Interesting Greener Is Not Better
- Thread starter snommisbor
- Start date
- Status
chrissreef
New member
Rossini - thanks... not everyone is a typical American over here =) I think the biggest problem is the whole "out of sight out of mind" cultural dynamic. Most people I've met that aren't really "green" supporters haven't seen, first hand, the impact of their wasteful lifestyles. They haven't researched nuclear, coal or other energy sources and have no idea what happens to their trash once they put it in the plastic bag on the curb.
A typical American to me is someone that throws their cigarette bud out the window and drives on in their SUV eating a fast food hotdog in a styrofoam container and goes home to their coal powered home all in the name of freedom. They never see coral reefs bleaching, tuna population declines, acid rain effects or their impact on other cultures etc. etc. Their only inclination of nature is during 30 minute excursions off cruise ships and what they see on TV - which gives little environmental change perspective. Americans are good at moving on when the "going gets tough" rather than face the problem or reality head on. New York actually picked up its streets a while back - I was pretty impressed!
Anyway, I'll stop rambling. That buck50bmg guy illustrated my point well in his last post. Glad he stepped up. I wish he could answer questions rather than sidestep them... which usually gets done when someone is talking out of the side of their mouth.
edit: "pretend everything is alright." - nah, I don't think people are pretending about anything... I think most people just have no idea. If something isn't impacting them directly, it's veeerrrry hard to get their buyin to change their habbits or not choose the easy way out or cheapest bandaid solution. Until the ocean has flooded their home, their trash stays on their own land or they begin to starve - people won't change.
A typical American to me is someone that throws their cigarette bud out the window and drives on in their SUV eating a fast food hotdog in a styrofoam container and goes home to their coal powered home all in the name of freedom. They never see coral reefs bleaching, tuna population declines, acid rain effects or their impact on other cultures etc. etc. Their only inclination of nature is during 30 minute excursions off cruise ships and what they see on TV - which gives little environmental change perspective. Americans are good at moving on when the "going gets tough" rather than face the problem or reality head on. New York actually picked up its streets a while back - I was pretty impressed!
Anyway, I'll stop rambling. That buck50bmg guy illustrated my point well in his last post. Glad he stepped up. I wish he could answer questions rather than sidestep them... which usually gets done when someone is talking out of the side of their mouth.
edit: "pretend everything is alright." - nah, I don't think people are pretending about anything... I think most people just have no idea. If something isn't impacting them directly, it's veeerrrry hard to get their buyin to change their habbits or not choose the easy way out or cheapest bandaid solution. Until the ocean has flooded their home, their trash stays on their own land or they begin to starve - people won't change.
Last edited:
So how much energy are you going to waste on setting up/stocking/maintaining that 280 gallon reef tank Chrisreef? I love being preached to by people who think they are environmentalists because they keep animals trapped in little glass boxes for absolutely no reason except their own personal pleasure.
Maybe you can answer something for this clueless typical terrible american. It's been about twenty years since manmade global warming alarmists said the ocean would start rising in as little as two decades. So how far was Dallas from the coast 20 years ago and how far is it from the coast now?
I guess it doesn't matter anyways since it isn't global warming anymore. Now it's called climate change because the climate doesn't normally change so if it does we can blame ourselves.
Maybe you can answer something for this clueless typical terrible american. It's been about twenty years since manmade global warming alarmists said the ocean would start rising in as little as two decades. So how far was Dallas from the coast 20 years ago and how far is it from the coast now?
I guess it doesn't matter anyways since it isn't global warming anymore. Now it's called climate change because the climate doesn't normally change so if it does we can blame ourselves.
chrissreef
New member
RichardS -
Edit: my issue is that Buck50 simply says Nuclear is "better" but never gives a reason why other than the output per cell is higher and that solar is useless at night. That's like saying an 18 wheeler has more "power" than a car - so we should all be driving 18 wheelers. He's not taking into consideration anything other than raw output in a 1:1 comparison.
I never claimed I'm perfect and I don't claim I'm an environmentalist because I keep "animals trapped in a glass box". I see myself as one because of the effort I go through to recycle, reduce my C02 footprint, purchase organic produce when I can, avoid fertilizers/toxic chemicals in my house as well as try to continously reduce my waste. Do I use styrofoam? oil? etc. the answer is YES... do I try to keep this at a minimum vs just consuming what I can? YES
Oh, when I eat Sushi I have a card from the Monterey Bay Aquarium which lists fish that are being overharvested etc.
All I ask is that others "try" at least "some" - we aren't at a place where we can be 100% green. If everyone were 20% "greener" I'd be happy. (since we're only 5% of the world population but consume 20% of the worlds energy). The thing is, I don't even see people "try" - like when a recycle bin is right next to the trash, they just throw everything in the trash - and my head goes ***? its my generation and my children that has to deal with that trash.
Since you want to critique my tank and where I live...
1. I'm using 100% wind electricity in my house so it doesn't matter how much energy I "waste" since the C02 footprint is very very small and other toxins found in coal aren't being spewed into the atmosphere from me. I pay $30-70 extra per month for wind power - which will be reduced if others also invested in the technology - coal is the cheap/easy energy right now though (and people don't seem to give a rats a__ about the number of US coal miners that have died in the last few years - they just want cheap coal)
If you still want to know more though, the pumps are Tunze/Dart (low wattage compared to some others - dart is set on a manifold to avoid needing other pumps and tunzes on wavemaker so only 2 are on at a time), I'm using 1 less MH than I should be and lumenbright Large reflectors. No chiller or heater is used and the fuge is lit by T5's which get recycled since T5's contain mercury)
2. All my SPS are frags from other hobbyists tanks, half my fish are aquacultured and are in QT to avoid unecessary losses. Basically my tangs, LPS, LR are wild caught. I'm not perfect.
3. Dallas - we're probably 1/4" or more closer to the ocean now - not sure... but the oceans are higher so we must be closer - I just don't know the exact number. In my opinion though, it doesn't matter where I live... but I need to be aware of how my actions impact those living near the ocean... last thing I want is FL, LA or my friends in Houston to get flooded.
All I ask is that people "try", 1-2 small things can make a big difference if we all did it. The difference between nuclear vs solar/wind/thermal/tidal is night/day to me but maybe not others. My pocketbook doesn't drive all of my decisions but it impacts some just like everyone else. (and no I don't like the oil prices with my long a__ commute to work =(
Edit: my issue is that Buck50 simply says Nuclear is "better" but never gives a reason why other than the output per cell is higher and that solar is useless at night. That's like saying an 18 wheeler has more "power" than a car - so we should all be driving 18 wheelers. He's not taking into consideration anything other than raw output in a 1:1 comparison.
I never claimed I'm perfect and I don't claim I'm an environmentalist because I keep "animals trapped in a glass box". I see myself as one because of the effort I go through to recycle, reduce my C02 footprint, purchase organic produce when I can, avoid fertilizers/toxic chemicals in my house as well as try to continously reduce my waste. Do I use styrofoam? oil? etc. the answer is YES... do I try to keep this at a minimum vs just consuming what I can? YES
Oh, when I eat Sushi I have a card from the Monterey Bay Aquarium which lists fish that are being overharvested etc.
All I ask is that others "try" at least "some" - we aren't at a place where we can be 100% green. If everyone were 20% "greener" I'd be happy. (since we're only 5% of the world population but consume 20% of the worlds energy). The thing is, I don't even see people "try" - like when a recycle bin is right next to the trash, they just throw everything in the trash - and my head goes ***? its my generation and my children that has to deal with that trash.
Since you want to critique my tank and where I live...
1. I'm using 100% wind electricity in my house so it doesn't matter how much energy I "waste" since the C02 footprint is very very small and other toxins found in coal aren't being spewed into the atmosphere from me. I pay $30-70 extra per month for wind power - which will be reduced if others also invested in the technology - coal is the cheap/easy energy right now though (and people don't seem to give a rats a__ about the number of US coal miners that have died in the last few years - they just want cheap coal)
If you still want to know more though, the pumps are Tunze/Dart (low wattage compared to some others - dart is set on a manifold to avoid needing other pumps and tunzes on wavemaker so only 2 are on at a time), I'm using 1 less MH than I should be and lumenbright Large reflectors. No chiller or heater is used and the fuge is lit by T5's which get recycled since T5's contain mercury)
2. All my SPS are frags from other hobbyists tanks, half my fish are aquacultured and are in QT to avoid unecessary losses. Basically my tangs, LPS, LR are wild caught. I'm not perfect.
3. Dallas - we're probably 1/4" or more closer to the ocean now - not sure... but the oceans are higher so we must be closer - I just don't know the exact number. In my opinion though, it doesn't matter where I live... but I need to be aware of how my actions impact those living near the ocean... last thing I want is FL, LA or my friends in Houston to get flooded.
All I ask is that people "try", 1-2 small things can make a big difference if we all did it. The difference between nuclear vs solar/wind/thermal/tidal is night/day to me but maybe not others. My pocketbook doesn't drive all of my decisions but it impacts some just like everyone else. (and no I don't like the oil prices with my long a__ commute to work =(
Last edited:
It really doesn't matter how you try to justify your reef tank. The fact is that it is a completely unnecessary indulgence that is in all aspects is environmentally unfriendly. Might want to think about that before you go pointing your finger at the clueless masses. Don't get me wrong, I love my aquariums. I'm just not into self deception.
Actually you're about 3.6" closer to Rockport. In a century it'll be about a foot and a half closer if the trend continues. So only immortals are going to have to deal with the ocean "knocking at their door". That rising trend has been occuring since 1900 (or longer but that the oldest recorded data I've found). Must be global warming.
Actually you're about 3.6" closer to Rockport. In a century it'll be about a foot and a half closer if the trend continues. So only immortals are going to have to deal with the ocean "knocking at their door". That rising trend has been occuring since 1900 (or longer but that the oldest recorded data I've found). Must be global warming.
chrissreef
New member
thanks for answering =) glad you're willing to do that - no way do I want to be anywhere near a reactor. material, waste, transportation of waste, mining dangers, potential for terrorism, murphy's law, other things mentioned above still leads me to wind/solar. It's a great resource - just not a necessary one when cleaner/safer alternatives are available in my opinion. to me, nuclear is passing on waste to our children to deal with.
semi off topic, something i've been thinking about lately is "horsepower inflation". Over the last 2 decades there's been advancements in auto horsepower. i wonder where things would be if R&D had been spent in mpg instead.
i think nuclear seems so much more attractive at times b/c it's had so much R&D put into it and is like the horsepower analogy i just mentioned. If other energy sources had had R&D put into them, I wonder what the comparison would be.
semi off topic, something i've been thinking about lately is "horsepower inflation". Over the last 2 decades there's been advancements in auto horsepower. i wonder where things would be if R&D had been spent in mpg instead.
i think nuclear seems so much more attractive at times b/c it's had so much R&D put into it and is like the horsepower analogy i just mentioned. If other energy sources had had R&D put into them, I wonder what the comparison would be.
chrissreef
New member
"It really doesn't matter how you try to justify your reef tank. The fact is that it is a completely unnecessary indulgence that is in all aspects is environmentally unfriendly."
- 100% agree. I don't try to justify my tank, I just try to minimize its waste. As I mentioned, I'm not perfect and don't expect that of others. I think people should at least "try" - whatever baby steps they can take helps. The problem is, I don't see any effort by sooo many.
3.6" in only 2 decades? ouch.
"So only immortals are going to have to deal with the ocean "knocking at their door". "
- no, our children's children and I think it's irresponsible, selfish and economically unsound to disregard them.
edit: and btw, you coming into this board indicates to me that you're atypical... not typical =)
- 100% agree. I don't try to justify my tank, I just try to minimize its waste. As I mentioned, I'm not perfect and don't expect that of others. I think people should at least "try" - whatever baby steps they can take helps. The problem is, I don't see any effort by sooo many.
3.6" in only 2 decades? ouch.
"So only immortals are going to have to deal with the ocean "knocking at their door". "
- no, our children's children and I think it's irresponsible, selfish and economically unsound to disregard them.
edit: and btw, you coming into this board indicates to me that you're atypical... not typical =)
Okay well there's no real reason to have this discussion anymore because the world has already been saved by "Green" technology...
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=pe_2499...nd=Green Earth Technologies&emi=ATVPDKIKX0DER
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=pe_2499...nd=Green Earth Technologies&emi=ATVPDKIKX0DER
chrissreef
New member
Richard - now you've brought up another subject... lack of regulation on slapping "green" on everything. kind of funny yet deceptive.
(ok, there is "some" now)
(ok, there is "some" now)
Paul_PSU
In Memoriam
Buck50bmg,
I think we need to realize that they are making us aware because they know better and well, we are just stupid and arrogant and need to be shown the way.
If I am not mistaken, weren't the same scientist claiming the Earth is going to warm over and melt, the same ones a few years back saying the second ice age was coming.
Now were can I buy me sum carbon offset credits...
I think we need to realize that they are making us aware because they know better and well, we are just stupid and arrogant and need to be shown the way.
If I am not mistaken, weren't the same scientist claiming the Earth is going to warm over and melt, the same ones a few years back saying the second ice age was coming.
Now were can I buy me sum carbon offset credits...
Paul_PSU
In Memoriam
I didn't mean that it was "Dr Jones" in the 70's and the same "Dr Jones" now......
I meant it as in the general environmentalist movement.
IMO they get paid by grants for research into the "cooling" and "warming" and if there is no warming or cooling to the point of hysteria then there is no more grant and no more $ for them. Give it another 5-10 years and we will be having this argument about another Ice Age.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12901031#post12901031 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Paul_PSU
I didn't mean that it was "Dr Jones" in the 70's and the same "Dr Jones" now......
I meant it as in the general environmentalist movement.
IMO they get paid by grants for research into the "cooling" and "warming" and if there is no warming or cooling to the point of hysteria then there is no more grant and no more $ for them. Give it another 5-10 years and we will be having this argument about another Ice Age.
Well I don't think you should put environmentalists and scientists in the same basket. This is why generalisations made by doubters just do not work. Just in case you have not noticed, science has changed a little in the last 30 years. And I am not just talking hair styles and flairs.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
You're mistaken. From 1965 to 1979 there were 7 scientific publications (by 11 authors) that projected cooling as opposed to 44 articles projecting warming. The infamous Newsweek article and others aren't an accurate representation of the state of scientific knowledge at the time.
I doubt anyone making this argument has ever written a successful research grant. This isn't how it works. The reviewers for the granting agencies are experts in the field they review for. They can spot over-dramatized BS pretty easily. You would have to fool a whole panel of experts not once, but for most agencies, at least twice. Not to mention, you're expected to build on previous work, so if you make claims that are unsupported by what's already known, that raises a big red flag.
Also, it's not even close to true that researchers have to hype subjects to compete for grant money. Showing that there is a knowledge gap or a possible error in our knowledge is much more important than convincing the granting agency that the world is ending (which is hard to do unless it's substantiated by the evidence, since you're trying to sell the research to experts). For example, my current work is attempting to look at the effects of increased temperature on clowns and anemones. The grant simply said that I would investigate metabolism and respiration in the animals and how the symbiosis affects those rates. Even though I could have gone for the "the reefs are dying" and "global warming is threatening the animals" angles to try to sell the project, the grant doesn't even mention the effects of global warming on the animals (or even temperature changes IIRC). For these animals, there's just no strong argument to be made there and trying to argue those points would be a pretty weak proposal. All the grant said is that there's virtually nothing known on the subject and it's important to understanding the nature and benefits of the symbiosis. Even without trying to drum up a crisis, the proposal easily competed with other more dramatic research.
Beyond all that, no one is getting rich writing grants. At least in the academic field, where most of this research is coming from, there are almost always strict limits on how much money a researcher is allowed to keep. Most researchers get their money from a regular salary and are only allowed to keep the equivalent of 1-3 months worth of summer salary from grants. In practice though, almost no one is keeping that much. For example, the grant I'm currently working under is for $150,000 over 3 years. Only $4,000 of that goes to the researchers- over 3 years. To give you an idea of how much money I'm making from that grant, if I was making minimum wage I would have had to work for about 5 of my normal workdays to make the same amount.
Paul_PSU
In Memoriam
greenbean36191,
I stand corrected on the issue of grants. I don't have any first hand experience with grants myself. I have friends in the technology field that work for a grants and if they don't start seeing results toward proving their original theory then when the time comes the grant will not be renewed. The thing that bothers me the most about the entire global warming issue, is not that it is happening, but that we have caused it and can reverse it. I think it is pretty arrogant of us. I don't doubt that we go through warming cycles. I just don't buy the scare tactics that "we" are the cause and "we" can change or reverse the cycle. JMO........
Just for the record, I am not anti-environment. I agree that we need to protect it the best that we can. I just resent people like Al Gore, that just needed to find something to do after his failed run at the White House. He never made the fuss while he was V.P.
Rossini, I don't "spout" anything. I state my opinion and if you don't agree with it....oh well
I stand corrected on the issue of grants. I don't have any first hand experience with grants myself. I have friends in the technology field that work for a grants and if they don't start seeing results toward proving their original theory then when the time comes the grant will not be renewed. The thing that bothers me the most about the entire global warming issue, is not that it is happening, but that we have caused it and can reverse it. I think it is pretty arrogant of us. I don't doubt that we go through warming cycles. I just don't buy the scare tactics that "we" are the cause and "we" can change or reverse the cycle. JMO........
Just for the record, I am not anti-environment. I agree that we need to protect it the best that we can. I just resent people like Al Gore, that just needed to find something to do after his failed run at the White House. He never made the fuss while he was V.P.
Rossini, I don't "spout" anything. I state my opinion and if you don't agree with it....oh well
chrissreef
New member
Yea, I'm pretty sure scientific grants for studying something and grants aimed at achieving a goal (technology) operate quite differently. I work for a government defense contractor - it's not grant based, but if we don't hit our marks, no more $$ for us! =)
My wife is in the medical field and went to a dietician convention "sponsored" by Frito-Lay. it turned out, the entire thing was a scam... they basically were promoting the "benefits" of high fructose corn syrup and were looking for dieticians to help them in their cause - despite research saying otherwise. Her and her friends call dieticians that help these companies traitors. (taco bell, McDonalds, coke, frito-lay etc. etc.). I'm guessing "scientists/economists" working for the big oil companies are regarded as the same.
someone above mentioned how 31,000 scientists debunked "global warming" - I didn't read the article but it sounds fishy to me since scientists generally don't work like that (and I've heard scientists agree that there's some global warming affect 4 to 1). As greenbean mentioned, 7 articles mentioned global cooling - yet their claims seem to get a TON of support from the uninformed public missing the other 44 articles of information. I blame most of this on the media. It provides an "excuse" opportunity and leaves people uninformed.
kind of reminds me about the local news that covered a tragedy at my school - they were all looking for the "story" and didn't report facts. ticked me off - but what could us as students do?
My wife is in the medical field and went to a dietician convention "sponsored" by Frito-Lay. it turned out, the entire thing was a scam... they basically were promoting the "benefits" of high fructose corn syrup and were looking for dieticians to help them in their cause - despite research saying otherwise. Her and her friends call dieticians that help these companies traitors. (taco bell, McDonalds, coke, frito-lay etc. etc.). I'm guessing "scientists/economists" working for the big oil companies are regarded as the same.
someone above mentioned how 31,000 scientists debunked "global warming" - I didn't read the article but it sounds fishy to me since scientists generally don't work like that (and I've heard scientists agree that there's some global warming affect 4 to 1). As greenbean mentioned, 7 articles mentioned global cooling - yet their claims seem to get a TON of support from the uninformed public missing the other 44 articles of information. I blame most of this on the media. It provides an "excuse" opportunity and leaves people uninformed.
kind of reminds me about the local news that covered a tragedy at my school - they were all looking for the "story" and didn't report facts. ticked me off - but what could us as students do?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
