Discussion Board

I believe both sides of the debate really care about our planet and our future and I hope that somehow we can work together to see the similarities instead of the differences.

It seems like Side A says if we don't change our global behaviour, consumption, and production in meaningful ways right now, then we will tip the planet (further) into an environmental global disaster that could end life as we know it on earth.

Side B seems to say there is no such disaster coming, humans did not cause this crisis, we can't afford the money to make the changes. Or they just ridicule, and point at the imperfections of people working to bring the problem into the public debate.

If Side A is right then we have to change to survive, if Side A is wrong then our changes will still help us enjoy a cleaner healthier more energy independent planet for our children.

If Side B is wrong, then we lose our planet and our ability to survive.

If we are going to be wrong, at least I hope we can be on the side of survival.

I hope you aren't serious...

But on the small chance you are, could you please tell me just how we all die?
Tell me where you live and how you will die...

Please include the approximate year of your death, assuming we do nothing to slow global warming.

BTW, if you seriously think we are in danger of dying from global warming, then I assume you favor nearly everything that can be done to limit more carbon being put into the atmosphere.
I assume that will include massive new sources of electric power to replace today's current power being mostly produced by coal.

Will that include nuclear power to replace coal?, or is using nuclear power too scary to save your life?

Just wondering

Explore, please correct me if I'm wrong....but Purdy, I think Explore meant that the human species will eventually die off. Which, global warming or not, thats going to happen to the human species one way or another...one of these days. With that being said though, I'm on side A. Whether man-made global warming is real or not, I want to be gentle to our planet.

OK.....so you want to be gentle.

I'm sure you also want to keep your refrigerator, washing machine, TV, and automobile....as well as keep your house warm in winter and perhaps cooler in summer.
No doubt you want to keep the company where you work in business as well as the other companies who produce all the stuff you buy and use.

So what is gentle. Probably coal is NOT gentle. Coal now produces over 50% of the electricity in the USA and around the world.
Coal plants are being built at the rate of over 2 per week.
China alone builds a new coal plant every single week.

To stop building coal plants and to then reduce the existing ones over 20 years will require a new source of MASSIVE power, not some theoretical bits of gentle power we see in demonstration experiments or in long papers found in environmental journals.

MASSIVE power is needed from a realistic source. It needs to be available 24/7 x 365 days a year.

OK... Now tell me what you propose.

BTW, the worlds power needs are growing every single year and that growth shows NO signs of slowing down.

Now, give me a source of new, carbon free power available 24/7 on a massive basis.

Since one person has asked for details, I will try to provide some frame of reference

The brief answer is I hope you can carefully watch the very informative film called "An Inconvenient Truth". I am sure you can find it at your library, or at a video rental place. Also if you Google "global warming", you can find a great deal of free information about this whole concept. Some of it from scientists, some from non-scientists. They will all be able to answer your detailed questions much better than I could hope to in such a small forum as this. You will see that I am not talking about me personally dying in the next few days of global warming, and I hope that you can better understand the whole issue. And I hope you really can take this more seriously than you seem to.

Even if you do not believe a word of that film or the scientists, what if you are wrong? What if you do not have as much information as they do, what if you have not made a lifetime of studying environment and climate and science? I believe it is reckless for you to want to risk our planet on the assumption that they are all wrong. I think that people who want to do nothing have no clue what is at stake. It is also a huge mistake to assume that there are only two alternatives- either do nothing (rely on fossil fuels and don't change our consumption) or go to nuclear power (and don't change our consumption). I believe that there are many alternatives that include changing what we do and buy and demand and think we are all entitled to, that can make the changes we need to improve our environment and our chances of not just survival but of living.

The basic question we need to ask our conscience is do we want this planet to get better or worse. Granted we are old enough to live a happy healthy life in the USA in a safe clean place with plenty to eat and clean water to drink and maybe even decent air to breathe so we might not think that any of this will affect us. And we expect it to continue for our children, and maybe we have even thought so far out as our grandchildren's lives. But our challenge is to learn more about global environmental and population issues, especially our own country's huge levels of consumption and pollution and our unsustainable demands on our planet. Think beyond our own life and into the future. That is the challenge for all of us.

The economy is partly collapsing because it depends on constant growth in consumer spending. That is just not a sustainable system. It makes us broke, and our houses and landfills full of junk mostly bought in China and other places and puts us all deeper into debt. We have to buy less, spend less, drive less, use less electricity, work harder, and be more aware of the true cost of fossil fuels in terms of air, water, and national security. We had leaders who told us to make sacrifices during WWII, and we pulled together and did it. We rationed, we recycled, we planted victory gardens. We need leaders now who can stand up and tell us (mostly) spoiled childish Americans to eat less, consume less, drive less, and to think beyond our own immediate comforts and desires. Can you imagine if we stopped buying imported oil what would happen to the middle east? The power would shift dramatically, they would have no hold on us anymore. What if we planned cities around not having cars? People could live shop and work in a reasonable distance, walk and bike and take clean useful timely public transport. What if we changed our priorities to long term gains instead of short term profits?

The real opportunities for growth now are in the Green technologies sector. The whole world needs leaders in solar, wind, and other renewable technologies. Holding onto fossil fuels is like demanding to keep teaching the telegraph and morse code while everyone esle is on the internet. The United States can either step up and be a leader like it did for the moon landing or it can fall further behind.

This is not about liberals vs conservatives, aetheists vs christians, or any other debate. We are all human and we all live on this one planet. The patriotic, religious, and logical thing to do is to be a practical environmentalist. It means you love your country's security and status, you are respecting God's creation or the wonders of nature, and you care about your future, and conserving the future of your descendants. There is no issue that is more conservative than conservation. Nothing more religious than life, and nothing more profitable than building a safe planet for all of us.

I just saw your request for more reliable power post. It brings up very real issues about power needs and population demands.

I am not sure what you are arguing. It may be that you are in favor of improving the environment and America's energy independence, but are not sure how to do it all. Neither am I, but I hope that the public debate in the media and in Washington can evolve from denying there is a problem into working together to solve the problems, and especially telling Americans that they can change and be part of the solutions.

I hope that we can agree that the world needs new technologies, and that investing in green alternatives can benefit everyone because coal is not our answer.

I see, the Al Gore film. We should listen to and follow the example of Al Gore. Talk the talk and walk the walk, like Al Gore.

If you don't mind I'll include here a post I made over a year ago

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Al Gore use an average of 18,400 kWH per month......
Last month I had my highest electric usage of the year.
It was under 400 kWH. Al Gore's "average" month is 46 times higher than my "highest" month.
Now, along with the under 400 kWH I used, I only used another 8 therms of natural gas..
Add it all up and it appears that Al Gore's house is using 50 to 75 times the total energy I am using.

My house could run for a lifetime on what Al Gore uses in just one year.
Al Gore is a power pig.

So whats up with that? Why is significant conservation only for the "little people"?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What I object to is "pie in the sky" thinking.
Right now, not only is the world pouring out more carbon into the atmosphere, but the rate of increase is growing faster ever year.
People talk about reducing carbon output when even under the most optimistic projections we won't even slow down the rate of increase.
Most of the clean power and green power ideas that people, with their heads in the clouds, rely upon are minuscule in size.
The solar and wind power under the most optimistic projections won't amount to 20% of your electric needs 20 years from now.
If their is real urgency and if the planet is at true risk, then you'd better take a lesson from the French and Japanese who faced with the realities have taken their electric production to over 80% carbon free nuclear (in the case of France)
NO serious scientist in the world expects that capability of power production to come from solar and wind within 50 years.
If the planet is at true risk, are you willing to wait 50+ years to begin to address the problem?

In the mean time, we don't need hypocrites like Al Gore to be telling us what to do. His entire lifestyle is killing the planet as well as himself.
Aside from his gluttonous house, have you seen the man?

I hope you are not dismissing the whole movie because you don't like that Gore is not perfect. He is the messenger along with hundreds of scientists and the research is very important.

When people dismiss the whole global warming debate because they think Gore is a hypocrite then they remind me of children that are told to stop doing something wrong and they suddenly point to a sibling and say "well he did it first".

It's easier to point to the messenger and say he's not perfect, than it is to admit that he may be telling the truth. Gore is not alone, and he has dedicated enormous amounts of time and energy and resources to getting this message out to the world. You need to listen to the whole message, you need to listen beyond being afraid of change, or embarrassed at your own over consumption, or wishing that you could dismiss everything he says because you heard he did not do everything perfectly while he was working on this huge project for years.

Just because something is hard doesn't make it impossible or not worth doing.

If you want nuclear, then build it, but it too will take a long time to build.

The main point is people need to stop arguing about the little stuff like how much electricity Al Gore used or how fat he is. They need to focus on the science and talk about how are we going to fix this. How can we make the hard changes in our lifestyle. How can we make the public leadership and private consumer change for the good of all of us.

Again it seems like you are arguing about what we can't do, but not admitting that there is a real problem that needs change and the biggest problem is people denying the problem even exists.

ps- deriding someone for being fat is not going to carry much weight on this board We are all doing the best we can.

Well first of all, I dare say I have a lower carbon footprint than 98% of the people on this board and probably use less power than 90% of hard core environmentalists.

What I request/demand of those proposing "pie-in-the-sky" proposals is that they invest in a simple $5 calculator and do the math on their proposals.

We hear about "wave power", ethanol from "switch-grass", solar pumping water back into reservoirs at night, hydrogen from unknown sources.
Then when you calculate the cost of the design on a massive scale, and when you ask for something as simple as a working design, anywhere in the world, providing 24/7 power for even 10,000 people, you come up with nothing.

Dreamers are fine, but at some point, if you are interested in change over, say 20 years, then you have to begin doing something that can be proven to work on a massive scale, providing 24/7 power to a metropolitan area.
We see nothing practical being put forth as a substitute for massive production of electricity.

Next, you can say all you want about the need for declining use of electric power, but the world is telling you otherwise as electric power usage is not only growing, but growing at a ever faster velocity.
You may think it should not be this way, but it is. It is.

What I object to is these people looking who looking for the perfect solution, reject something as proven as nuclear power out of hand.
When a prosperous nation as significant as France provides 80% of its electric power, nearly carbon free, then you have to pay attention.
Instead we see 90% of the "environmental" crowd with their feet stuck in cement, while screaming about the end of the world from global warming.

Pick your substitute method.......using a $5 calculator, show me how or where it would work.
Where is a up and running model that can be duplicated?

Or are you relying entirely on some new....yet to be invented, proposal?

That is what most are doing currently. Employing the tooth fairy alternative.

In the mean time, anti environmentalists like me are averaging about 8 therms of natural gas per month, year round, and have a monthly electric bill averaging about 150 kwh in the summer and about 400 kwh in the winter.
Driving less than 2,000 miles a year in a auto...

All this while the Al Gore types fly tell us to how to live "green" lives.

Show me the power...to fill the worlds growing needs.
Show me a viable, economical, demonstration model supplying even a small city with power.
Until you can show such, then you'd better take your head out of the sand and begin to plan the future using some present day technology
France is now the cleanest country in Europe. The are not waiting for Al Gore's dream world to appear.

PS.. regarding Al Gore's weight, I include a reference to it because one of the lifestyle changes that promotes a better environment is eating in a earth friendly way. Al Gore in that area does not "walk the walk" just as he does not in the other areas of his own life.
I might add, that after leaving office one cannot help but notice that his body has changed dramatically.
Unlike others here, he appears unconcerned about how his continued consumption of animal products affect both the planet and his own body.

You assume a lot of things about me Purdy....not something you should do with someone you know nothing about. I just might be part of the 2% that actually uses less energy than you. I'm sure you know what they say about the word 'assume'.

perhaps if there is someday another viable source of supplying the fuel that we use to manufacture/shipgoods fuel houses/cars that we rely on, ok, fine and dandy.... but often these arguments are supposed to rationalize the current undermining of american businesses and concerns at this particular time in our history

as in.... oh, let's tax the coal industry and drive them into the ground. oh! let's adopt CA's auto emission standards... great idea for someday, but today? while the industry's suffering so?

how ridiculously short-sighted is THAT.

you know, people, the private sector is far more innovative and cost effective a force in the creation of new goods than the government. always has been.

why do you think it's a great idea to turn every aspect of our lives to the government? do you really, really relish every opportunity to confront beaurocracy? love those visits to licensing agencies and the post office? wishing for tax audits so you can experience the fed on a personal level?

but i digress.... those who would limit the size, scope and indebtedness of the fed cringe in fear and disbelief on a daily basis these daze.

the fed isn't always the answer.

My first car was a 1985 Chevy Sprint that got 50 mpg. It was fun, and zippy, and a great little car that I had for over 165,000 miles. Now if I want to buy a car, it seems like the best I can do is 35 mpg. I realize that the safety has increased, but the mileage has dropped so drastically it's really sad. I think I read that China has tougher mileage standards than we do. I am glad that new mileage standards are being adopted, and according to the news, the auto industry is glad also. Adopting CA emission standards for cars might not be too hard, I think cars come with the right smog controls already.

I believe that people like us can help be leaders for positive change, I want the government to recognize the importance of change and help with the debate, but the responsibility lies with all of us.

I think the government is helping with tax incentives and stimulus money for green tech businesses, helping the private sector develop new green tech and hopefully they can become industry leaders in the next big world economy.

Other than that, I am not sure how anyone would think I was calling for turning our lives over to the fed, or wishing for tax audits. I am for stricter environmental and financial regulations and I do want basic safety in the FDA and EPA, and consumer product safety. China is a good example of what happens when you don't have that with milk powder deaths and lead paint on the toys. I do appreciate a certain level of public safety. But regulation needs to be responsible and progressive.

I really do think that Americans have more in common than differences when it comes to protecting our planet and our homes.

Nice to meet you again guys.I am not sure what you are arguing. It may be that you are in favor of improving the environment and America's energy independence, but are not sure how to do it all.Please do something to save our forum.
______________________
floating tanks
shamans