Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?

[Moondazed]

That is 99.99519% of all corporations. They have to put the interests of the investors ahead of everything else, or they fail.


See above. If a community wants to keep a businessin it. Then it had better make it profitable for the business to stay. There are reasons that they move elswhere.

In the world of status quo, those statements might be true, but I disagree, plain and simple.  And I believe that your percentage is slightly inflated   The above sentiments come straight out of a business textbook, and forgive me for saying that that's exactly the problem.  At the point things are distilled to pure capitalism we are no longer human beings, just assets.

You said this; I hear people rant about the political system in the US, but in fact it is what the citizens of this country allow it to be.  As long as people remain apathetic and individualistic, it will remain as it is because it serves the acquisition of money with no consideration for the community model.  Which I took, maybe wrongly, to mean what I said in my post.

The fact that you assumed that I meant completely individualistic speaks to my observations about you viewing things as black and white.

THe US is a lot cleaner than China in air and water quality. We clean up our messes much faster and better than they do. Nuclear power is a good option. The spent fuel rods are easily storable and there are methods coming out that will render them relatively harmless for storage and/or disposal.
Side note; There are permits to build nuclear powerplants in the US, being filed. We need power and it has to come from somewhere.

I'm not even going to answer this part, because I don't think it matters what I say.  I'll leave it at I disagree.

The leader of the country had a good situation food wise until his government took the land away from the farmers who could work it. Global warming has nothing to do with that. The change was within a few years.  5 or less.  The climate may change fast, but not that fast. There is a direct relationship between the landgrab and food production falling off.

When you make statements like that, please provide links to your information source.

They are making foods to suit the climate, as well as improving them(by human standards and needs). The Monarch butterflies? It's a problem that needs to be worked out. With the changing climate, the natural food  plants simple will not produce enough to feed a growing population. The growing amount of GM foods means that they will be mixed with other foods. Unless you buy from local farmers that you know don't use those seeds.

Precisely.  Again, please provide links to factual documents that support your blanket statements, and I'll happily do the same.  I can't blindly believe that genetic engineering is the mysterious panacea for world hunger that you're saying it is.

I'm not saying that there will not be side effects. There certainly will be. As new ones pop up, they will be taken into account in the next model of  GM food.

Ahhh... see, that's not logic that I can support.  That's right up there with "It's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission."

Activating seed? I have no problem with that. The company that made them has shelled out millions, hundreds of millions of dollars most likely. Why should they not see a return on their investment if it's a reasonable price?

And all I can think about regarding such things is of the people who don't have the money to pay for something that should never have been mutated in the first place.  There is nothing anyone can say that will change my mind regarding the mistake that genetic engineering is on a fundamental level because of my belief that it is WRONG to violate the laws of nature.

That is not true. Many people died of food borne illnesses and diseases. That's why the methods of food safety were put into place. To make them safer to eat. Also most people did not live much past 40-50 years. Which is too short of a time for many to die of cancer. Compare the medical situation today to the 1880's. Which time period would you want to live in?

An interesting rationalization, got any facts to support it?  Are you saying that it's about a choice between frankenfood and living in the 1800's?  A shining example of black and white, all or nothing thinking.

[Ariabella]

And all I can think about regarding such things is of the people who don't have the money to pay for something that should never have been mutated in the first place.  There is nothing anyone can say that will change my mind regarding the mistake that genetic engineering is on a fundamental level because of my belief that it is WRONG to violate the laws of nature.

I agree wholeheartedly with the comment being wrong to violate the laws of nature. Just as I don't agree with cloning and keeping people alive who have no hope of regaining consciousness or will only be a vegetable. Neither is a life. Allow them to pass on to a better world with dignity.

[Zakharra]

 I'll respond to these tommorow when I'm more awake.

[Zakharra]

 It's been awhile, but here is some links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Zimbabwe

page 75.

http://www.unchs.org/downloads/docs/297_96735_ZimbabweReport.pdf


  an attempt to fix the problem they created,
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/7a5b48babae6845336b2b033bf9ad334.htm

I can find more if need be.

I agree wholeheartedly with the comment being wrong to violate the laws of nature

Define a 'law of nature'?

[RubySlippers]

I want to point out the horrors that were going to wipe out all life and the like over the last fifty years.

- The Population Bomb: One writer of the book of the same name said England had a 50/50 chance of making it to the 21st century among other things. It was to destroy humanity by now.

- Global COOLING: Yep we were supposed to be in an ice age by now.

- DDT Toxicity: It was so bad they banned it and then guess what tropical diseases killed untold millions because they had no cheapway to fight it.

- Pollution: I love this one they had in the fifties an article saying people in New York City would have to wear gas masks to avoid pollution poisoning. Funny our technology fixed much of that nightmare providing cleaner technologies and the like to generate power.

Now Global Warming...as I see it its scaring poeple for no good reason.

[Moondazed]

It amazes me that you so easily discredit the validity of things.  Sure they exaggerated, but does that mean that there wasn't any truth in there?  I don't think so, but it doesn't surprise me that you do.  And to state that our technology 'fixed' everything leaves me incredulous as well.

[RubySlippers]

Its a mute point unless the USA, China and India get on-board and we are not going to any plans you dream up won't work. And lets face it all you green technologies are impractical pipe-dreams right now and in the intermediate future. If they are viable at all to meet our power needs which in the USA is massive.

There is right now nothing to substitute for oil based fuels or in the practical future.

Coal is still the cheapest source of power for powerplants.

And most active alternative technologies are not Green. Solar and wind require batteries that means acids. Solar systems use a good percentage of petroleum based materials such as plastics. Biodiesal uses acid as a base chemical a strong one to add to that. Ethenol uses up food crops unless you use sugarcane. And hdrogen is so unviable at the forseeable future to think its a silver bullet is moronic. Did any of you really research any of these technologies and their make-up I did and the research has me convinced your green technologies are somewhere between 50 to 100 years from being even considered useable if not farther off if ever.

And what about cost a solar system for homes is very expensive and fragile. For apartment complexes completely impractical. Wind turbines are no better. And how do you get enough power from these to run the internet, appliances, air conditioning, refrigeration, media systems and all the other things we tend to need nowadays? Hummmmmmm....

Lets not even talk about China and India in this they have even more needs for power quickly than we do.

[Moondazed]

I'm glad that everyone doesn't agree with your fatalistic view.  It's obvious nothing I say matters to you and you aren't going to change my mind, so other than stating factual statistics or providing links, I'll refrain from comment.

[RubySlippers]

It may be happening and there is a warming going on, but no one can give a realistic scenario its all computer models and guesses. And frankly like I pointed out even if this is going on and I'm willing to say the evidence support Global Warming as a viable theory. There is no way to produce our current and projected power needs with truly green technology. That is technology renewable, sustainable and clean and free of dangerous components such as acids. And on top of that would have to be affordable and practical. Hydrogen is neither, solar is not cheap or sturdy enough in system design for Florida at the moment and given decades you could get that better. But according to most Global Warming scientists we don't have decades.

And that is the US both China and India have even fewer resources to work with.

The only structural way to get clean solar power for example is passive that is natural sunlight. My parents home is built that way older Southern styling with vaulted ceilings, large windows, fans and other measures but that takes a great deal of space and proper design. Apartments can't do that and most modern building require air conditioning and heating that takes much more power. Even in their home they have one air conditioned room and my apartment is air conditioned over the garage. And to solar power it and yes they looked at it would cost $25,000 or more, far more expensive than using per month standard power off the grid. And their house is very energy efficient with very little power needed for cooling or heating year round overall for its size.

And as a Libertarian Party member I'm opposed to government regulation and subsidies for this technology to be developed and used, at least at the Federal level. So for me can the free market alone make this work not right now the cost to benefit ratio is not anywhere near practical for that in the US at least. That's for solar and wind, ethenol will use up food crops and hydrogen cannot replace gasoline for the near future if not farther out- if at all. I'm not a fatalist I'm realistic and looked at what your epecting and its not very likely that's all.

[Moondazed]

See, that's why I refer to your thinking as fatalistic... it's along the lines of "If we can't fix it all right now, then let's just do what's easy".  There's nothing cheap about the way that Americans do thing if you consider Environmental Footprints and Lifecycle Analysis, but that takes a bit more forethought than most people are willing to bother with.  You mention apartment buildings.  There is, as a matter of fact, a Green Building section that contains an article in the latest issue of Utne entitled "Low Rent, High Tech - Affordable housing advocates build green and inspire innovation". 

This country has a disposable mindset that's pretty pathetic for how smart we like to think we are.  Shopping at Walmart is a prime example... I hear people say, "I can't afford to shop anywhere else.", when consideration of Environmental Footprint and Lifecycle Analysis make shopping at Walmart horrific at best.  Not to mention that it supports one of the most pathetic employers in the country.

Whether the effort to curb pollution happens because a bunch of Global Warming advocates run around crying out, "The sky is falling!" or because Americans finally pull their heads out of their asses and expect other countries to follow suit is irrelevant to me, as long as it happens.  What do you think would happen if we stopped importing the cheap, environmentally-corrupt crap China cranks out with wild abandon?  It's an interesting question that would have far-reaching affects, which only serves to point out how blindly this country has done what's easy instead of considering the broader consequences.

I've taken political affiliation tests that show me to be on the cusp of libertarian, but people who follow your train of thought are exactly the reason I will never be a true libertarian.  A group of people choosing not to have foresight about their choices should not be able to sink us all.

[Ariabella]

Ruby: I think it would be a bit, erm...non-inspirational for any scientist to want to do research on green power if there is no Grant or funding from the country to, oh, I don't know, pay for supplies, allow them to eat, anything like that. I have no problem at all with the government funding research projects like that, medicinal, anything. It's what the country SHOULD be doing to take care of their own people and country.

Moondazed: Ah yes, Wal-Mart. The pay is fairly good for that kind of job IF they will give you the hours you need to actually survive. Otherwise, the pay is bad because you "make too much" for any kind of help, even if you only work 20 hours a week. Oh you have to go to the bathroom? Do it on your fifteen minute break. Which may be on time or up to an hour late. Oh, oops, we forgot to give you your last break before time to leave? So sorry. Oh, you want to move to a different position or even *GASP* have a promotion. Let's see?  Are you a pet within your store and does anyone even care about your suggestions to make it a safer place to work? Nope. Oh, you got hurt? Work anyway, damn ya. How dare ya get hurt? Oh your disabled? Your doctor has to send a form to the ADA authorizing us to let you have special conditions.

The site Wal-Mart sucks?

It's all true.

[RubySlippers]

Thats a non-arguement private funding is there from companies, scientific foundations and research orgainizations for most of these projects in fact Progress Energy in Florida is looking into solar power. If the market creates the need the businesses will meet it it just may take time to get the need in place.

Just look at the first airplane the Wright Brothers had only their own funding and invented a working series of aircraft, edison invented the light bulb and the modern power company came from him again private funds and apple computers started the microcomputer industry and again private funds.

So why treat this differently?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well, other than our society needing an alternative fuel source to survive?  If I were a country whose livelihood depended on a finite rescource such as oil and who constantly imported this substance then I would most likely be trying to sponsor an alternative source.  Not to mention that would greatly promote this country's economy if such a source could be found.  For instance, if Ford developed a car that could run without gasoline..say on...hydrogen fuel cells or peanut butter or hugs and kisses or whatever...then Ford has an edge.  Will another company eventually take their idea, yes.  Yet they have the head start and can corner the market for a few years.  A car like that would be in the garage of nearly every Western household especially those nations that pay over five dollars a gallon.

So it seems a real smart thing to do.  Promotes our independence from a foreign power, could have a ton of military applications, improve our economy in a myriad of ways, and also help the planet.  Sounds like something our government could invest in with little problem.  Course our government did invest in the atomic bomb, invests in medical research, subsidizes those same private companies which develop new technology, and pumps money into a massive research and development team called NASA.  Not to mention state universities that also head up their own research teams for new technology. 

[RubySlippers]

Hydrogen fuel cannot replace gasoline in any reasonable amount of time. We had a technology that could have and one I approve of Electric Cars, clean engines, no fuel needed and most at the time could even have been made cost effective. And the people that drove them loved their cars. But there was no screaming demand for them over gasoline powered cars. And it uses technology we know works. Batteries and electric motors are not overly complicated. Hydrogen cannot be made as cheaply like gasoline, moved easily like gasoline and stored like gasoline. Ethenol the closest option we can use uses up food crops and can't be stored long term in biodegrades. And so electric cars and trucks could work but it won't work on aircraft, ships and military vehicles in the main. Like I said though in 50 years or a century maybe so but by then its not going to help much with global warming will it?

And the atomic bomb was created as a war project its not the same thing as pouring money into commercial enterprises and research that has mass market appeal. If you looked at wartime spending in most cases the companies have an idea. do a prototype and then sees if the miltary wants the product. Even with the new joint strike fighter two companies duked it out with designes and project work they paid for and one recieved the contract, the other lost money.

Even the internet was a military project and the commercial interests with their own money furthered its development, not government handouts.

And at the early start of the space race private companies were forming to launch satellites and the like NASA never really had to exist, if space will make money companies would find a way to get there, and likely less expensively than a government agency could have. Even if it might have taken longer to get there.

[Moondazed]

You know, RubySlippers, I just don't hear you addressing this country helping itself.  Do you really want to be a slave to the free market?  What about all of the gov't subsidies that politicians get NOT to farm land they buy just so they can get that money?  Let's divert some of that cash into research, hmm?  And I think that your view of how things work is naive at best.  The reason why companies fight for gov't contracts is because there's HUGE bloat involved, take a look at Halliburton in Iraq for a prime example... there's an example of your system at work.  Someone has to oversee greedy bastards who just can't live without that third house in the Cape, you know?

It's pretty easy to tout things that already exist, but you don't address funding things that don't yet exist, research for new ideas and development.  I hate to break it to you, but the big car companies had a lot to do with technology being developed slowly because they bought up the patents so the research couldn't advance... another example of your system at work.

And your comments about ethanol using up food crops... do you realize that oil is a FINITE resource?  Fuel has to be made of something, doesn't it?  If state universities weren't doing research a lot of innovation wouldn't have happened, for example fueling solar cells with broccoli chlorophyll instead of toxic chemicals.  Will it replace the old way tomorrow?  No, but with your thought process applied it never will because there isn't enough immediate benefit.

Think beyond yourself and your own generation.

[Zakharra]

 Oil is a finite resource. Eventually. But not right now. There is plenty and much more still in  the ground to get. If only the oil companies could be allowed to drill for it. ANWAR, the Gulf of Mexico, the continental shelfs off of California. There is plenty to use for the world market for a century plus. Any 'predictions' of oil running out in less than that is limited by what the predictors think is all of the oil that has been foundd. There is much more to be found and used. Oil.. a natural resource.

We had a technology that could have and one I approve of Electric Cars, clean engines, no fuel needed and most at the time could even have been made cost effective. And the people that drove them loved their cars. But there was no screaming demand for them over gasoline powered cars. And it uses technology we know works. Batteries and electric motors are not overly complicated.

0.o  Not overly complicated and clean? Hardly. Doable, yes, but not easily. To make the cars requires a huge amount of nickle for batteries. Large batteries that will require replacing in what? 5-7 years? Plus there is the cost of replacing those batteries. Gasoline engines can and have lasted for decades with only minor repairs needed at times. Then there is the electrical poweer needed to charge the batteries. that requires vast amounts of electricity. Which can onlyt come from two ralistic sources. Coal fired power plants or nuclear power plants. The energy needs of the US alone requires that.

What about all of the gov't subsidies that politicians get NOT to farm land they buy just so they can get that money?  Let's divert some of that cash into research, hmm?

I would be satisfied if the subsidies for farmers was cut. They do not need it to not grow crops. Either let them survive or fall on their own. The rest of us have to exist that way, why not farmers?

[Moondazed]

Oil is plentiful??? Wishful thinking, I'm afraid, not to mention incredibly short-sighted and self-centered.  Not to mention the environmental impact of drilling in places where oil is SUSPECTED to be, but somehow I doubt that's much of a concern to some people.  Not to mention that oil may be a natural resource, but getting it from some of those places would be anything but natural, not to mention the impact of burning oil in the first place.

[Ariabella]

I would be satisfied if the subsidies for farmers was cut. They do not need it to not grow crops. Either let them survive or fall on their own. The rest of us have to exist that way, why not farmers?

What Moondazed said was the politicians who buy up farm land so they can also collect the subsidy money to not farm the land, which they had no intention of doing. Farmers didn't need subsidies until Americans went to wanting packaged food all of the time.

And corn for ethanol wouldn't have to necessarily be using up entire food crops. If we supported our farmers, we could have farmers who grew corn just for the purpose of ethanol. If we bought our stuff fresh, direct from the farmers, they would be making money and we just might have a little less of this packaged food induced ailments from the frozen and canned stuff that you know darned well that the food is being imported from God knows where.

[Moondazed]

I suspect most people care more about the convenience than the actual ingredients or the way that it's farmed or packaged... which is pretty damned sad.  The analogy of sheep or lemmings really does fit sometimes *sigh*  Although your average donkey is smarter because it won't eat things that it knows are toxic to it :)  In my experience most people would rather remain ignorant and blissful (no offense to Bliss!), if you know what I mean.

[Ariabella]

Oh I do. Most of the people in this country are sheep or lemmings, and it explains so much. When a country ceases to think for itself, it does tend to mean the downfall.

[Zakharra]

What Moondazed said was the politicians who buy up farm land so they can also collect the subsidy money to not farm the land, which they had no intention of doing. Farmers didn't need subsidies until Americans went to wanting packaged food all of the time.

And corn for ethanol wouldn't have to necessarily be using up entire food crops. If we supported our farmers, we could have farmers who grew corn just for the purpose of ethanol. If we bought our stuff fresh, direct from the farmers, they would be making money and we just might have a little less of this packaged food induced ailments from the frozen and canned stuff that you know darned well that the food is being imported from God knows where.

The amount of land required to grow crops for ethanol based fuel  for the US would be enormouse(sp). The US's need for more fuel is much more than can be grown, also from what I've heard, ethanol is not the most effective fuel. Being less efficient and more polluting.

Where do you think the food for packaged food comes from? Farms. It has to be grown somewhere.

Oil is plentiful??? Wishful thinking, I'm afraid, not to mention incredibly short-sighted and self-centered.  Not to mention the environmental impact of drilling in places where oil is SUSPECTED to be,

It is plentiful. There are proven reserves ikn many places. Admittedly, getting to some of them are more difficult, but that's what techonlogical innovation if for.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Hydrogen fuel cell was not really the point of that paragraph, but I will go ahead and address that particular portion.  I was hoping the reference to “hugs and kisses” would illuminate the reference to any useable alternative fuel source.  Things did not work out that way sadly.  So now for the feasibility of hydrogen fuel cells in the distant future, at least prior to your 50 to 100 year assessment, I offer that at least six are being trial run at this moment.  Three in public buses in California and three in West Australia are currently working public routes.  Do they run perfectly, not at all?  Yet most of the problems with those buses are attributed to the same problems of running any prototype model.  Do I expect to see hydrogen fuel cell cars next year, once again not at all?  I do expect there to be an alternative fuel option before 50 years.

The point of that was to detail that searching for “green” alternatives to our current practices serves not only the environment but our own interests.  Oil is indeed a finite resource because it takes so very long to produce the material naturally.  Perhaps if they developed a way to synthetically manufacture the substance, it could be altered to be more plentiful and cleaner.  Since that is probably not going to happen, especially without government incentive, then we are forced to look at other items.  Ethanol requiring crops is certainly true, but already we have to pay our farmers not to grow crops so that they will not harm the economy.  If they were to grow food in every available space and at full capacity, the price of those crops would drive smaller farms out of business.  Ethanol could well revitalize our agriculture market, something it could use desperately.  Currently ethanol is being used in the E85 blend (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) but is not seeing wide use.  According to the US Department of Energy, the only difference is a reduction in gas mileage since ethanol does not store as much energy.  Which yes, does mean alot of it will be needed to fuel even our own country.

Biodiesel is another source, which I believe is being looked at to power truck fleets.  Vegetable oils and animal fats are the makeup of this source so are also produce able faster than crude oil.  Currently there is a B20 and B100 variant on this idea in limited use.  The U.S. Department of Energy recommends the B20 (20% biodiesel, 80% petroleum) for standard use.  B20 requires little to no engine modifications and few drivers have expressed a reduction in performance.  B100 is not as highly recommended but can be used with any engine built after 1994.  More than likely some modification is in order, but the Department of Energy does not specify.  Wear on engine sealant; limited warranty coverage and microbial contamination are chief concerns.  Also B100 does produce nitrous oxide as waste, though it drastically reduces if not eliminates other fumes from its waste.  

Come full circle to hydrogen fuel cells.  According to this same U.S. Department of Energy, “Hydrogen has the potential to revolutionize transportation and, possibly, our entire energy system.” The main problem with hydrogen is storage capacity.  Currently to achieve a 300 mile range, the vehicle would need to fill its trunk capacity with hydrogen.  New technology is needed to achieve optimal storage space, though this is being looked into extensively.  Notable options are compression, liquid freezing and combination of hydrogen with other substances.  Hydrogen is also in line to replace larger facilities.  They also share this possibility with geothermal sources, wind turbines, and solar panels.  Much of this is done with government backing and grant work as well as by private companies looking to enter the competitive market of energy production.  

Now the atomic bomb was indeed a military endeavor.  I do support that research and while I will concede that its deployment was of use to our country, I still believe it was a tragic event.  Regardless, if the government can be supported in developing technology that can destroy cities than we as a people can also request technology to preserve our way of life.  Oil being a non-renewable energy source means it is finite and means we will run out one day.  Already our way of life is being threatened and economy suffering from increases by a foreign source.  Oil is supposed to still be somewhat available at this point and already problems are occurring.  Drilling elsewhere may produce an abundance, but this is simply pushing back our execution date.  So, since you’re for research into military endeavors, I don’t see why something this important cannot receive funding from the government, which it does.

So is global warming going to be solved through any of this?  A magic cure lurking somewhere in the websites of the U.S. Department of Energy?  Probably not.  While many scientists are willing to jump on the band wagon to laude global warming, a lot of the research is also hotly contested.  Climatologists, environmentalists, physicists, chemists, whatever ists you want to come up with cannot agree.  Course if you put two doctors and a patient in a room, you will get twelve different possibilities…and that is by talking to one of those doctors.  So a definitive timeline for our doomsday is obviously questionable and the true impact of global warming, if any, will probably be under debate for a long time.  Yet there cannot be a lot of harm in looking into and employing green technology that works.  Kind of like having an apartment with a lot of trash in it.  Cleaning it doesn’t bring any immediate benefits, but it certainly makes the occupant feel better and does cut down on risks associated with a dirty living space.

[King_Furby]

i say yes.

[RubySlippers]

I saw a program where a person made biodiesal at a Green Expo, yes I went to some of these, and they need a toxic and highly corrosive acid as a component so that is hardly bio-friendly. Pure ethenol uses a great deal of potable water to make but is cleaner and runoff in Brazil is a fertilizer.

Now to my question again all these are mute points without China joining in who according to a newspaper article and that is supported by other sources is intending to build one dirty coal power plant a WEEK and will destroy any Kyoto gains very quickly and then some. If the US can't afford to switch to Green Technology widely what about them? And India? Why then should the US cut off our economic growth with more government regulation and government domination which I oppose on principle if China and India won't?

And I don't know why you are concerned according to most experts oil and coal and other resources will end by the year 2100 then humans will have to use other forms of power, and global warming will eventually reverse after that. The natural balance will restore itself regardless at some point. So I say we should use more oil and coal and other energy sources and use it up faster. The sooner we stop having access to it the sooner the free market will create alternatives.

[Apple of Eris]

Gee, I dunno, because polluting sources of energy not only may be contributing to global warming, but to overall air quality in general, which affects public health in general, which increases medical costs for everyone affected. So, if your free market companies want to pollute the public air, maybe your companies should be paying a tax for the right to consume/pollute a public resource. Or maybe they could just I don't pay, pay for the medical bills of all the affected people. Maybe a special tax levied on them based on the amount of pollutants they produce. Then you see, companies that don't want to upgrade to clean plants, which by the way, generally improves efficency according to most articles on teh subject I've read, they don't have too. They can just pay a tax.