Decreasing "Carbon Footprint"

Five.five-six, while some good points are made, I think the whole debate on GW has gotten off track. We ran into the same thing with smoking. Historically, physicians became concerned that smoking caused cancer. This turned out difficult to "prove". Educated scientist debated this for years, which the industry used to it's own benefit (as you would expect industry to do). After decades of research, billions of dollars, millions of cancer deaths, most (but not ALL) scientist accept the relationship between smoking and cancer. Sadly the more important question should have been, is there any way that inhaling black smoke and coughing up black sputum could be good for you? My great, great grandmother would have said no. In my opinion we are doing the same thing with the environment. How much waste can 6 billion people make before they adversely effect the environment? So I would ask any of those scientist, or for that matter anyone, do you think there is anyway 6 billion people could consume the resources and create the pollution we do, and not have it be a problem?
Having grown up in Liverpool NY next to one of the most polluted lakes in the US (lake Onondaga) I have my doubts....
 
I'm trying to increase my carbon input. Please sell me your reductions at reduced rates.




-Mother Earth, the deity, has a fever and is sick
-We have the "prophet" (Gore) who has warned us of our sin toward the "deity"
-"prophet" has a place to send your money to receive forgiveness
-emotionalists follow blindly

Sounds like a modern cult of hysteria to me.
 
Last edited:
smoking is probably not a very good example, the ozone hole hoax is probably a better one.


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9712835#post9712835 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MarkKlier
Five.five-six, while some good points are made, I think the whole debate on GW has gotten off track. We ran into the same thing with smoking. Historically, physicians became concerned that smoking caused cancer. This turned out difficult to "prove". Educated scientist debated this for years, which the industry used to it's own benefit (as you would expect industry to do). After decades of research, billions of dollars, millions of cancer deaths, most (but not ALL) scientist accept the relationship between smoking and cancer. Sadly the more important question should have been, is there any way that inhaling black smoke and coughing up black sputum could be good for you? My great, great grandmother would have said no. In my opinion we are doing the same thing with the environment. How much waste can 6 billion people make before they adversely effect the environment? So I would ask any of those scientist, or for that matter anyone, do you think there is anyway 6 billion people could consume the resources and create the pollution we do, and not have it be a problem?
Having grown up in Liverpool NY next to one of the most polluted lakes in the US (lake Onondaga) I have my doubts....
Click to expand...
 
Kent and five.five-six, you both avoided answering that last question. This is not about Al Gore or any other overblown/ or perceived to be overblown threat.
Do you really think pollution is a non issue and should be ignored?
MK
 
Last edited:
Also, while we do not agree on this, I think smoking is an excellent example. I grew up with the "in your face" crowd, that joked about how stupid all the scientist were, and would quote one after aonther author about how smoking did not cause caner (great uncle Tom lived to 110 and smoked every day....all of which was true, but misguided). At that point in the debate those authors were correct to the point we could not clearly "prove it".
Proving anything that has to do with climate change will be far more difficult then the caner debate (IMHO). There are far more variables, and we are dealing with a n=1. Having said that, to me, the more important question was the last I asked. Does anyone really think pollution is not a problem? MK
 
I wasn't addresing the last question Mark, sorry. I think polluting isn't a good thing. I just don't think we should be alarmist or make a religion out of it as many people are doing.

The Earth's atmosphere isn't a lung. Right now the big, big problem is china and India, yet everyone else is buying thier products. The American invironment is coming back very quickly. When I was little, the common knowlege was that you'd never swim in Ontario because it was sooo poluted but it has bounced back very well.

I had a friend who did a water study last year in the Western Adirondacks and he said its really bouncing back. Now you won't find that in Adirondack Magazine.

Ultimately, I feel that the radical eviornmentalism devalues people. Read the books, "too many people, the Earth can support them". They want people gone. It plays into the agenda, remove them while they are infantecimile, stop having kids because they cost too much and are inconvienent. They point the finger at our government as an evil force ruining the world but our environment here is getting better. So why keep doing it?

How come the grief isn't toward the real polluting nations and companies? Because these environmenties are America haters, plain and simple. It's about extortion and telling us regular folk how to live. Our environment here is on the mend and everything will be fine as long as we have sensical waste practices. By the way, co2 isn't a waste product nor a pollutant. The DEC is now over zealous so there is NOTHING to worry about here. Overseas is another story. Go protest over there. They won't, why? Because there's no money in it for the elitists, and regular environmentalist can't control the average person there. The sixties hippys are in power here now and have zombified the public American consiousness into submission, the ones who have any sort passion are put on mind labotomizing drugs.

There was a letter to our local paper telling everyone to not eat meat because it's "Better for the environment". Excuse me, stop telling me and everyone else what to do! Who made these freaks our boss? Do I write a letter to the paper telling everyone to come to my church? Do I go around telling everyone what to do? No. Stop telling people to follow your environmental religion. After all, isn't it the Christians that have a "black eye" because they were "judging people", telling them what to do?

Well, the crazed environmentalists are doing just that. It's time for me to get the soap box out in town and scream from the bull horn reminding people of their sin! This stuff has gone way too far, I'm standing up and being counted. Its time the rest of you do to. People have value and America is great! We need more people on this Earth. We need more farms to give them food, we need more industry to provide then necessities.
 
KentE "When I was little, the common knowledge was that you'd never swim in Ontario because it was sooo polluted but it has bounced back very well...

There has been progress in some areas, mostly because of sound management from responsible people who are "environmentally concerned" and love this country. However some problems are not so easy, such as lake Onondaga, and the PCB's at the bottom of the Hudson.

KentE "Ultimately, I feel that the radical eviornmentalism devalues people"

Unfortunately times being what they are, if you are environmentally concerned you are "labeled as radical" attacked both on radio and in public forums. Not the other way around. Our culture has gotten very good at name calling and blaming...people are very polarized right now, to the point that it is hard even to discuss a topic. I think the labeling and name calling leads to mistrust, division and anger. Nothing good comes of it.
Having said all that, I did get the "par" meter to better study the lighting needs of various corals. It will be fun to see if there is a way to "optimize" the lighting of these corals, and maybe even drop the cost of our utility bills:)
 
Mark: I anxiously look forward to the outcome of your endeavors regarding optimal lighting parameters being that lighting is probably the largest net energy drain in reef systems. Thus any ideas on smarter/more efficient ways of optimizing light utilization would be of immense value. If you haven't yet, you may want to talk with SteveL. who was also conducting some research along thos lines.
 
Found the pamphlet I got from RG&E and it was actually offering the opportunity to join their wind energy program, glad I didn't call asking about hydrosomethingorother as I would've confused the heck out of them. ;) It states nearly 3000 customers signed up since April 04 and even more signed up in 05. Those customers are expected to use 19.5 million kwh of wind energy in 2007.

A quote from their pamphlet: "Every 100 megawatts of fossil-fueled generation displaced by renewable energy sources lowers carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by more than 500,000 tons, a reduction equivalent to planting 21 million tress or taking 82,000 cars off the road. Renewable energy sources also help avoid sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions."

Also from the pamphlet they split out fuel sources used from Jan 05 to Dec 05: Biomass 0%, Coal 2%, Hydroelectric 7%, Natural Gas 2%, Nuclear 88%, Oil <1%, Solar 0%, Solid Waste 0%, and Wind <1%
 
ok I do not get it... those windmills run when the wind blows, it has nothing to do with how many people sign up... do they turn off the ones that no one has signed up for or is it just a marketing ploy?
 
I agree with that. Right now they show 88% Nuclear, Hydroelectric 7% and Wind <1%. If they could move the 2% Coal, 2% Natural Gas and <1% Oil to those first three sources we'd be stylin'.

Or even Geothermal... right now the US is the greatest producer of Geothermal energy. Wikipedia again
 
I agree that we need to utilize a whole variety of alternate and renewable energy sources and I am not opposed to expanding the safe and standardized use of nuclear energy technologies. However, all energy sources, even renewable sources have downsides as well. I still believe that conservation and reductions in use of all resources should not be always relegated to a last resort in this country. We appear to feel that that unlimited consumption is our birthright. We currently appear to abhor notions of sacrifice and restraint. As 5% of the worlds population we consume more than 1/3 of all the worlds energy and other resources. While I agree that much America bashing is ill founded, we do have to recognize that when there is such dispropportionate patterns of control and consumption, it is only natural to breed resentment and opposition. We are a great nation with much to offer. But we must recognize that humility and compassion is the better part of greatness. Arrogant empires have a very poor track record for longevity.
I am unshaken in my belief that every little thing we do (or don't do) matters. Ancient philosophies are converging with modern quantum physics to illustrate that erything we do manifests effects throughout the reaches of creation. Individual responsibility should never be deferred to larger organizational systems.
Now, about those T-5s......
 
Just in case anyone who watched that 1.5 hr video posted in this thread: "The Great Global Warming Swindle" you should be aware that it is currently being ridiculed in the UK as a complete embarrassment to the Channel 4 station that aired it.

Turns out that it is riddled with either incorrect data or data that is 20 years out of date, or the data was manipulated. The only credible scientist in the program, Carl Wunsch has come forward and complained that he was "completely misrepresented" and "totally misled"

You don't have to believe me just do a Google search on the debate following the film's airing and draw your own conclusion. However for what it's worth there is one indisputable fact that I find interesting:

Martin Durkin the producer of this film is also responsible for a similar "documentary" shown by Channel 4 in 1998 where the TV station had to make a prime time apology to it's audience because the program mislead it's interviewees and views were distorted through selective editing.
 
you do not need to Google it here is the one of the more technically accurate rebuttals.. for the most part it concurs. warning it is very dry. it is a collage lecture Scam of the "Great Global Warming Swindle"

obviously the movie is made from a point of view but there several things that no one disputes


1. through history, temperature increase usually precedes Co2 rise

2. human Co2 emission is less than 2.5% of total Co2 emissions

3. all the planets in the solar system are warming currently at the same rate

4. Al gores flood in his movie uses a 20 foot sea level rise over 100 years. the ICCC worst case scenario is 20 centimeters

5. in the united states, climatologist are receiving 2 billion annually in grants to study Co2 if MMGW is proven a hoax, they will all be unemployed and know it

6. most of this century's 1 degree C increase took place and at a greater rate pre 1940

7. in 1940 when we had a huge increase in Co2 emissions, temperature dropped for 40 years






more later
 
Last edited:
Sorry Mark if you felt lumped in there. I wasn't specifically speaking of you. More or less the side that shouts out far behind you. Many of us are frustrated with the radicals. It's everywhere. The poor thread starter was worried about destroying the environment and he is most likely very, very responsible and upright. People are accused and feeling shame needlessly. It shouldn't be that way. Before we have insane knee jerk emotional reactions we should get some real science. And the truth is that will take many years. As far as being attacked? I've been totally lambasted many times in this forum for not beeing a lemming. Unfortunately, I and others have to raise our voice because of the incessant shouts from those who wish to tell us what to do. They teach our children these lies in our schools, any TV show, you can't watch a single nature show without the token "but... mankind is killing everything we have to save it". One little post rebutting, is not even a drop in the bucket compared with what I and others who don't believe this stuff face. Anyway... peace, out.
 
I agree, the "mankind (especially Americans) is killing everything" rant has been going on for quite some time. anyone remember the ozone hole that was going to kill us all? how about the rainforests that the good ol USA was blamed for... how about "no nukes" which France got a pas on, we have not built a nuclear plant since 1974 because of that one.. no wonder we have the biggest "carbon footprint". Now we are seeing "An inconvenient truth" being required viewing for gradeschoolers, a movie that would make Joseph Goebbels blush.
 
I wish we could just move beyond all the political laden verbiage on both sides, and see if we can work together to make a more energy, and environmentally efficient tank.

If we can, I would love to participate in the dialog, if we can't I will will shut up and move on...
MK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sickman
Can't get my RODI to go below 1.2 TDS in Palm Beach County (SE Florida)
Replies
5
Views
115
Twisk
Twisk
newlifeolsen
Activated carbon in saltwater canister filters?
Replies
3
Views
550
griss
griss
K
Carbon Dosing causes STN/RTN?
Replies
13
Views
3K
Timfish
Timfish
R
some random questions
Replies
1
Views
228
SantaMonica
S
sickman
Juwel Lido 200 - really reef tank ready all in one? Really Really?
2
Replies
39
Views
977
Reefing102
Reefing102
Back
Top