact with on a regular basis.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Max Power