|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 08/13/2001 : 23:23:11 [Permalink]
|
Seb, unfortunately humans as a part of the ecosystem have an impact - with or without technology and industrialization. Imagine the pollutants in the atmosphere from a few billion fires being lit to heat homes instead of the filtered stacks at the electric company. We need to look for the balance between our impact and our ecosystem. Regardless of what we do - we will have an impact on the ecosystem - it is inevitable - we are a part of the ecosystem.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
 |
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2001 : 13:17:50 [Permalink]
|
Of course the impact of using nuclear power instead of fossil fuels would be even less.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
seb
New Member
France
40 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2001 : 14:14:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Seb, unfortunately humans as a part of the ecosystem have an impact - with or without technology and industrialization. Imagine the pollutants in the atmosphere from a few billion fires being lit to heat homes instead of the filtered stacks at the electric company. We need to look for the balance between our impact and our ecosystem. Regardless of what we do - we will have an impact on the ecosystem - it is inevitable - we are a part of the ecosystem.
Trish, I agree on that. But nevertheless we have technological means to reduce our impact on the environnement by recycling and using more efficient systems.
When for immediate profits we do not use this means thinking that our planet ressources are illimited we show how irresponsible we are.
Seb |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2001 : 20:03:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Of course the impact of using nuclear power instead of fossil fuels would be even less.
Toxic Waste.
quote:
Trish, I agree on that. But nevertheless we have technological means to reduce our impact on the environnement by recycling and using more efficient systems.
When for immediate profits we do not use this means thinking that our planet ressources are illimited we show how irresponsible we are.
This is true. But short of legislating the issue it is up to the individual to take responsibility for their own recycling. Unfortunately for me, it costs me extra to have my separated recyclables picked-up. Which means - I can't afford to recycle without going about ten miles out of my way. (I do.) I also turn off lights around the house - constantly - I have a child (she's learning.)
I don't know how much of a direct impact on the environment humans are having as regards global warming or whether it from a natural warming trend or a combination of both. If it's a natural warming trend - we will have to learn to live with it - if its us we must make the necessary changes.
Remember, we've only been keeping recordings of temperatures for approximately 100 years. There's a lot we don't know.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2001 : 20:20:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Remember, we've only been keeping recordings of temperatures for approximately 100 years. There's a lot we don't know.
I constantly hear this, but isn't it also true that there are many ways to determine past temperatures? I thought scientists have a pretty good idea of what global temperatures have been going back tens of thousands of years.
I still say that since it's extremely difficult to refute the fact that temperatures are going up and that what we know about carbon dioxide points to temperature increases along with the fact that we pour vast amounts of it into our atmosphere on a daily basis, a little work towards reducing these emissions should be a priority.
When has environmental cleanup ever been a bad thing? Those with a vested interest in polluting whine and bitch and will continue to do so till temperatures rise to where tin melts on a cold day in Alaska. What's always funny is that though they drag their feet, once they are made to pollute less things go on as well or better than ever. And frankly, I don't think business has a right to destroy the environment. Never did, never will. They just think they do. I say screw them and let the stockholders lose 1¢ a share on dividends.
One more thing. Niclear power may be the answer to some degree, but if we're wrong there it would take even longer to fix than ceasing CO2 emissions. What if we went after fusion power with the gusto we went after the A-Bomb?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
seb
New Member
France
40 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2001 : 07:59:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
When has environmental cleanup ever been a bad thing? ...
And frankly, I don't think business has a right to destroy the environment. Never did, never will. They just think they do. I say screw them and let the stockholders lose 1¢ a share on dividends.
I am not even sure that integrating recycling or environment restrictions would be such a bad thing for the economy. When mobile phones and internet arrived on the market they doped the economy because they created a need that did not exist before. Is not it the same for environment policy.
My statement might be totally stupid because I have no knowledge on economy and not even a precise idea on this particular problem. As dangerous as this can be to elaborate something with so few bases the idea does not seems so stupid to me.
Seb |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2001 : 00:39:11 [Permalink]
|
Thats because the idea ins't stupid.
When environmental regulations are implemented it forces companies to update to the latest technology to comply with them. Usually what happens is that the new technology is far more efficent then the older equipment and so makes it cheaper to run.
It also creates a new industry creating eco-friendly products as well as quite a lot of staff to make sure the regulations are obeyed.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2001 : 02:25:17 [Permalink]
|
Exactly, and what we see is that entirely new industries spring up to meet the new recycling, conservation needs. All the predictions of economic collapse brought on by responsible production have been as accurate as Jean Dixon's annula predictions.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2001 : 06:08:47 [Permalink]
|
Those companies that wont adapt or adapt slowly to the regulation have a tendency of going out of business whereas those that apapt quickly will find themselves becoming more profitable.
This way those businesses that wont change their ways easily will go out of business (or at least be more likely to). It also makes being eco-friendly good for economic reasons which can provide a good reason businesses to clean up.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2001 : 17:03:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Remember, we've only been keeping recordings of temperatures for approximately 100 years. There's a lot we don't know.
I constantly hear this, but isn't it also true that there are many ways to determine past temperatures? I thought scientists have a pretty good idea of what global temperatures have been going back tens of thousands of years.
I still say that since it's extremely difficult to refute the fact that temperatures are going up and that what we know about carbon dioxide points to temperature increases along with the fact that we pour vast amounts of it into our atmosphere on a daily basis, a little work towards reducing these emissions should be a priority.
When has environmental cleanup ever been a bad thing? Those with a vested interest in polluting whine and bitch and will continue to do so till temperatures rise to where tin melts on a cold day in Alaska. What's always funny is that though they drag their feet, once they are made to pollute less things go on as well or better than ever. And frankly, I don't think business has a right to destroy the environment. Never did, never will. They just think they do. I say screw them and let the stockholders lose 1¢ a share on dividends.
One more thing. Niclear power may be the answer to some degree, but if we're wrong there it would take even longer to fix than ceasing CO2 emissions. What if we went after fusion power with the gusto we went after the A-Bomb?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Usually through Antarctic Ice Core Samples and other paleontological evidence found. We also may have a fair idea of CO2 levels during those periods.
My point is that we don't have a full understanding of the impact of human industrialization on the biosphere. I've pointed this out before - the Denver Metro area is a pollution sink. When we have a cold air inversion it traps pollution in the trough where Denver sits. This has little to do with the actual amount of pollutants being dumped into the atmosphere and more to do with the fact that the pollution doesn't disperse. Yet Denver gets penalized by the EPA for having a poor air quality index for several days a year. If you look overall through the year our levels aren't that bad.
All I'm saying is that until we have sufficient evidence of the impact caused by industrialization, CO2, and global warming trying to legislate about it is a bit premature. There are things that we as individuals can do. Don't agree with a companies environmental policies - don't purchase their product. This means a little more work for the individual but is a way of stating your opinion regarding the issue. Also, recycling and conservation practices at the individual level are something that should be done. Don't expect government to solve every problem.
Consumer pressure is often times more effective than government pressure.
As for nuclear power - well look at the problems with Rocky Flats and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. (BTW, 4 more Seren gas bomblets were found recently.)
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2001 : 01:15:14 [Permalink]
|
Consumer pressure is useful, but it isn't enough on its own. Government pressure is also useful and again not enough on its own.
Having the government regulate and fine those companies that pollute more then allowed will do one of two things directly to the company. 1: It will direcly lower their profits, 2: It will force them to raise costs which will then indirectly lower their profits and give their competition more market share.
At least in an ideal world 2 would work. But often people go for the brand names just because of advertising (something I wouldn't mind seeing gone).
Companies exist to make the highest profits (despite what they may say to the contray) so if the government can make a business environment that makes environmetnally friendly products the most profitable then those companies that make them will be the ones that exist.
With advertising whilst we may have to live with it (sadly). Stricter laws should be introduced to stop misleading ads. For example if a company doesn't meet environmental regulations they can't advertise that they care about the environment until they do meet them. That way consumers are less likely to be coned into buying products that are more harmful to the environment because the ad said eco-friendly.
In fact the laws to do that probably already exist, it's just a matter of enforcement.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2001 : 16:47:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My point is that we don't have a full understanding of the impact of human industrialization on the biosphere. I've pointed this out before - the Denver Metro area is a pollution sink. When we have a cold air inversion it traps pollution in the trough where Denver sits. This has little to do with the actual amount of pollutants being dumped into the atmosphere and more to do with the fact that the pollution doesn't disperse. Yet Denver gets penalized by the EPA for having a poor air quality index for several days a year. If you look overall through the year our levels aren't that bad.
Are you saying that toxic air is okay as long as it happens only some of the time? I hope that you never get COPD.
quote:
All I'm saying is that until we have sufficient evidence of the impact caused by industrialization, CO2, and global warming trying to legislate about it is a bit premature. There are things that we as individuals can do. Don't agree with a companies environmental policies - don't purchase their product. This means a little more work for the individual but is a way of stating your opinion regarding the issue. Also, recycling and conservation practices at the individual level are something that should be done. Don't expect government to solve every problem.
Consumer pressure is often times more effective than government pressure.
If I burn tires in my backyard, the local government will fine me for being a nusance. Maybe the town should just tell my neighbors to not talk to me instead. Why should big polluters be allowed to continue unmolested while I have a fine to pay? Should corporations have more rights than individuals? There is enough misinformation out there about pollution and it's effects to make any wide ranging boycott unlikely. Of course if polluting industries are in ones own neighborhood, then they become a problem. Maybe factories should be in everybody's neighborhood. I think you would see the government act quickly.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2001 : 21:16:22 [Permalink]
|
That is one of the stupidest ideas I have heard in a while. I don't see how it could be more cost effective and certainly not safer than keeping power generation centralized.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 05:42:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That is one of the stupidest ideas I have heard in a while. I don't see how it could be more cost effective and certainly not safer than keeping power generation centralized.
Ouch! 
From the article, addressing your point:
quote:
"In the future it will be quite difficult to construct further large nuclear power plants because of site restrictions," Mitsuru Kambe, head of the research team, told the British science weekly.
"To relieve peak loads in the near future, I believe small, modular reactors located in urban areas such as Tokyo Bay will be effective," he said.
And many small power sources run independently surely will be cheaper than having one company setting arbitrary prices on power, yes?
------------
Ma gavte la nata!
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 08/23/2001 05:46:05 |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
