Help me defend our hobby

[NaClH2Opgh]

A non carbon one.

We have the technolgies to start moving away from carbon. We have started but far too slowly. There is still alot of money to made from fossil fuels and while there is still some there the guys who dig it up and sell it are hell bent on keeping us running on it, no matter what.

Making money and economy, hmmmm imagine that. No I understand, I would much rather go to a green economy and pay out my arse in taxes to subsidize it. Thank God we the majority here in the states can still decide what we want (for now) and not have the will of the minority imposed upon us.

 

[cortez marine]

"there is still some there the guys who dig it up and sell it are hell bent on keeping us running on it, no matter what. "

Some guys?

Guys ?
You mean some of the worlds biggest and most powerful corporations do you not?

These guys are buying off the environmental movement not with results in research and development money but from a portion of their P.R. budgets.
PR, image, spin and "environmental responsibility" papers play for time and give the illusion of progress as real time progress moves on an entirely different plane.
Steve
Steve

 

[Rossini]

Some guys?

Guys ?
You mean some of the worlds biggest and most powerful corporations do you not?

These guys are buying off the environmental movement not with results in research and development money but from a portion of their P.R. budgets.
PR, image, spin and "environmental responsibility" papers play for time and give the illusion of progress as real time progress moves on an entirely different plane.
Steve
Steve

Yes those lot. The ones who now control this planet and have all the powerfull governments in the world well and truely in their pockets and judging by many of the still unenlightened publics opinions, they have control of them too. They have us all eating out of their hands. :thumbdown

 

[teesquare]

A non carbon one.

We have the technolgies to start moving away from carbon. We have started but far too slowly. There is still alot of money to made from fossil fuels and while there is still some there the guys who dig it up and sell it are hell bent on keeping us running on it, no matter what.

Bear in mind that "the guys who dig it up and sell it" will not do so if WE don't buy it. It is a for profit economy.

But - I am curious...can anyone explain a "non-carbon" economy to me?

T

 

[10001110101]

I know they are going to come into my house this Christmas and "œfreak" when they see my reef set up. I have lots of nice rock from the Fiji Islands and lots of nice fishys caught in the wild. Oh"¦and did I mention this guy also is an expert on every subject? (He's one of those too).

I honestly don't know how to defend this hobby to a guy like this.
Mainly because"¦ I am afraid he may be right.

Any advice???

UGH. I know what you mean... but I consider myself a somewhat eco-conscious if not necessarily "active" person.

You can point out the advances made in captive grown reef inhabitants, from fish to coral and everything in between. Maybe put together a quick frag tank if you really care about this, which it seems you do, and show him how you are using your wild caught corals to create frags that you sell [not for profit of course! ] or trade with local hobbyists to reduce the impact of reef-harvesting.

Maybe point out that in many of these areas, there is an emerging trend towards "sustainable" coral harvesting, where mid-level distributors will pay extra or are often required to leave behind in essence "coral frags" that will help regrow the harvested corals.

Actually we've learned a lot about the coral reefs which are in much greater threat from environmental changes than from hobbyists... from the hobby, many varieties of fish, even endangered ones, can easily be bred by a hobbyist to help preserve the species (see Kaudern's Cardinal).

 

[NaClH2Opgh]

Bear in mind that "the guys who dig it up and sell it" will not do so if WE don't buy it. It is a for profit economy.

But - I am curious...can anyone explain a "non-carbon" economy to me?

T

A third world country

 

[10001110101]

A non carbon one.

We have the technolgies to start moving away from carbon. We have started but far too slowly. There is still alot of money to made from fossil fuels and while there is still some there the guys who dig it up and sell it are hell bent on keeping us running on it, no matter what.

I think if we moved "away from carbon" all life might perhaps cease!

Risky strategy!!!

I agree, carbon is a buzzword. Carbon greenhouse gases are the issue correct?

(methane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc?) If you're going to get up in arms about an issue, it's best to spell your position out so everyone is on the same page.

 

[thebanker]

There are plenty of third world countries that use vast amounts of hydrocarbon based fuel.

By non-carbon economy, you mean an economy without the demand for hydrocarbon byproducts, which is impossible. The screen you're looking at, the keyboard you're typing on, and the various filtration devices on your tank all have parts derived from hydrocarbons. Computers are here to stay. Computers need plastic. Done deal, the oil companies are here to stay.

 

[10001110101]

Question...

Answer...

It is pretty simple really, either we will stop it ourselves or something in nature will put a stop to it.

As the worlds population grows the resources needed to sustain it will become more and more scarce, eventually leading people to fight over them, at some point countries will go to war over resources and war = less people.

Nature has already done this on relatively small scale (black plague).
Now cram millions of people into a small space and have something similar happen, people get scared and run to another city unknowingly spreading the disease and the whole cycle starts over.

Just as posted already it is only a matter of time. I don't like it but thats reality.

Well, really, this points out the greatest disaster to mankind is too much success, well not exactly. If we can manipulate the environment too quickly and on too great a scale for the earth to adapt, living conditions could become rather inhospitable to many forms of life currently in existence.

You mention the black plague, what about the spanish flu of 1918? Wiped out a lot more than the plague, and it was worldwide, and fairly recent.

Pandemics will always exist, we must remember that the organisms that cause these disease are just as much a valid form of life as our lives... We would not exist if it were not for life's relentless motivation and capacity to take advantage of an opportunity.

What about WWII? We caused that, that cost more lives than the black plague, yet few of us fear war in the same way that we fear a disease.

The most important thing is to always preserve the fundamental integrity of our environment... we can survive everything else.

 

[thebanker]

I think if we moved "away from carbon" all life might perhaps cease!

Risky strategy!!!

I agree, carbon is a buzzword. Carbon greenhouse gases are the issue correct?

(methane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc?) If you're going to get up in arms about an issue, it's best to spell your position out so everyone is on the same page.

Carbon footprint is such a buzzphraze. It should be: "environmentally detrimental carbon based waste output"

 

[10001110101]

There are plenty of third world countries that use vast amounts of hydrocarbon based fuel.

By non-carbon economy, you mean an economy without the demand for hydrocarbon byproducts, which is impossible. The screen you're looking at, the keyboard you're typing on, and the various filtration devices on your tank all have parts derived from hydrocarbons. Computers are here to stay. Computers need plastic. Done deal, the oil companies are here to stay.

Yes, people will sell oil until they can't make any money doing so... Even if oil wasn't as profitable as something else, somebody will still do it.

Once other forms of energy production/transferance/utilization become more profitable than oil, the focus will shift to those, but oil will still be used! And really oil is not as big of an ecological threat as coal.

Coal power plants could easily be supplanted by fission reactors, but our culturally biased fears about nuclear power have prevented us from making the transition. Fusion technology will be ready for large scale energy production in ~30-50 years and will stem the tide of global climate change almost single-handedly.

 

[10001110101]

Carbon footprint is such a buzzphraze. It should be: "environmentally detrimental carbon based waste output"

It is when it gets used for statements like "moving away from a carbon based economy"

 

[Rossini]

A third world country

Have you been living under a rock for the last 20 years?

Have you not heard of electric cars,renewable energy sources like wind,wave,tidal,solar,biomass etc. Nuclear. Improved energy efficiencey and insulation. Second generation bio fuels. Hydrogen. The list goes on.....

It's funny every time environmental progress or issues are brought up, there's a group of people stamping their feet shouting "oh you want us to go back to living in caves done you!" .

**** I await the the grilling. "damn eco facists" "it's a scam for more taxes!" "bloody commy greenies:uzi:" etc etc *******

Have a nice weekend. :beer:

 

[NaClH2Opgh]

Have you been living under a rock for the last 20 years?

Have you not heard of electric cars,renewable energy sources like wind,wave,tidal,solar,biomass etc. Nuclear. Improved energy efficiencey and insulation. Second generation bio fuels. Hydrogen. The list goes on.....

It's funny every time environmental progress or issues are brought up, there's a group of people stamping their feet shouting "oh you want us to go back to living in caves done you!" .

**** I await the the grilling. "damn eco facists" "it's a scam for more taxes!" "bloody commy greenies:uzi:" etc etc *******

Have a nice weekend. :beer:

How the hell do you think they manufacture batteries for the electric cars, How do you charge the batteries for the electric cars, what do you do with the batteries with the electric cars when they are exhausted? Electric has as big of a carbon footprint as any other source....pleeeeze. Wind is a joke and not efficient. You Greenies are against nuclear. You must not have read your talking points correctly. I am all for nuclear. I would love to see all your houses and how many of you have installed solar panels on your homes. It's always the same with you, "do as I say not as I do". You are typical, you think you know better than everyone else and you need to show them the way. Thank God I live in the US where the minority doesn't impose their will on the majority (yet).

 

[Rossini]

How the hell do you think they manufacture batteries for the electric cars, How do you charge the batteries for the electric cars, what do you do with the batteries with the electric cars when they are exhausted? Electric has as big of a carbon footprint as any other source....pleeeeze. Wind is a joke and not efficient. You Greenies are against nuclear. You must not have read your talking points correctly. I am all for nuclear. I would love to see all your houses and how many of you have installed solar panels on your homes. It's always the same with you, "do as I say not as I do". You are typical, you think you know better than everyone else and you need to show them the way. Thank God I live in the US where the minority doesn't impose their will on the majority (yet).

HAHAHA and there we have it..... feel the anger. I could almost hear your feet stomping from across the pond. :lmao:

I love the way you say electric cars are no good because of the way electric is produced but ignore the list of non-carbon alternatives. You really do fit some well known stereotypes.

 

[Rossini]

Maybe if you could let go of your ideologies you would learn that wind power is efficient.

Check this out.


http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/14/oilman-t-boone-pickens-scraps-texas-wind-power-project/

This guy didnt halve his wind farm projects because they are not efficient. It was because of cheap gas prices and the credit crunch.

 

[NaClH2Opgh]

Maybe if you could let go of your ideologies you would learn that wind power is efficient.

Check this out.


http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/14/oilman-t-boone-pickens-scraps-texas-wind-power-project/

This guy didnt halve his wind farm projects because they are not efficient. It was because of cheap gas prices and the credit crunch.

So when are you converting to wind power. This is my point you won't live the lifestyle, but expect others to or want the government to mandate it.

 

[NaClH2Opgh]

Pickens is a business man first. He didn't invest in wind because it was the green or "right" thing to do. He pushed for wind because he invested in companies that were going to be selling wind power.

 

[NaClH2Opgh]

So which are you using? electric cars,renewable energy sources like wind,wave,tidal,solar,biomass...? You care to show us some pics of your green house and green lifestyle?

 

[Rossini]

Pickens is a business man first. He didn't invest in wind because it was the green or "right" thing to do. He pushed for wind because he invested in companies that were going to be selling wind power.

Of course I know this. And it illustrates my point completley. He's a clever business man who wouldnt invest in an indutrsy which as you say isnt efficient. He's a savvy guy. He realises there's a whole lot of wind energy out there and he can make money by harnessing it.

Obvisouly you where saying he's wasting his money on hippy greeny technolgy. :spin3: Maybe you should call him up and tell him it's an unefficient technology, and he's wasted billions of $$$. LOL