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