Global Warming and the Green Revolution

[LisiusChase]

My first post somewhere other than the introductory sections; The water is very deep out here.

Now, the other day me and Paradox had begun a small discussion about Global Warming and the Green Revolution. I'll let Paradox post his own writing on here as to not cause any conflict; but the argument (- in a nutshell -) went as fallows:

Is Global Warming a naturally occurring cycle in the earth? Is it something Man Made? or is it a Government ploy?

Now, my take on the whole thing is, if Global Warming is or isn't real; what harm can be done by trying to find new, cleaner resources and technology to reach 'sustainability.' For example; there is a scientist in Colorado, who's name alludes me at the moment, who's entire house cost as much to run as a average light bulb; and he has developed a ultra light car that gets over one hundred miles a gallon. You can't tell me that these sort of advantages are bad? Not only would they be good during these harsh economic times, but they would be more sustainable for the planet.

But, one of the biggest problems with the counterpart to the global warming craze is it's counterpart the 'green revolution' which in my eyes is nothing more than a devious concoction formed by large corporations to fool the general masses into buying there goods. I would include anything labeled a 'green product,' recycling, hybrid cars, 'green energy,' and organic food here. It's wrong that companies exploit such things to gain money, but that is business. There are various problems with each of the items listed.

I. Green Products
Clorox has introduced it's new line of organic 'green' cleaning products. I went and did some research on these to see the pro's and cons and this was my discovery:

Wanting to live a more balanced, natural life? Homes are an important place where we want to achieve this balance. With the aim of creating a practical way to green your home without making trade-offs, each product contains over 99% natural ingredients that are biodegradable. Green Works™ cleaners are not tested on animals and use recyclable packaging.

We’re proud to offer a natural line of cleaners that clean without harsh chemical residue. They’re made with plant-based materials that clean with the power you’d expect from Clorox

Clorox Greenworks

Although they give off this friendly atmosphere there are a few things that concern me.
1) What sort of plants are they using in making this? Not all plants are healthy or good; I want to know if I'm washing my dishes with hemlock or poison ivy.
2) Plastic Container, and it's recyclable. More will be discussed in the recycling section.

This is just one of the several hundred products that this green revolution has brought about; Clorox has been a company making harsh chemicals their entire life and now they just up and make something 'safer' how come they didn't do this years ago then? Because there was no demand, but now that the demand is here; they have it.

II. Recycling
Now; although recycling is a better alternative to just throwing away things; it still generates just as much pollution as a landfill. Prove myself? Quite simple; recycling requires a ton of energy to do it's job. Recycling degrades the quality of some material such as plastics and paper. Recycling also releases harmful air pollutants and water pollutants.

A recent study compared the dioxin levels in women of child-bearing age at two sites in China, the destination for 70 percent of electronic waste: an e-waste recycling site and an area without e-waste recycling. They analyzed the dioxins, or compounds linked to cancer, developmental defects and other health problems, in samples of breast milk, placenta and hair.

The danger's of recycling This article here was based off the recycling of electronic products undergoing recycling; and the harmful chemicals that it creates; most notably dioxins.

So, until we can find something better; I suggest just limiting use of plastic and use more glass and paper if you are really concerned about this; however everything is made from the earth, there has to be a way to return it safely.

III. Hybrid Cars
Paradox; had mentioned that the batteries for these cars are twice as toxic as a normal batter. I believe he was referring to the amounts of lead in these cars. And the problem with lead based batteries is that companies ship them overseas where women are and children are working in sweat shops to extract the lead. But; hybrid cars are like recycling. In my eyes they are a step in the right direction; but a step backwards as well. Sure they use less gasoline, but they still use it. Personally, I think the most promising source of fuel will be Hydrogen fuel cells; that we should be seeing in a few more years.
IV. Green Energy
This one is the least negative of all the other categories; I live in Texas and there are strong movements to turn a lot of the barren windy west of our state into wind farms; and I think that is wonderful. Coal is old technology, we got rid of steam very fast; and now we need to get rid of coal. Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric, and the other experimental renewable energies are by far one of the biggest things that wouldn't just help the planet, but in turn aid the economy.

V. Organic Foods
This one just plain anger's me.
First of all is organic vegetables and fruits. (Crop farming for simplicities sake) Organic crop farming is bogus as far as I'm concerned. Not only does it need twice the land because it produces less yield, but it also uses 'organic' or 'green' fertilizers and pesticides which contain naturally toxic compounds that are killing other valuable organisms such as honeybees. (- which are on the verge of being endangered! -) And an apple that is grown in synthetic pesticides and fertilizers has roughly the same if not more nutrient than an organically grown apple. Organic apples are more susceptible to disease, and they also have a lower shelf life. All at a higher cost! Not to mention the companies using this 'organic' exploit are usually the same companies that own the conventional farming outlets.

Organic meat is even more enraging. This so called free range farming is dangerous; what basically qualifies as a 'free range' farm is that they use no man made antibiotics or steroids; and their animals have access to a pasture or grazing field. However it is still a means of factory farming livestock. Lets use chickens for this example; chickens are kept by the HUNDREDS in coups as large as warehouses; these chickens that are free range have access to the outside; no antibiotics just feed... now with the sheer number of them; most of these chickens don't even see the otuside in their life until their head is lobbed off and they are sent off for processing. The number of sick chickens in such a small area with such a high population one would assume is staggering. Therefore; when you get this organic meat, remember it's treated the same way as regular cattle or livestock but it's just not given anything to keep it healthy.

But, I could start a whole new thread on the farming industry. They are the leading source of pollutions, and conventional farming is far from right. But organic farming is not the right step. Smarter farming, rotating crops and seasonal crops is smart farming; however companies have their roots so deep into this business it's hard for farmers to do anything to help.

Anyway; there is a truck load of more things I could say; and if you wish for me to cite anything I have said that you contest I will happily do so. Feel free to discuss any part of this; I'm glad to hear other views on such matters.

[Inkidu]

Personally (and I know that's a lot of info and I'm sort of just being short with it.) I think it's human guilt. It has to be our fault. We had to do it. I just don't think people have been aware of it long enough to actually be able to predict it. I mean the numbers say the greenhouse gases are the highest now than ever. What about the Steam Age? All we did was burn coal, and wood and all that; that's supposed to be lower?
I just think we have to control it. As humans and all.

[LisiusChase]

Inkidu
A very insightful answer for it's size indeed.

I think you are very right; As humans we feel we are the dominant species over the land because we have higher mental capabilities; therefor we feel we need to control and regulate every aspect of it. Therefore we have taken it personally that the earth is changing; and feel our responsibility to fix it. But to a point this is true; as products of this planet we are also responsible for it, and so are the squirrels and dandelions. However; I think another big part of it is fear that it will change. This planet will change drastically in the future; as it has in the past. It's an unavoidable fate; and everyone fears such a drastic change. Nobody wants their life interupted, therefore they give into these products and ideas that claim for 'stability' however, in truth; isn't change a valuable part of stability? Just look at a lowly catapillar for the answer; undergoing metamorphosis throughout it's life.

[Oniya]

One other thing about 'organic' produce.

I can go out in my back yard, dig up the soil and plant a zucchini vine.  (I'm using this as an example because zucchini is hellaciously productive and hard to kill.  Even for me.)  I can leave it alone for an entire summer, watered by the rain, maybe dump on some of the free fertilizer that the Amish drop off in front of my driveway every so often (Yeah, you know what I mean.  100% natural), maybe pull a few hornworms off of it by hand (or really long tweezers!) and be up to my eyeballs in zucchini.  No chemicals, no pesticides, nothing that hasn't been around since before the colonists landed.  Okay, maybe the fertilizer is a little different, but I'm no good at catching fish.

I cannot sell that zucchini as 'organic'.  Small farmers (or backyard gardeners) cannot afford the certification fees to label their produce as 'organic', even if it's an accurate description of the product.

[LisiusChase]

Oniya
Indeed, however, small places like farmer's markets that are more community driven could be a good place to distribute your goods; and in such an atmosphere you wouldn't even have to label your crop organic. On that note; Community farming may be a good answer to fight industrial farming. Having farmers and regular folk like ourselves growing different varieties of food to trade/sell at a farmer market would not only cut shipping cost to nearly zero reducing air pollution from trains planes and automobiles; but it would help develop stronger communities where you can trust and know where your food is coming from.

Who knows where the stuff you buy at the store comes from (Organic or inorganic) for all we know the farms are located next to sewage treatment plants or large factories; and then it's not the pesticides to worry about. Also; such practices of home gardening can become a fun hobby; and have personal benefit. I know personally; to harvest a crop I put time into taste just that much better. (not to mention it's virtually free!)

[Inkidu]

"Organic" is such a misnomer anyways. I mean everything I eat is scientifically considered organic (Vitamins and such not withstanding.) so unless people eat vegetables grown in concrete bunkers, what's the deal? That couldn't taste very good.

[LisiusChase]

Inkidu
That was always the argument I made with people; the definition of organic according to the dictionary is:

1.    noting or pertaining to a class of chemical compounds that formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from plants or animals, but that now includes all other compounds of carbon.
2.    characteristic of, pertaining to, or derived from living organisms: organic remains found in rocks.
3.    of or pertaining to an organ or the organs of an animal, plant, or fungus.
4.    of, pertaining to, or affecting living tissue: organic pathology.
5.    Psychology. caused by neurochemical, neuroendocrinologic, structural, or other physical impairment or change: organic disorder. Compare functional (def. 5).
6.    Philosophy. having an organization similar in its complexity to that of living things.

Dictionary.com Definition of 'organic.'

So technically anything grown in the dirt, as you stated, is organic; even if we grew it in concrete bunkers; which agreeable would be dissatisfying. I think organic leaves the room when the plants are grown in a petri dish; from random chemicals dripped in. No pollination, No seeds; just pure alchemy if you must.

So yes, misnomer is the best way to describe the term; and it's often why I place it in quotes, because it's so misleading. Another way for the corporate giants to trick the average joe.

[Inkidu]

Corporate giant? PETA, or other various Green organizations are more likely. I don't blame the retailers for making a buck off of what people ask for. They don't have to trick anyone with people tricking themselves.

[LisiusChase]

Ah, well. What I mean by that is large companies produce both the 'organic' and the 'inorganic' fruits, vegetables and livestock we consume. Monsanto for example; who are very devious some times.

They use terms and give off false impressions about products so that undereducated people are tricked into buying them. Take the drink Vitamin water for example. I was an avid drinker of this quite delicious beverage; so I did some research on each ingredient. Finding out that most of the vitamins in it need solid food to enter your body; and that the crystalline fructose (Main ingredient) contains trace amounts of lead and arsenic. Also there is an ingredient (Not sure what one at the moment) that is used in cigarettes as an addicting agent.

[Inkidu]

Yeah it's called nicotine and it's the natural occurring addictive agent that's been in all tobacco products since the Native American's shoved it the peace pipe. Companies cater to what people want to consume. If they didn't people would be complaining that they didn't. Honestly I think the whole evil corporation thing is a way of shifting the blame of, "I asked for it and got it."

There are trace amounts of a lot of things in the food you eat, even the organic foods. Arsenic is even used to treat syphilis in those allergic to penicillin. The point is it's not contaminated and is easily filtered by the liver. I mean Surgeon General says, "You smoke you die." but I can walk out into a four-lane intersection and die to. That's just life. 

[LisiusChase]

It's not nicotine; it's a lesser agent. I don't have a bottle of vitamin water by me to look at the ingredients. (I still drink them because they taste good) I believe it started with an 'm.' But, I do understand the laws of supply and demand; however to exploit people people and tell them what they want is different. I think it's only fair that a person trying to sell a product should let their customer know what they are getting. Like these new adds promoting high fructose corn syrup, telling you that they are made from corn, and have less calories than sugar. But what they fail to leave out is that it sticks inside your body and is loaded with preservatives. And usual mixed with sugar; so the dosage is higher.

What it boils down to really is honesty, I understand wanting to earn a buck; but milking consumers for money is a bit drastic. The automobile industry as of late; Ford going to the supreme court for a bail out and this is what they said:
How many people flew here on a private jet?
-everyone rose their hand-
How many people would be willing to cut prices, meaning things like their private jets, and settle for first class on a commertial airline?
-none of them rose their hand-

It's avarice. I smoke, and know very well what consequences it brings; and I have educated myself on it. We live in a shake-n-bake society. We want everything we want to be thrown into a bag; Work, Money, Goods, etc... shake it all out and dump out the American Dream. Nobody wants to work for anything; therefore they aren't going to put forth any effort to educate themselves. And this is all nobodies fault but our own; but by enlightening people one can spread a positive attitude and hope for a good outcome. But to say "Well you're just blaming them" or "Well, that's their own business." or "Everyone does it" just isn't right.

I'm guilty of everything I preach, and I think everyone (At least in the USA I understand there are people from around the globe here) is guilty of one of these.

[Oniya]

Article including toxic levels and distinction between organic and inorganic arsenic compounds.:  http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=14947

The 24-hour urine arsenic level is useful for monitoring patients. Normal levels are <50 micrograms/liter (µg/L) in the absence of recent consumption of seafood that contains organic forms of arsenic (ATSDR 2000b). A chelated or nonchelated urine level >100 µg/L is usually considered abnormal (ATSDR 2000b).

From this article.

*makes note to nuke drive in the event of forensic exam of computer*

[LisiusChase]

Oniya
I believe the term for that is Bio magnification.
That's what was so bad with DDT, and now a problem with mercury.

And that is some disturbing evidence, I was shocked to learn in a Ecology class that you TV, even when off is constantly emitting air toxins.

[Oniya]

No, this is due to completely different chemical compounds.  The arsenic compounds that the EPA warns about are the inorganic compounds such as compounds with copper and other metals.

This article discusses the toxicological differences between inorganic arsenic and organic arsenic in kelp supplements.  The second paragraph is especially detailed.

This is another interesting fact-sheet.  I found this line (about halfway down the page) particularly interesting: 

Despite its notoriety as a deadly poison, arsenic is an essential trace element for some animals, and maybe even for humans, although the necessary intake may be as low as 0.01 mg/day.

Now, I'm not saying that arsenic isn't a concern, but it makes a big difference whether you're dealing with copper aceto-arsenite or arsenobetaine.

[LisiusChase]

Understood, Bio Magnification is when toxins are entered into the biosphere on a small scale and consumed by micro organisms (Such as plankton) and then those are eaten, then the eaters are eaten; and when it works it's way up to the top of the food chain. (For example, swordfish and mercury) The levels are found increasingly high, even if they started small. Because certain chemicals accumulate in fat. I'm not sure how true this holds to elements such as arsenic, however.

But, what is toxic for us also, may not be toxic for others. Back to DDT; the only reason it was so bad was because it destroyed the shells on bird eggs, causing them to be born with softer shells. However, there where hardly any negative effects on humans. But, just because something isn't toxic to us, but can be toxic to a large number of other species is cause to worry. I would hate to see the extinction of something as vital as the honey bee; the number one pollinators in the world. In China, some farmers have to pollinate their flowers by hand because the bee population is so low.

[Oniya]

That's the thing though.  The organic arsenic compounds (used in the chemical sense, i.e. containing carbon, not the media hype sense) are either not cytotoxic or 50-600 times less toxic than the inorganic compounds.  It's not toxic to the fish, and it's been proved not toxic to us.

Inorganic arsenic compounds can kill in very low concentrations.

As for the bees, being less than 30 miles from the A.I. Root Company's original farm, I've had a chance to talk with actual apiarists.  The thing that's been driving the bee population down isn't chemicals - it's been linked at least partially to a microsporidian called Nosema ceranae, and they believe it can be treated with an antibiotic.

Just as a note, you do make a lot of good points.  However, a thimbleful of research can make mountains of difference.

[LisiusChase]

Oniya
Thanks, I'm really not used to debating, to tell the truth.
Another skill I can work on when I become a full member here.

I really try to keep in mind a lot of things when I post but I get cluttered in my head easily. -laughs-

Yes, I know the bees are affected by the mites. But honeybees used to be small enough where they weren't effected because the mite couldn't parasite itself to them. But since bee's have been bread bigger to make more honey; they can be easy targets.

I understand now what you are saying about the arsenic. I must have been misinterpreting you point; My apologies.

I have to go for a while now, but will reply to anything posted after my return.
I'm enjoying the discussion greatly, and it wonderful to see the other aspects.

[Caeli]

I wasn't going to respond to this post, but I did had to add to this offshoot - I've written a paper on global warming before, and I'm a fervent believer in its existence. I am not entirely convinced, however, that the scientific phenomenon of global warming is entirely man-made, though I do believe that the Industrial Revolution and current trends in energy usage, coal burning, fossil-fuel burning, and other miscellaneous pollutions have added to and intensified what were naturally-occurring processes.

There are portions of Lisius' post that are new to me; when I've the time, I will sit down and read it properly. I also do not have proper sources (net sources) cited as points of reference; please forgive me, it's been years since I've written the paper, and all of my sources back then were books and scientific journals.

But global warming.

Whether or not you believe in global warming, the earth has, historically, gone through periods of cold and hot periods - climate change can and has happened, and it is established scientific fact. This data is derived from analysis of Antarctic ice cores, tree rings, and other sources; and if you asked me to explain the details, I wouldn't be able to, so I would suggest reading this website or heading to the library if you're interested in learning more. However, there have been times when, globally, temperatures were as much as 9 degrees celsius colder than global averages in the past few centuries - these were ice ages, such as the one that killed off the dinosaurs at the end of the Mesozoic period. There were warm periods, such as that of when the dinosaurs lived (and unless I'm mistaken, the climate from the Mesozoic era became significantly hotter and drier at the end of that time period, as deserts began appearing / coming into existence).

Looking at global warming from a long, historical standpoint, where we are right now is not something that has never happened before; it is a naturally occurring scientific phenomena.

Global Temperatures for the past 425,000 years

So are warmer temperatures a new and terrible thing? They may or may not be terrible; but it can't be disputed that warmer temperatures are an old occurrence. They've happened before. When the dinosaurs lived, there were no ice caps. And though our ice caps are melting today, and Antarctica is melting all over and shrinking every year, we do have ice caps.

But I digress. Global warming as been linked to carbon dioxide emissions. Whether or not you believe it is another argument. Carbon dioxide levels have also fluctuated historically, somewhat in tandem with global ice ages and warming periods. However, since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s, the emission levels and atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide have increased dramatically in comparison to past years (one thousand years ago, and then hundreds of thousands of years ago):

Carbon Dioxide Variations over the past 400,000 years

(Please forgive the use of the Global Warming Wikipedia for that information. I assure you, it's not the first place I've seen such data, only the most convenient and at-hand at this moment).

So the concentration and emission levels of CO₂ today can be concluded to have come from man-made processes. Is global warming a man-made phenomenon? I don't believe it is; however, if we continue to pursue our luxury comforts (i.e., cars that burn gasoline) with such blatant disregard of the global environment, then the human race might very well impact the global environment with our new technology and scientific revolutions in ways that we were never meant to. There are numerous studies and efforts today to research the impact of global warming (man-made or not), and it thus leads to the content of Lisius' post - the Green Revolution.




I just looked at how long this thing became. My apologies for slightly derailing your topic, Lisius. *smiles*

[Oniya]

Oniya
Thanks, I'm really not used to debating, to tell the truth.
Another skill I can work on when I become a full member here.

It's a useful skill, as long as things are kept civil, like you're doing here.  Veks made a very helpful post on logical fallacies, and if you're interested in debate I'd recommend taking a peek at it (particularly if you venture into the Politics and Religion forum). 

[LisiusChase]

Oniya
Yes, I have spent some time looking into them.
Once I get the reins on this horse known as Elliquiy I will gladly get back to this.

I try to debate civilly; there is no point in arguing; rather I see it more as an exchange of facts and ideals. :)

[Oniya]

Excellent!  I look forward to it.

[The Overlord]

Corporate giant? PETA, or other various Green organizations are more likely. I don't blame the retailers for making a buck off of what people ask for. They don't have to trick anyone with people tricking themselves.

Is a drug pusher any less guilty because his buyers are addicted?

Generally I find those biased against PETA and other green organizations are in terrible denial, or just plain have their heads buried in the sand.

[Inkidu]

Is a drug pusher any less guilty because his buyers are addicted?

Generally I find those biased against PETA and other green organizations are in terrible denial, or just plain have their heads buried in the sand.

Well gee, I was talking about legal selling. I think there's a difference. The ASPCA does more for animals than PETA ever did.

[The Overlord]

Well gee, I was talking about legal selling. I think there's a difference. The ASPCA does more for animals than PETA ever did.

Well, point there. IMHO, PETA isn't entirely useless, because they do raise awareness, it's their high-profile 'shock & awe' tactics that many question.

[Inkidu]

Well, point there. IMHO, PETA isn't entirely useless, because they do raise awareness, it's their high-profile 'shock & awe' tactics that many question.

You can't throw red dye on a mink coat and not get people pissed. :D

[LisiusChase]

Caeli
De-Railing is not the word I would use; that is all very insightful well though out data that adds a lot more insight on what I lacked for information about global warming in my first post; and is very helpful.

Not only do I agree with most of it, but I have read a lot about this. In fact, there was a time during the medieval era that was even hotter than now I believe, right after the mini ice age. There is another theory I wish to point out; I don't know the official term for it, nor where to find it, but it deals with things on a Cosmic scale; where the planets orbit could be getting out of whack because our planet is indeed growing. The reason scientist don't wish to accept this theory, however, is because tectonic plates is already agreed to be fact; if the planet was indeed growing, and has been since it was made, then in theory tectonic plate theories would have to be revised.

[Oniya]

Out of curiosity, wouldn't that mean that the planet is somehow becoming less dense on the average?  For a planet to increase in size 1 km...

*expands the binomial, distributes the (4πr³)/3, combines like terms, simplifies, looks up average radius of Earth as of 2000 CE*

would require 510,144,533.575724701 km³ of volume.  Also, as gravity is dependent on mass (which has to be conserved, unless we have a quasar at the Earth's core - which would be interesting), an increase in diameter would result in a lowering of the gravitational constant, which could then be measured.

[RubySlippers]

I don't like alarmist politics as a rule Global Warming is the largest alarmist event to occur in a LONG time. I remember the Y2K scare where all computers would shut down and destroy Western Civization now how much money did we spend as a country and economic power to "fix" the Y2K problem that might not have been a problem at all?

I look at this logically its likely too late to prevent Global Warming to a great degree if humans are a major factor and nations like China and their energy growth using dirty coal technology will cancel anything the US would do and then some. India is about to put out a very cheap car that everyone there with 1700 Euros will want to buy it seems. Add to that the fact I keep trying to point out THE UNITED STATES CANNOT AFFORD A RADICAL GREEN POWER PROGRAM. Especially now. We have it looks to be a $12 Trillion national debt where is the money supposed to come from? For all its flaws coal power plants are cheap to produce power, oil right now is very cheap as you know - I see no reason to take such a radical step at this time as tossing away alot of money on a questionable technology to do a substitution that is not cost effective as far as I can tell.

[The Overlord]

You can't throw red dye on a mink coat and not get people pissed. :D

Well of course, that's as intended. Sometimes you have to create shockwaves in the pond to seize awareness. The overlying problem with that approach is that you're destroying personal property. You could say I'm not always in 100% in agreement PETA's exact methods, but I do admire their tactics.

[The Overlord]

Add to that the fact I keep trying to point out THE UNITED STATES CANNOT AFFORD A RADICAL GREEN POWER PROGRAM. Especially now. We have it looks to be a $12 Trillion national debt where is the money supposed to come from?

As thus we come to perhaps the biggest challenge facing us as a nation in the modern era. It doesn't matter if we can't afford it; we have to do it. We're going to have to find a way to make it more affordable, attainable, etc.

For one thing, big business sometimes seizes an idea and sits on it because it's too much of a threat to their livelihood. Look at the 1948 Tucker; the man produced an automobile that was years ahead of its time, but the Big Three put the brakes on it by making sure he couldn't get steel to build them. If they let him build it, Detroit would have had to scale up to match the competition, which was superior.

My point is, unless any of us here can honestly say we're in the know; we know some of the stuff big business has shelved, or we're research scientists or engineers, we simply can't say we know that affordable fuel-cell technology for automobiles exists right now, but is undeveloped due to greed.

We simply can't know if feasible nuclear fusion technology exists on a shelf right now, or if a cure for AIDS and most cancers exists.

I assume you all understand my point, and the situation is dire enough now that we need to be radical. I'm no more for government meddling in our affairs than any of you, but big business proves time and again it needs a watchdog.

In my view, if such shelved tech needs to be forcibly seized and developed by those willing to use it, then that's what we need to do. I'm talking the kitchen sink here folks; forcible seizure of greedy company assets, even assassination of unwilling CEO's if need be. We can't play paddy cake any more on this stuff, the time to move purposefully is now.

[Odos]

Interesting thread, I'm not going to get involved in the ins - n - outs of specifics, I don't know enough. But as far as global warming goes, then from all the information I've seen on this subject it's a natural 25000 year cycle caused by the tilt of the Earth combined with it's wobble due to the effects of lunar gravity. Is this truly the actual cause ? I don't know, nor do I think anyone knows for a fact. All that can really be said is that due to the evidence that is in vogue at the moment, then it is. This also applies to most disputes about the cause of a lot of "natural" effects.

As thus we come to perhaps the biggest challenge facing us as a nation in the modern era. It doesn't matter if we can't afford it; we have to do it. We're going to have to find a way to make it more affordable, attainable, etc.

This statement of course "assumes" that we are the cause of the "problem" and that we have the means to actually make any difference. We may well be, then again we may not, I just don't know. It all depends upon which "scientific evidence" you put most credence in, because for each pro there is a con on this particular subject.

I would like to ask a question though, does anyone actually believe truly and honestly that there is any difference in the motives of business and that of government ? I may be an old cynic but I can find no discernable difference.

[Oniya]

Every little bit has the potential to make a difference, for good or for ill.  At least part of the 'problem' is beyond our control (that of the cyclical Ice Age that you mentioned), but our actions do have impacts.  The question becomes what actions can be made to get us closer to healthy equilibrium.

[Odos]

Every little bit has the potential to make a difference, for good or for ill.  At least part of the 'problem' is beyond our control (that of the cyclical Ice Age that you mentioned), but our actions do have impacts.  The question becomes what actions can be made to get us closer to healthy equilibrium.

Agreed every action has a reaction, and also agreed that it would be better for us if we can get a healthy equilibrium in whatever effects ( good or bad ) that we may cause. The trouble is that first you must define the problem, then the cause(s) and then apply any required action. Just as an example lets take global warming. Before we can even consider what to do about it we must first "know" for a fact that we are we actually contributing to it's increase and also how are we contributing. Otherwise we could actually make things worse. A prime example of this is the coastal erosion in the UK. In the 50's the scientific minds of the time concluded the best way to defend the coastline was to build breakwaters etc. The net result now, 50 years later is that those same breakwaters, far from helping have actually increased the erosion by more than 300% in some places.

[RubySlippers]

As thus we come to perhaps the biggest challenge facing us as a nation in the modern era. It doesn't matter if we can't afford it; we have to do it. We're going to have to find a way to make it more affordable, attainable, etc.

For one thing, big business sometimes seizes an idea and sits on it because it's too much of a threat to their livelihood. Look at the 1948 Tucker; the man produced an automobile that was years ahead of its time, but the Big Three put the brakes on it by making sure he couldn't get steel to build them. If they let him build it, Detroit would have had to scale up to match the competition, which was superior.

My point is, unless any of us here can honestly say we're in the know; we know some of the stuff big business has shelved, or we're research scientists or engineers, we simply can't say we know that affordable fuel-cell technology for automobiles exists right now, but is undeveloped due to greed.

We simply can't know if feasible nuclear fusion technology exists on a shelf right now, or if a cure for AIDS and most cancers exists.

I assume you all understand my point, and the situation is dire enough now that we need to be radical. I'm no more for government meddling in our affairs than any of you, but big business proves time and again it needs a watchdog.

In my view, if such shelved tech needs to be forcibly seized and developed by those willing to use it, then that's what we need to do. I'm talking the kitchen sink here folks; forcible seizure of greedy company assets, even assassination of unwilling CEO's if need be. We can't play paddy cake any more on this stuff, the time to move purposefully is now.

In the United States the government cannot just sieze intellectual property and give it to other parties there are strong laws and the courts, add to that like I pointed out coal and oil is very cheap right now in a horrible economy and we have a massive national debt in the US I don't see what your suggesting viable. Say we eliminate coal fired power plants which provides over half the power in the US we lose coal mining jobs in many vulnerable states and jobs in the power industry, with very likely increased costs here in Florida. See here the power companies can raise rates now for things like building new power systems it happened here for a nuclear power plant. Do realize what they will do if they have to drop say billions of dollars on Green Tech they will drive rates fare higher than the 25% increase we are getting hit with now.

Capitalism is not always fair I think the government should prevent fraud but not putting out a technology if they don't want to is not fraud.

[Oniya]

Before we can even consider what to do about it we must first "know" for a fact that we are we actually contributing to it's increase and also how are we contributing. Otherwise we could actually make things worse. A prime example of this is the coastal erosion in the UK. In the 50's the scientific minds of the time concluded the best way to defend the coastline was to build breakwaters etc. The net result now, 50 years later is that those same breakwaters, far from helping have actually increased the erosion by more than 300% in some places.

Excellent point and example - although I think Caeli's graph further up the thread shows that we have made a significant impact in the CO₂ levels, based on geologic data.  Weather is a freakish thing, though, as Lorenz discovered.  Never know what impact a change will have down the line.

[The Overlord]

In the United States the government cannot just sieze intellectual property and give it to other parties there are strong laws and the courts, add to that like I pointed out coal and oil is very cheap right now in a horrible economy and we have a massive national debt in the US I don't see what your suggesting viable. Say we eliminate coal fired power plants which provides over half the power in the US we lose coal mining jobs in many vulnerable states and jobs in the power industry, with very likely increased costs here in Florida. See here the power companies can raise rates now for things like building new power systems it happened here for a nuclear power plant. Do realize what they will do if they have to drop say billions of dollars on Green Tech they will drive rates fare higher than the 25% increase we are getting hit with now.

Capitalism is not always fair I think the government should prevent fraud but not putting out a technology if they don't want to is not fraud.

Well nobody believes we can quit fossil fuels cold turkey and go alternative, but if we're not cleaning our act up as we go we're screwed. Cleaner coal combustion with fewer emissions exists. If we get out of recession or worse but ultimately tip the global balance, nothing else we do will make a damn difference, unless what we do includes making underground cities like in the Matrix or colonies on other planets.

And maybe that's our problem; that the government can't seize intellectual property. In times of dire need, perhaps we need to change that. If someone is sitting on technology that can get us out of all this, then we have to ask if we're better off feeling dirty or not surviving.

For me the question is obvious. I'd rather remain standing with my honor tarnished then not at all. Morality doesn't mean shit if you're dead.

[Odos]

Excellent point and example - although I think Caeli's graph further up the thread shows that we have made a significant impact in the CO₂ levels, based on geologic data.  Weather is a freakish thing, though, as Lorenz discovered.  Never know what impact a change will have down the line.

Exactly my point, I don't dispute that humans as a whole are having an impact on CO₂ what worries me is that we don't know what the effects of that impact are. Some time ago I came across an article about the suns size and radiant energy. Can't recall the exact details or where I saw it but the one thing I do remember was that they concluded the sun is now up to 25% hotter and a good deal larger than when the Earth first formed. So why has the temps at the Earths surface not soared. According to the article, they got a clue after 9/11 when all air traffic was grounded in the US. According to their figures as the air quality improved due to no planes flying etc the ground temps rose. The conclusion they arrived at was that all the shite we are putting in the atmosphere is actually helping to maintain a reasonable temp by reducing the radiant solar energy. Is this the case ? I don't know but it's enough to cause more than a little doubt in my mind as to if we actually know whats happening and can react in a correct manner.

And maybe that's our problem; that the government can't seize intellectual property. In times of dire need, perhaps we need to change that. If someone is sitting on technology that can get us out of all this, then we have to ask if we're better off feeling dirty or not surviving.

For me the question is obvious. I'd rather remain standing with my honor tarnished then not at all. Morality doesn't mean shit if you're dead.

That statement is a very, very complex and emotive area. Who decides what is in everyones interest ? who decides what can be "taken" and what can't ? Who decides what needs to be done and what doesn't.

[The Overlord]

That statement is a very, very complex and emotive area. Who decides what is in everyones interest ? who decides what can be "taken" and what can't ? Who decides what needs to be done and what doesn't.

I agree completely. But I am compelled to ask this: If someone is sitting on a cure for most cancers or a method of cheap and clean electricity by improved fuel cells or nuclear fusion, do we have the right to take it and use it?

When the common good, perhaps even survival is at stake, I say yes. Forcibly if need be. Perhaps it's because I find such avarice an alien concept...if I possessed such knowledge, absolutely I would share it to help people and the quality of life.

I believe in compensating the possessor, but withholding for purposes of pure greed and business should not be allowed. Know that I understand something of the nature of business to hoard helpful knowledge; I've experienced it in a way that's affected my family. In fact, it's directly responsible for the loss of my father, so yes I have intense feelings about this. I have a very strong hatred of the business world.

[Odos]

I agree completely. But I am compelled to ask this: If someone is sitting on a cure for most cancers or a method of cheap and clean electricity by improved fuel cells or nuclear fusion, do we have the right to take it and use it?

In the example above I would have to say no. What you are actually advocating is the law of the jungle, ie might is right. I want, I take because I can and I want it.

I agree avarice is horrible, but unfortunately a lot of the people in the world are seduced by it, in any number of ways. And it is not only in the business world.

I believe in compensating the possessor, but withholding for purposes of pure greed and business should not be allowed. Know that I understand something of the nature of business to hoard helpful knowledge; I've experienced it in a way that's affected my family. In fact, it's directly responsible for the loss of my father, so yes I have intense feelings about this. I have a very strong hatred of the business world.

I too have had bad personal dealings with the business world, though not to the extent of a fatality. I did however lose my son due to exactly the same type of reasons you imply, in my case it was the government and not business that was the culprit. Which is why I asked the question earlier "does anyone actually believe truly and honestly that there is any difference in the motives of business and that of government ?"

[The Overlord]

In the example above I would have to say no. What you are actually advocating is the law of the jungle, ie might is right. I want, I take because I can and I want it.

No, actually I'm not. In the examples I gave, it's more about the common good.

Excuse me for sounding heartless, but if someone has something the community needs in terms of knowledge, there is NO excuse for hoarding it. Like I said, I'd rather seize it and feel dirty about it later, knowing I helped the common good.


...


Nix that, in fact I wouldn't feel dirty about it at all. If some greedy SOB is hoarding a cure from cancer, we're perfectly justified in seizing it so it can be put to use.

Now, I'm sure this will countered with the argument of two wrongs don't make a right, but in my experience, what I know is this: One good screw deserves another. If you're sitting on something that can save lives, you are screwing people over, and you deserve anything you get.

Being as I lost my father to cancer brought on as a direct result of the asbestos industry hiding knowledge that could save lives, and since two of my aunts are facing cancer right now, hell yes I'd say take a cure if someone was sitting on it. Hell yes, I'd shoot the mother fracker myself if that's what it took.

[Zakharra]

No, actually I'm not. In the examples I gave, it's more about the common good.

Excuse me for sounding heartless, but if someone has something the community needs in terms of knowledge, there is NO excuse for hoarding it. Like I said, I'd rather seize it and feel dirty about it later, knowing I helped the common good.


...


Nix that, in fact I wouldn't feel dirty about it at all. If some greedy SOB is hoarding a cure from cancer, we're perfectly justified in seizing it so it can be put to use.

Now, I'm sure this will countered with the argument of two wrongs don't make a right, but in my experience, what I know is this: One good screw deserves another. If you're sitting on something that can save lives, you are screwing people over, and you deserve anything you get.

Being as I lost my father to cancer brought on as a direct result of the asbestos industry hiding knowledge that could save lives, and since two of my aunts are facing cancer right now, hell yes I'd say take a cure if someone was sitting on it. Hell yes, I'd shoot the mother fracker myself if that's what it took.

Then I seriously hope you never get the governmental authority to ever follow through. What you are advocating is murder pure and simple. What they did is not murder. Unethical? Hells yeah, but not murder. Not by any legal definition.

  It's better to make it profitable for them to make the product than to seize it. Confiscation, even for the 'public good', is an extremely slippery slope and can be used for anything.

[The Overlord]

Then I seriously hope you never get the governmental authority to ever follow through. What you are advocating is murder pure and simple. What they did is not murder. Unethical? Hells yeah, but not murder. Not by any legal definition.

  It's better to make it profitable for them to make the product than to seize it. Confiscation, even for the 'public good', is an extremely slippery slope and can be used for anything.

In the case of my father, he and countless others paid with their lives. Because the industries that hid the truth hid the risks, and over the years a silent killer crept up and got a lot of them. That WAS murder, and I won't deny I've entertained doing something rash over it. Read up on Mesothelioma and get back to me, and you'll learn this isn't random cancer.


In my previous example, yes it's murder, but then again if someone is withholding a cure for a terminal disease, that is murder as well. So then like they love to say in Star Trek, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. In such a case, we're perfectly justified in taking that cure by any means.

Forgive me for sounding so jaded and furious, but I won't apologize. In the past decade I've seen what evil and greed is.

[Caeli]

Heyla. :)

Just a gentle reminder to you three (Overlord, Zakharra, and Odos) that this topic is not about avarice, ethics of the business world, justifications of murder, or cancer. Please stay on topic (global warming and/or the green revolution), or start a new topic.

[Odos]

Caeli you are of course correct and to LisiusChase and anyone else reading this thread I apologise for my part in the digression.  :-[

[LisiusChase]

No need to apologize. Sorry I haven't been as diligent to responding to this thread myself.
I'm glad it took up as much interest as it did.

[The Overlord]

Heyla. :)

Just a gentle reminder to you three (Overlord, Zakharra, and Odos) that this topic is not about avarice, ethics of the business world, justifications of murder, or cancer. Please stay on topic (global warming and/or the green revolution), or start a new topic.

Fair enough...just be mindful that greed and avarice have made sure we're not as far along in the green revolution as we should be, especially here in the States.  ;)

[Moondazed]

My brother finds the idea of organic vegetables laughable, but for me the bottom line is that I don't want unnecessary chemicals in my body.  The high yield argument doesn't take into account the high price to agriculture, to the soil, or the long term affects of factory farming.  I think that our culture would benefit tremendously from being mindful of the full lifecycle of any process.  If the main concern is immediate gratification, factory farming seems fine and good, but with scrutiny many negative impacts are revealed.

[The Overlord]

What is laughable about it, provided the organic agriculture industry is truly cutting out all the bad stuff? What is actually funny, we call it organic food, but it's really how food was grown and raised in the vast majority of some 10,000 years or more of global cultivation.

Makes the case on how tainted the modern industry (and our perceptions of it) are when actual agriculture gets a funny name to distinguish it. I go for this stuff whenever I can, and I definitely buy only organic ground beef now, since it's the most handled and processed meat we regularly consume.

Some people will argue it's too pricey, but they're missing the point: Eat better food, that money is really an investment in your own body.

[Oniya]

What is laughable about it, provided the organic agriculture industry is truly cutting out all the bad stuff? What is actually funny, we call it organic food, but it's really how food was grown and raised in the vast majority of some 10,000 years or more of global cultivation.

Makes the case on how tainted the modern industry (and our perceptions of it) are when actual agriculture gets a funny name to distinguish it. I go for this stuff whenever I can, and I definitely buy only organic ground beef now, since it's the most handled and processed meat we regularly consume.

Some people will argue it's too pricey, but they're missing the point: Eat better food, that money is really an investment in your own body.

Except that, as I pointed out, there are people growing organic who can't afford the certification saying that they're organic.  Farmer's markets are cheaper and support the small farm instead of the 'factory farmers'.

[Moondazed]

I go to one farmer's market on Saturday and a different one on Sunday, when they're running :)  It's nice to get to know the people who grow the food that nurtures my family.

[LisiusChase]

Fair enough...just be mindful that greed and avarice have made sure we're not as far along in the green revolution as we should be, especially here in the States.  ;)

I can't agree with you more, greed and corruption are the reason why we can't push ourselves away from dependency of fossil fuels, the common person really can't switch their life of a gas powered or hybrid car when there isn't any to switch to. Except perhaps a bicycle, but living it Texas, I've learned that there just aren't some places you can get to with that.

For the Farmer's Market...
When I was in Colorado a few months ago I had stopped at one while visiting family. The trust between the shop owners and people was astonishing as I'm from a big city. The person I was with was able to trade a bucket of hand grown lima beans for a homemade pie, breads, and cookies. No money was made in this transactions, and I learned later that if money isn't available most shop owners give the food away and let the buyer come back later to pay them.

Now, that's good business to me! It's amazing how much people can do when they just get along and have a bit of trust. Not saying we should trust implicitly for there are still people with vain intent, but this sort of commune really is wonderful to me. I think it's unavailable as The Overlord said to leave out greed, corruption, and morals... when really in some cases that's the problem.

[RubySlippers]

I beg to differ the reason is they cannot switch from a standard or hybrid car to another is because there is no market demand for alternative vehicles such as electric cars and no will to put in efficient mass transportation due to people prefering their own vehicle. And the communities were not created around that but rather built around car ownership. Swapping from that now would be both costly and unpopular with oil prices now very low. But the market will meet legitimate demands when there is one so when people want electric cars some companies wil make them.

But lets assume Global Warming does raise sea levels it would be a good century to build more compact communities as people relocate from the crowded coasts to other cities and the creation of new ones.

[Odos]

Am I alone in thinking that the Green Revolution as is usually touted is more about treating the symtoms and not the cause. True we create greenhouse and other polluting gases and particles. We use up natural resources as if they were unending. But they are symtoms and not the cause ?

I believe the cause is simply that planet Earth is overpopulated with humans and getting worse by the minute. The actual projected figures for population growth are frightening  :o What does the Green Revolution say or do about that ? I stand to be corrected here but from what I can see not a lot.

If population figures can just be stabilised at the present levels I think it would go a long way to helping the environment.

[Oniya]

You'd get public outcry if anyone tried to do anything to achieve ZPG.  After all, what are the methods of control?  Birth control?  Sterilization?  Allowing people to die?  The religious right would be up in arms because of the 'abstinence only' theory that they espouse - birth control leads to promiscuity, after all.  The rest of the people would be claiming an affront on their 'reproductive rights'.  And all the people that got bent in a knot over Dr. Kevorkian would go positively Gordian if the 'trimming' of extra people occurred on the far end of life.  Organizations built around crisis relief would be lobbying about inhumanity if we simply allowed natural disasters to keep populations in check.  China tried to stabilize/reduce their population by allowing only one child per family, and female infanticide skyrocketed because families wanted male children to carry on the family name. 

No matter how clinically correct your idea might be, implementing it would be practically impossible.

[Odos]

Oniya I agree with you entirely. I was not advocating we could or even should try to do anything along those lines, it's far too complex an issue.

I was trying, in a roundabout and obtuse way to point out that the Green Revolution is on to a loser, it can never work because it is only addressing the symtoms and not the cause. Suppose we magically manage to cut all emissions by a very unrealistic 50% tomorrow. In just a few years time when the population doubles we would be back to the same point.

[Oniya]

Ah, my mistake.  However, combining your comment and my observations, not only does the Green Revolution not address the cause, they (and anybody else) can't address the cause - again, assuming that humanity's growth curve is the cause.

Unless, of course, we can get the space program back up off its backside, and look into creating colonies.  Heck, you'd probably get a backlog of volunteers for that method of reducing Earth's population.

[James]

I see you've managed to establish a firm connection between our ecological issues and the problems of poverty and famine. There's a reason why the current rise in population is what it is; families in developing countries are big because mortality rates are high, and with a large family comes social and economical security (to a debatable degree). We (on the 'fortunate' side of the globe) did the exact same thing during the Victorian age. I shouldn't really enter this discussion, though, because just as I feel the concept of making providing basic necessities of life (medical care) a profitable business, I don't feel that the current world economical system is suited to refurbish our ecological. We've seen how a capitalistic free market on countless occasion has failed to account to the quality of human life (except for those that can afford it), "outsourcing" being one direct trivial example. Unless saving the world is somehow going to be made into a profitable business, I don't believe we can accomplish anything.

Sure, you might debate that it is indeed becoming a business, but the consequences we've suffered so far are again variations of the incompetence of the capitalistic system; we make hybrid fuel, but to make the fuel we cut down an immense amount of resources and further establish the exploitation of the people in developing countries. Meanwhile, General Motors are buying up blueprints for advanced car batteries only to lock them up in a vault.

[RubySlippers]

I'm still not getting what the huge issue is here to the citizens of the advanced countries. In the United States the air overall is cleaner, waterways cleaner, water in our communites overall very safe to drink (compared to say the year 1900 when city water carried diseases) and by and large we are doing fine. There was one nation in Africa on the news the other day that years ago had food shortages and due to their ogvernment acting with public support now feeds their own people AND exports food. Why should we bother with poor nations that are not willing to organize politically and do what they have to do to fix their own problems? I do care about the poor but isn't much of this lack of a civilized government that is making the commitments with other nations to get their act together. Africa like North America is a massively resource rich nation there is no reason that they should not be able to pull itself together. As can other nations.

As for the whole Green Revolution if there was any wish by the American People to go to these technologies we would, but if you look at it there is no real will to do anything near what proponents like Gore wish. And Lomborg in his work the Skeptical Environmentalist he pointed to the fact that there is no proof halting Co2 if we can even do that as a race would stop Global Warming but that money could go to giving clean water to untold millions, health care, education of women, microcredit so the poor can start home businesses even if small cottage industry and other tested programs we can actually do and know that will have valuable impacts. For example give simple generic antibiotics to the poorest 10% of nations on Earth would save how many lives, right here and now? I suspect many.

Can you ,or anyone else, say as a scientific certainty that reducing Co2 will benefit in stopping Global Warming before we commit the trillions of dollars needed to do that as a race?

[Moondazed]

This topic cycles through the debate areas occasionally and I always try to resist restating my position, but I find myself unable yet again :) 

Global warming is not the main reason I care about environmental issues.  I'd be lying if I said I was sorry that something has come up that has made people pay attention to the planet they inhabit.  I don't understand the lack of concern for future generations, for bio-diversity, for pollution in general.  I'm also disgusted by how shallow and immediate-gratification-based most of the people I know are.  There's little or no consideration for the environmental footprint of their actions, there's only 'what's easy', 'what's fast', and 'what will make me happy'.  Trouble is, happy isn't about possessions, or the US wouldn't be the mecca of anti-depressants that it is.  Happiness comes from accomplishments, from understanding what it is NOT to have something, to work for something, and to make that journey to achieving and attaining goals. 

I think the Green Revolution is a wonderful thing because I think that Americans have become narcissistic, greedy, and lazy, caring only for themselves as individuals and giving no consideration to the community around them.  I'm not saying that EVERY person behaves that way, I'm saying that I see it as the over-arching problem with our culture.

I could easily go on a huge tangent at this point, but I'll rein myself in and just leave it at that :)