SUV Self-righteousness

HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
SUV Self-righteousness

There's something that happens with addicts of any drug, it seems, when they're firmly entrenched in their need. They compare themselves to other drug addicts, and find that they aren't "that bad". "I'm certainly not doing as much cocaine as she is" is the common refrain of many a party girl. But what does this have to do with SUVs?

The popular take on the Hummer is that it's a symbol of our environment-killing decadence. Humvees burn more fuel than other cars, and presumably pollute more as a result. Like other SUVs, they're unnecessarily large and opulent.

However, just because the owner of a Prius doesn't pollute at a faster rate than someone with an SUV doesn't mean they aren't polluting. They are. They're still addicted to the same drug as the owner of the SUV.

I've heard people say that they simply couldn't survive without a car, and that may be true for them, since they don't know any other way to live. From supporting family and friends in their efforts to fight addiction, that pattern is extremely familiar. The number of times I've heard people say that they couldn't live without alcohol staggers the mind.

Also familiar is the self-righteousness in pointing at others as "worse polluters" (ie "worse users"). If you drive a car, you're addicted, and you're an oilaholic. We all are. Blaming others and putting the bulk of the blame somewhere else is another common denominator among addicts.

Hey, don't worry, we can go on fuel-cell methadone. No problem. Wind power will save us, sure. How about solar power? That looks promising, doesn't it?

The frank and simple answer is "no". We're going to have to quit the same way every addict does: the drug becomes too expensive, both personally and financially. That includes Prius drivers, who may believe themselves somehow immune from environmental criticism by their car purchase. Not so, fellow oilaholics.

We're in this one together. The type of mirror you use to snort your coke doesn't make that much of a difference.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Doesn't make that much

Quote:
Doesn't make that much of a difference, really. Having no cars would make a difference. But then, so would having no computers, and look at us. I'm not going to get on a high horse about computers, and I suppose nobody on an internet forum would, either.

I prefer to focus on obvious, siren-blaring, immediate problems. Right now, hydrocarbon scarcity and overwhelming overpopulation are those problems.

Honestly, if we simply stopped using cars and had 4-5 billion less people, we could essentially do whatever we wanted without running into serious problems. In either case, there will never realistically be any kind of 'silica shortage' as it's one of the most abundant resources on the planet. Not having computers would, I would argue, not provide any significant benefits outweighing the loss in communicative power or (well) computing power - both of which are instrumental for providing education.

Not having personal cars on the other hand, or trying to deal with the energy needs of 7 billion people?

That's rather another story.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Actually computers take up

Actually computers take up power.

 

So they should be restricited to educational use only. Making games consumes un necessary power. Espically these MMORPGs, I mean can you imagine how much power the Blizzard servers consume? Is that really needed?

 

A lot of sites are also unnecessary and consume room [and hence power] on servers which causes the server to consume more power. And then you probably need cooling units etc...

 

 

So yeah, gaming and non-educational use of computers produce unneeded waste from the power the consume.

 

 

 

 

 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Quote:So

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
So I think that if people want to deal with environmental problems they should start at the top and then deal with my car and my light bulbs when they make their way to the bottom.

Ah, yes:

'Why should I have to sacrifice!? Make them do it instead!'

 

*Sigh*

 

This is why we fail.

 

Since your idea of success is a population reduction of 80% I guess 8 out of 10 of us are lucky the world is a failure by your standards.

You talk about people being selfish but you want four and a half billion people to disappear while you stay here. That's the height of selfishness.  Have you sterilized yourself yet? Are you going to have yourself euthanized at 21 like in Logan's run? If not then maybe you shouldn't be so quick to criticize other people.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Actually

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Actually computers take up power.

 

So they should be restricited to educational use only. Making games consumes un necessary power. Espically these MMORPGs, I mean can you imagine how much power the Blizzard servers consume? Is that really needed?

 

A lot of sites are also unnecessary and consume room [and hence power] on servers which causes the server to consume more power. And then you probably need cooling units etc...

 

 

So yeah, gaming and non-educational use of computers produce unneeded waste from the power the consume.

Neither computers nor gaming systems use a fraction of as much energy as automobiles do.

For example, let's say you have a big high-end computer with a gaming-level graphics card and an old CRT monitor, and you leave them on 24/7. That's about 330 watts x 24 hours x 365 days/yr = 2,890,800 watt-hours, or 2891 kilowatt-hours. If you're paying $0.14 per kWh, you're paying $405 a year to run your computer.

Let's try a different example: You have a computer that's less of an energy hog, like in iMac G5 20", which uses about 105 watts, and you're smart enough to turn it off when you're not using it. You use it for two hours a day, five days a week. That's ten hours a week, or 520 hours a year. So your 105 watts times 520 hours = 54,600 watt-hours. Divide by 1000 and you have 55 kilowatt-hours (kWh). If you're paying 10¢ per kilowatt-hour, then you're paying $5.50 a year to run your computer.

That's quite a range, $5.50 to $405 a year. It really depends on what kind of computer it is, and how much you use it -- and especially whether you sleep it when you're not using it. Both the examples above are extremes. I used to have only one example somewhere in the middle but then I'd see people on blogs and messageboards misquoting it by writing, "Mr. Electricity says a computer costs about about $150/yr. to run" No, that is not what I said. I said that was just an example. Your situation is almost certainly different, and you need to consider all the variables, like what kind of computer it is, how much you use it, and most especially whether you leave it running all the time or sleep it when you're not using it.

 

I'd get into the cars...but I've never heard of anyone who only had to spend 400 a year to do their general driving. Maybe in Venezuela...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:This will

HisWillness wrote:

This will be weird coming from a local-food-advocating, all-season-cycling, energy-efficiency freak like me, but Gauche is right (no pun intended). I'll explain.

Tapey wrote:
Using energy effiecent light bulbs witch save you money is that outragous?

I'd say it's half-and-half on whether the industrial process to make said light bulbs and their resulting mercury content is better than the improvement in energy consumption.

True it depends

HisWillness wrote:

Tapey wrote:
Having a car that saves you money on petrol is that outragous?

Doesn't make that much of a difference, really. Having no cars would make a difference. But then, so would having no computers, and look at us. I'm not going to get on a high horse about computers, and I suppose nobody on an internet forum would, either.

True and i have said that about four times so far in this thread, btw computers are essential to how we live. having huge cars arn't.

HisWillness wrote:

Tapey wrote:
Would it be to outragous to ask you to not to leave lights on while you are out( if you are in a safe neibourhood)  or not in the room whitch btw also saves you money?

You can ask.

It is resonable and and don't see why it is so hard. South Africa saved 200 tons (if im remembering properly) of coal alone with the whole earth hour thing I posted and that was just one hour.

HisWillness wrote:

Tapey wrote:
Personally I say however much you can manage without serious inconveniances.

That's kind of the problem. What different people consider a serious inconvenience is different. I bike in the winter, but then I think it's fun. It's like skiing on the way to work! But not everyone has a peppy outlook about a daily ritual of near-death experiences.

Here's why Gauche is right: if you're going to get morally indignant about something, it should be something that is clearly morally repugnant. The environmental problem is very clear, but the solutions border on the ridiculous. Recycling? Are we joking? Works great for metal and ... oh, nothing else. Glass can be reused if you want to be really environmental ( http://www.harmonyorganic.on.ca/ ), but recycling it requires a lot of heat, which naturally comes from fossil fuels. Getting upset at someone because they aren't recycling is like getting upset at someone because they don't turn around three times before getting into bed.

Sure, it would be terrific if everyone saw the future clearly, but it didn't happen to the Romans, and it's definitely not going to happen to us.

Yes i do agree I suspect what I call inconvenient and what other call inconvienant is very different. Yes the 'solutions' are ridiculus but there are some reasonable ones, don't believe I have mentioned recyling though. That is why a few posts back I siad we need an agricultural  reform away from the energy intensive green revolution model. My only piont was there are some very reasonable things you can do instead of doing nothing.

 

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Neither

Vastet wrote:

Neither computers nor gaming systems use a fraction of as much energy as automobiles do.

I wasn't thinking energy as far as electronics go. Cars last longer than five years, whereas a laptop will last about three on average, and a desktop system five. The amount of waste that creates is phenomenal. More recycling happens with cars than with computers, so I'd say there's much less waste in the fabrication of a car.

But cars definitely use more energy. By far. A car with a 150 horsepower engine uses almost as much energy as 30 houses. (150 horsepower = 112 kilowatts, the average house uses around 3-5 kilowatts at peak.)

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:True and i have

Tapey wrote:
True and i have said that about four times so far in this thread, btw computers are essential to how we live. having huge cars arn't.

I don't know if computers are essential, for the most part, but you're right in saying that having a huge car isn't. But if there's little difference between having a huge car and a small car as far as environmental impact, then maybe just addressing cars in general would be more to the point. North America is now dependent on cars, having painted itself into a corner through bad city planning and the degradation of the public transit system.

Tapey wrote:
It is resonable and and don't see why it is so hard. South Africa saved 200 tons (if im remembering properly) of coal alone with the whole earth hour thing I posted and that was just one hour.

Truthfully, I don't know why it's so hard, either. I can travel 100km on my bike without much complaint. In fact, it's a fun trip. But not everyone feels the same way. For some people, just turning off their lights every once and a while is a huge deal, and even though I don't understand exactly why that is, North American values still include the Greek notion of the importance of freedom.

Tapey wrote:
Yes i do agree I suspect what I call inconvenient and what other call inconvienant is very different. Yes the 'solutions' are ridiculus but there are some reasonable ones, don't believe I have mentioned recyling though. That is why a few posts back I siad we need an agricultural  reform away from the energy intensive green revolution model. My only piont was there are some very reasonable things you can do instead of doing nothing.

Agricultural reform would be fantastic, I'll give you that. The organic movement at this point is the only indication that we might have a good start going. If enough people learned to farm organically, it might not be a shock when the price of oil and natural gas really goes up.

Here's where my light-heartedness about this comes from: I think that this is going to be the only problem ever that actually solves itself. Our faith in the free market will convince us that we're at the mercy of a high oil price, and we'll slow down consumption just like we did this past price spike. Once the price of oil really starts ranging high, we'll come to accept that food costs more, and travel costs more, and we'll slow down because we have to. It won't be a big catastrophe or anything, we'll just slow down. When we've slowed down, we won't be able to afford to have as many kids, and we won't be able to afford to pollute, and the population will come down just like it does in any other period of resource crisis.

Hopefully the seas can recover, because all of the big fish are gone. I mean gone.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Tapey

HisWillness wrote:

Tapey wrote:
True and i have said that about four times so far in this thread, btw computers are essential to how we live. having huge cars arn't.

I don't know if computers are essential, for the most part, but you're right in saying that having a huge car isn't. But if there's little difference between having a huge car and a small car as far as environmental impact, then maybe just addressing cars in general would be more to the point. North America is now dependent on cars, having painted itself into a corner through bad city planning and the degradation of the public transit system.

Tapey wrote:
It is resonable and and don't see why it is so hard. South Africa saved 200 tons (if im remembering properly) of coal alone with the whole earth hour thing I posted and that was just one hour.

Truthfully, I don't know why it's so hard, either. I can travel 100km on my bike without much complaint. In fact, it's a fun trip. But not everyone feels the same way. For some people, just turning off their lights every once and a while is a huge deal, and even though I don't understand exactly why that is, North American values still include the Greek notion of the importance of freedom.

Tapey wrote:
Yes i do agree I suspect what I call inconvenient and what other call inconvienant is very different. Yes the 'solutions' are ridiculus but there are some reasonable ones, don't believe I have mentioned recyling though. That is why a few posts back I siad we need an agricultural  reform away from the energy intensive green revolution model. My only piont was there are some very reasonable things you can do instead of doing nothing.

Agricultural reform would be fantastic, I'll give you that. The organic movement at this point is the only indication that we might have a good start going. If enough people learned to farm organically, it might not be a shock when the price of oil and natural gas really goes up.

Here's where my light-heartedness about this comes from: I think that this is going to be the only problem ever that actually solves itself. Our faith in the free market will convince us that we're at the mercy of a high oil price, and we'll slow down consumption just like we did this past price spike. Once the price of oil really starts ranging high, we'll come to accept that food costs more, and travel costs more, and we'll slow down because we have to. It won't be a big catastrophe or anything, we'll just slow down. When we've slowed down, we won't be able to afford to have as many kids, and we won't be able to afford to pollute, and the population will come down just like it does in any other period of resource crisis.

Hopefully the seas can recover, because all of the big fish are gone. I mean gone.

I am not sure organic is the way to go, true it would be a nice goal but would we have to have enough food to feed every one, with 100% organic it is doubfull that we could, expessially after 30 years of green revilution soil degradation perhaps one day we will manage 100% organic but for now I think GM is possibily the way to go, so long as they have a strain that doesn't require so much oil based products. GM with organic methods would be good if the scientists can work it out. I know there are questions aout safety but they have been in the food market for a while now and we aren't all dieing so I think it is safe to assume the ones currently out are relativly safe, although it is possible they could be increasing peoples chances of geting cancer etc. 

 

Cars in genral are for now essential so are computers, I am not a fan of public transportation expessially trians as they use more fuel per person they cars (most of them). I realise that the differance per car is not statistically relavant but when you take them as a group It would reduce consumtion by perhaps 1% assuming everyone got into a real tiny thing. Add a number of other easy things and you have a decent change but still not enough.

 

I see where your logic comes from but I doubt it will solve itself. Regardless of what we do oil will run out by that it cannot solve itself but yes we will use less when the price jumps but this isn't an acceptable solution, it may be all fine and good in america or other first world countries but in the third world it would be a killer.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:I am not sure

Tapey wrote:
I am not sure organic is the way to go, true it would be a nice goal but would we have to have enough food to feed every one

I'm saying we won't, full stop. Regardless of what we do, we can't feed everyone right now. That means the poorest will die in even greater numbers than they do now, and the richest (that's us) will be pretty much fine. If we try to get into organic as a transitional step, then we might stand a chance before a serious drop in available energy occurs. Mind you, I think that will be gradually, but we'll know when people don't have access to an unlimited amount of food like they do now.

Tapey wrote:
GM with organic methods would be good if the scientists can work it out.

That's a pretty big "if". Simple breeding in plants can cause unforeseen difficulties, but the recent tendency towards "suicide" strains of corn and wheat is just plain fucked up.

Tapey wrote:
I am not a fan of public transportation expessially trians as they use more fuel per person they cars (most of them).

Really? I didn't know that. Where did you see that statistic?

Tapey wrote:
I see where your logic comes from but I doubt it will solve itself. Regardless of what we do oil will run out by that it cannot solve itself but yes we will use less when the price jumps but this isn't an acceptable solution, it may be all fine and good in america or other first world countries but in the third world it would be a killer.

It already is a killer in the third world. They keep making kids, and the kids keep dying of starvation. It's awful. I forgot to mention that earlier to Gauche, who should know that population control is already underway, and has been for quite some time. It's the poor people who represent the unlucky starving.

Don't even get me started on ethanol and bio-diesel. What a waste.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Tapey

HisWillness wrote:

Tapey wrote:
I am not sure organic is the way to go, true it would be a nice goal but would we have to have enough food to feed every one

I'm saying we won't, full stop. Regardless of what we do, we can't feed everyone right now. That means the poorest will die in even greater numbers than they do now, and the richest (that's us) will be pretty much fine. If we try to get into organic as a transitional step, then we might stand a chance before a serious drop in available energy occurs. Mind you, I think that will be gradually, but we'll know when people don't have access to an unlimited amount of food like they do now.

Actually there is enough food in the world for everyone to eat it is purchasing power that screws people over. 

HisWillness wrote:

Tapey wrote:
GM with organic methods would be good if the scientists can work it out.

That's a pretty big "if". Simple breeding in plants can cause unforeseen difficulties, but the recent tendency towards "suicide" strains of corn and wheat is just plain fucked up.

Yes there are problem but it does seem the most logical solution. I personally don't see any better around the corner. You are right it is a huge if. Mainly because the people who fund it want to make money off the other inputs they will require so research naturally gets steered in that direction.

HisWillness wrote:

Tapey wrote:
I am not a fan of public transportation expessially trians as they use more fuel per person they cars (most of them).

Really? I didn't know that. Where did you see that statistic?

This isn't where I saw it but a quick google does the trick, first heard it in my university lecture. It isn't all trains basically the faster the train the worse it is. Normal trains are only slightly worse though. The comparisin is between a full car and a full trian so oviously it depends.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1465041/Cars-are-more-fuel-efficient-than-trains-claims-study.html

Taxi's are cool lift clubs or whatever are cool busses im not sure about I suspect they are fine when they are full probably not when they aren't though.

HisWillness wrote:

Tapey wrote:
I see where your logic comes from but I doubt it will solve itself. Regardless of what we do oil will run out by that it cannot solve itself but yes we will use less when the price jumps but this isn't an acceptable solution, it may be all fine and good in america or other first world countries but in the third world it would be a killer.

It already is a killer in the third world. They keep making kids, and the kids keep dying of starvation. It's awful. I forgot to mention that earlier to Gauche, who should know that population control is already underway, and has been for quite some time. It's the poor people who represent the unlucky starving.

Don't even get me started on ethanol and bio-diesel. What a waste.

The only way it is going to improve is with better economic conditions not more food avaible.  The kids are a by product of the povety, I hope you can take my word o that because I don't really feel like typing out why that is. To most people it seems well weird, thats what I have found though. ethanol and bio-diesel are fun! Lets take food starving people could be eating and run our cars on it. Yay us!

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:Actually there

Tapey wrote:
Actually there is enough food in the world for everyone to eat it is purchasing power that screws people over.

I see that you're into economics. That may have made you overlook a few things that usually get externalized in economic theory. (It's no fault of economic theory, it's just what happens.) I'll explain:

You're examining a closed system with food supply. There's only so much sunlight we could possibly get to hit plants over the course of a growing season, and there's only so much space, and even with the addition of artificial fertilizers, there's only so much nitrogen we can bind to the soil. The closed system that is the earth has gone past its capacity to sustain this population. My evidence that this is happening is the declining fish stocks of the sea, and the amount of rainforest being turned into wasteland. So whether or not more people have more purchasing power is irrelevant, as purchasing power is merely an illusory representation of what people are willing to sell things for. If food all of a sudden becomes so scarce that not everyone can afford it, then the people dying of starvation aren't really suffering from a decline in purchasing power, they're suffering from the fact that there simply isn't enough food for everyone.

Tapey wrote:
The only way it is going to improve is with better economic conditions not more food avaible.  The kids are a by product of the povety, I hope you can take my word o that because I don't really feel like typing out why that is.

Regardless of what it is, "better economic conditions" have been shown to exist only in formerly imperialist countries with access to other countries' cheap labour and resources. Those countries with the cheap labour and resources are not in terrific shape. Even China, with its massive economic expansion, has not produced a better economic situation for the majority of its people. Nor has it solved the problem of feeding its people.

Seriously, the world is simply past the point of being able to expand its population. That means that the population needs to shrink one way or another. We won't be able to solve the problem of feeding everyone. When I say "solve itself" I mean "oh shit".

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Tapey

HisWillness wrote:

Tapey wrote:
Actually there is enough food in the world for everyone to eat it is purchasing power that screws people over.

I see that you're into economics. That may have made you overlook a few things that usually get externalized in economic theory. (It's no fault of economic theory, it's just what happens.) I'll explain:

You're examining a closed system with food supply. There's only so much sunlight we could possibly get to hit plants over the course of a growing season, and there's only so much space, and even with the addition of artificial fertilizers, there's only so much nitrogen we can bind to the soil. The closed system that is the earth has gone past its capacity to sustain this population. My evidence that this is happening is the declining fish stocks of the sea, and the amount of rainforest being turned into wasteland. So whether or not more people have more purchasing power is irrelevant, as purchasing power is merely an illusory representation of what people are willing to sell things for. If food all of a sudden becomes so scarce that not everyone can afford it, then the people dying of starvation aren't really suffering from a decline in purchasing power, they're suffering from the fact that there simply isn't enough food for everyone.

While yes resources are on the decline as it currently stands there is enough at this particular piont in time, if that will be the case in ten twenty years I don't know. Most of the rain forests going to hell is due to farming. More and more is being cut down for farms. Mainly in third world first world not so much or at all really. It is third world where it's happening. My piont is that even if there is food avalaible it is pontless if people can't afford to buy it. Yes tomorrows problem could very well be a lack of food but today it is a economic problem. Should we try stop tomorrows problem? yes, but todays needs adressing aswel.

HisWillness wrote:

Tapey wrote:
The only way it is going to improve is with better economic conditions not more food avaible.  The kids are a by product of the povety, I hope you can take my word o that because I don't really feel like typing out why that is.

Regardless of what it is, "better economic conditions" have been shown to exist only in formerly imperialist countries with access to other countries' cheap labour and resources. Those countries with the cheap labour and resources are not in terrific shape. Even China, with its massive economic expansion, has not produced a better economic situation for the majority of its people. Nor has it solved the problem of feeding its people.

Seriously, the world is simply past the point of being able to expand its population. That means that the population needs to shrink one way or another. We won't be able to solve the problem of feeding everyone. When I say "solve itself" I mean "oh shit".

lol by oh shit you are correct it's just not a solution I would want to happen. With overpopulation, raise peoples economic standings and they will have less kids. It isn't them having money that reduces the number of kids, it is all the things that make your country capable of improving its position and i'm sorry to say it is all but impossible with free trade. It is nice in principle but it harms less developed countries economies. Btw yes in all likelyhoods first world countries would have to take a dip for it to happen.

 

 

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


radikal
Posts: 15
Joined: 2009-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Transportation industry's

The transportation industry's pollution is actually quite small when compared to that of agriculture, energy production, and manufacturing. I think there is a fad going on right now where corporations are telling consumers that they can buy their way into fixing the earth's ecosystem - just by purchasing an "eco friendly" products.  I do admire those who eat less meat, drive less, and conserve energy. However, their contribution does little to nothing to change anything. There will have to be tariffs, carbon taxes, and criminal prosecutions for a significant change. 

This is without going into the economic system, which by itself is unsustainable. Because we are so reliant on multi-national corporations, there is an overproduction of goods,  and the buying  of "green" products only perpetuates the production.

What we are dealing with is not a the result of people being addicted to polluting.This assumes that regular people are the ones deciding energy policies. They are not.  if regular people had any influence on energy policies, im sure there would be less pollution.

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

I would totally drive any one of these.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
I want to drive one of these

I want to drive one of these Think I would feel guilty thought


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Eh..I'll pass on that.

 

So far safety standards don't seem to be up to par for those.

 

Plus think how expensive it would be to fillup.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote: I’m sure

Tapey wrote:

 I’m sure as humans we are smart enough to have thought up a way to filter out and trap the greenhouse gases although no doubt expensive at the moment.

And we name thus things “plants”(trees , grass ) maybe you can find them in this magical place we name a forest and they are zero cost.

Tapey wrote:

Disposable non-biodegradable products really aren't that big of a deal at the moment but they will be at some point. Good thing we have biodegradable plastics on the way.

 

Nonsense explain how according to the lows of physic and the rules of reality biodegradability is something good ? If I take plastics and burry them underground then nothing will accrue plastics are non reactive  they eventually turn into carbon. And you always can burry  amounted stuff underground simply spray some dirt on it and grass will grow.

Why do you hate rocks ? Rocks are non biodegradable and the most abandon thing on earth and they are non recyclable and don’t biodegrade they are simply in the ground and every non reactive substance is the same you can bury it in the ground ! No problem !

Besides I have a better idea burn the plastic ! You get the energy back and the carbon dioxide gets back into circulation so plants absorbed it and you can extract it again from them. With brings us back to the 1950 model with is ultimately the most perfect solution for everything and environmentalism a silly superstition.

BTW :
Peak oil hysteria if you can not do a dam thing about it then don’t panic the end will come if it comes and if you wrong it will not come. Enjoy life and don’t cry that the end will come in X time. If you can not stop it there is no way to be worried about the unavoidable. If you have answers and solutions present them with would negate the need for a hysteria about the doom. Nuclear , hydro electric and solar panels in space will solve all energy problems of the world.
 

 

Anime_Otaku wrote:

D-cubed wrote:

I've never heard any of my fellow hybrid drivers claim that driving a more fuel efficient vehicle wasn't polluting the environment.  All you have done is knock down a strawman.

Actually, while that may be true compared to SUVs what most people don't know is that compared to an equivilent Diesel car a hybrid is MORE polluting over it's entire life. When it's driving it doesn't produce as much pollutants in it's exhaust but once it gets junked the batteries are very polluting. Personally I don't drive but my folks have a diesel saloon/sedan. What I'm hoping will get sorted soon is a good hydrogen network so that the hydrogen powered car Honda make can get sold outside California.

 

Hydrogen is more dangerous and caries less energy then a similar amount of oil that we can possibly fit in the same container. I suggest synthetic oil will be the future partly because we can get it from plants and its the best possible energy carrier ever.However batteries are polluting ! Don’t believe the big green corporate lies see green washing its all a trick  , environmentalism is a absolutely wrong standpoint on everything.

 

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote:Tapey

carx wrote:

Tapey wrote:

 I’m sure as humans we are smart enough to have thought up a way to filter out and trap the greenhouse gases although no doubt expensive at the moment.

And we name thus things “plants”(trees , grass ) maybe you can find them in this magical place we name a forest and they are zero cost.

Yeah they don't work at the rate we produce. I was more thinking something more immediate that won't take years and years to grow. But either way more trees is good.

carx wrote:

Tapey wrote:

Disposable non-biodegradable products really aren't that big of a deal at the moment but they will be at some point. Good thing we have biodegradable plastics on the way.

 

Nonsense explain how according to the lows of physic and the rules of reality biodegradability is something good ? If I take plastics and burry them underground then nothing will accrue plastics are non reactive  they eventually turn into carbon. And you always can burry  amounted stuff underground simply spray some dirt on it and grass will grow.

Why do you hate rocks ? Rocks are non biodegradable and the most abandon thing on earth and they are non recyclable and don’t biodegrade they are simply in the ground and every non reactive substance is the same you can bury it in the ground ! No problem !

Besides I have a better idea burn the plastic ! You get the energy back and the carbon dioxide gets back into circulation so plants absorbed it and you can extract it again from them. With brings us back to the 1950 model with is ultimately the most perfect solution for everything and environmentalism a silly superstition.

BTW :
Peak oil hysteria if you can not do a dam thing about it then don’t panic the end will come if it comes and if you wrong it will not come. Enjoy life and don’t cry that the end will come in X time. If you can not stop it there is no way to be worried about the unavoidable. If you have answers and solutions present them with would negate the need for a hysteria about the doom. Nuclear , hydro electric and solar panels in space will solve all energy problems of the world.
 

 There is a differance between not that big a deal and a good thing. No clue what you are on about with rocks.

on second thoughts... on reading this i cannot tell if you are serious or not. I really cannot tell if you are joking.

carx wrote:

Anime_Otaku wrote:

D-cubed wrote:

I've never heard any of my fellow hybrid drivers claim that driving a more fuel efficient vehicle wasn't polluting the environment.  All you have done is knock down a strawman.

Actually, while that may be true compared to SUVs what most people don't know is that compared to an equivilent Diesel car a hybrid is MORE polluting over it's entire life. When it's driving it doesn't produce as much pollutants in it's exhaust but once it gets junked the batteries are very polluting. Personally I don't drive but my folks have a diesel saloon/sedan. What I'm hoping will get sorted soon is a good hydrogen network so that the hydrogen powered car Honda make can get sold outside California.

 

Hydrogen is more dangerous and caries less energy then a similar amount of oil that we can possibly fit in the same container. I suggest synthetic oil will be the future partly because we can get it from plants and its the best possible energy carrier ever.However batteries are polluting ! Don’t believe the big green corporate lies see green washing its all a trick  , environmentalism is a absolutely wrong standpoint on everything.

 

"synthetic" oil from plants is a bad idea.... full stop. The reasons are obvious if you think about it for a minute im sure you will figure out why.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.