Take the Nature Challenge!

Remove all ads!

Big Tank said:

A hybrid would be the ideal choice. An SUV that pollutes less than a mini-van is still an SUV, and it still pollutes a heck of a lot.

T2Bruno said:

We're talking about harmful chemicals here.

T2Bruno said:

But, as Rallymama says, there's two sides to every coin. Computers (and the internet) are a great way to spread ideas and urge people to be more environmentally friendly.
That being said, anybody who participates on any other forum, please post a link to the Nature Challange on that forum, and urge people to take the challange!

 

My comments were an obviously failed attempt at sarcasm -- I just get tired of the big, green push and all the hoopla surrounding it. Especially when most of those involved simply do not understand the issues (i.e., they know just enough to be dangerous). Kind of like the high school kid who thought he was making an atomic bomb with radium from watches (zero chance of it working). It's just a pet peeve of mine.

To quote my favorite movie: Sorry ... sorry ... (it needs a British accent to sound right).

 

T2Bruno: Okay. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6985/full/428792a_fs.html

By the way, you probably need a subscription to get in. If you're part of a university, try accessing it from a university library or through provided proxies.

Geoff: True on SUVs. However, for myself, they've always carried the image of being a gas hog, while now, they're only moderate gas hogs. I know it's not going to contribute much, but at least it's something.

Speaking of cars, keeping them tuned up is a great way to reduce emissions too! So, if you're still forced to drive a vehicle, make sure it's in top shape.

[edit] By the way, don't get me wrong -- I'm more of a moderate on environmental issues than most people. While I believe there are issues that need to be dealt with such as global warming, it isn't a complete emergency. There was a news article a few days ago that said ocean levels will rise 1m in about 50 years. That's still plenty of time to reverse the climate changes in the world! Just look at the hole in the ozone layer in the Antarctic.

 

Let's see... leaving aside some of the gaping holes in the logic of this challenge (ie: that it assumes free agency where there is generally none), how do I stack up...

1. Reduce home energy use by 10%

I'm a student in share accommodation, and perfectly happy to freeze rather than turn on the heater as one costs money and the other doesn't. Environmental concerns are secondary for me.

2. Choose an energy-efficient home & appliances

See #1.

3. Don't use pesticides

I believe I would need crops or a garden first...

4. Eat meat-free meals one day a week

Generally manage to do this, usually the day before pay-day and I'm chowing down on 2-minute noodles with Chinese vegetables for that "not quite so desperate" touch. Plus, stir-fry is good with or without meat if you're any good at it (or just plain hungry).

5. Buy locally grown and produced food

The best market in Victoria is 15 minutes away on foot. Check.

6. Choose a fuel-efficient vehicle

I don't drive much, but my little tin coffin is pretty fuel-efficient. It's just not coolant-efficient...

7. Walk, bike, carpool or take transit

I live in the heart of Melbourne - everything is within walking or tram distance.

8. Choose a home close to work or school

University is one block and one jaywalk across a major road away.

9. Support alternative transportation

See above.

10.Learn more and share with others

Oh... well, I guess I'm nixed on this one, despite being a tutor and writing a Masters thesis... wait a second...

Being heavy-handed, that's 8 out of 10.

 

Big Tank said:

No, it really isn't a lot of time. The degredation of our environment is not as simple as "eliminate harmful substances, pristine environment." For example, let's talk about the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are not increasing at a steady rate; they are increasing at an exponential rate. This is in part because the technology that emits those greenhouse gases is become more and more accesable. For example, huge developing nations such as China and India pose an enormous threat to our atmosphere. The other reason that the level of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere rises at an exponential rate is because there is a vicious cycle. One example of it is seen in the Canadian arctic. There is an enormous amount of carbon dioxide trapped below the permafrost in the arctic. As global temperatures rise due to human intervention, the permafrost boundary creeps north, releasing more and more carbon dioxide, raising the temperature even more.
There is a point that, if we cross, there will be no return. This point is much closer than most think. We cannot afford to wait fifty years before we start to make changes.

 

Geoff: Oh, I hope I didn't imply that we should make changes fifty years from now! I was merely saying that completely drastic changes are unnecessary at the time. Yes, some measure of action needs to be done, but a sense of urgency will simply cause governments to rush into decisions about the environment that may not be the best thing to do.

I believe a better approach is to recognize that there is a problem that will eventually reach us in the near future, and by recognizing that there is still time, that good solutions can be researched and achieved.

One of my chief complaints is the Kyoto Accord. Yes, it does reduce emissions, but its environmental impact will be minimal because both China and the United States, among other developing industrial nations, are exempt from it!

Perhaps a better way to achieve lower emissions is to simply reduce the cost of clean technologies -- both in terms of purchase price and efficiency. If those technologies are "sexy" enough, industries will move towards it! But then again, the challenge is to achieve this in both local and world markets.

 

Umm.. Still, you do not understand the severety of the situation. In his book, Boiling Point: Who's to Blame for Global Warming, Ross Gelspan even blames environmental activists for fueling the environmental crisis in USA. Why? Because he believes they tend to sugar coat the issue; they try to make people aware of global warming and try to educate people on conserving energy, but they don't tell the true facts, they don't show the true severity of the situation.
You can listen to an interview with Mr. Gelspan on Quirks and Quarks here
(OR go to here ---> then click on the mp3 for "Who's to Blame for Global Warming")

The Kyoto Accord is the world's only global plan to reduce greenhouse gases. It may have flaws, but it is still better than anything else out there (because there is nothing else out there!) Also, I don't think China is "exempt" from it. Nor do I think anyone is "exempt". USA just chose not to sign it.

Easier said than done... In order to both lower the purchase price and increse the efficiency, we need better technology. They're working on it, but they can only work so fast! (I can't wait for fuel cell cars to become public!)

The smart industries already have. And those smart industries have already got the money they invested towards reducing their energy consumption back from lower energy bills. Well, they also get some publicity (the big ones and the first ones did, anyways) and some people are more inclined to buy from them because of their policy.

 

Geoff: Countries that did not sign to the Kyoto Accord are under no obligation to follow the emissions guidelines. You can look this up.

Furthermore, there is little to no information on the economic impact of the Accord. Existing information, whether from papers or the mouths of politicians, vary greatly so it is hard to get any solid info.

When looking at all this risk, I have to say to myself, "We are jumping head-first into something we don't know definite or clear answers for."

I draw parallels between this and various Enterprise Resource Program (ERP, basically to integrate computer systems into companies). Basically, everyone wanted computer systems to improve their companies, but ended up hurting their companies because they failed to correctly analyze the risks. Hershey almost went under because of ERP, and K-Mart went bankrupt.

Of course, there is some risk in making any decision, but that risk should only be taken if we have a clear picture. Right now, Kyoto is not clear at all. There are still many technical loopholes and arguements concerning "clean energy" and emission credits.

But, I'm really getting off topic with this. If you want a fair and balanced view of the Accord, I suggest http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/canada.html

Blackthorne TA: You are quite right with hydrogen fuel cell cars. While the only emission from these cars is steam, you are basically adding moisture to the air. If this was duplicated on a wide market, you will basically have a similar problem compared to petro-based cars -- worldwide disruption of climate.

 

#3. is probably the most difficult on the list to actually accomplish. That's because even if you don't personally use pesticides, chances are you to consume products grown with the use of pesticides. Whether that produce you purchase was bought from a local farmer or half a world away, there's a pretty good chance that farmer both fertilized and used pesticides on his crops - he doesn't get paid by the insects that eat his crops - only by humans. By purchasing products grown with fertilizers and pesticides, you are promoting their use. I'm not saying I have a solution or alternative to this, but I'm just pointing it out.

Some of the others are difficult too. For example, not every family can drive a fuel efficient car. Both my wife and I have cars that are pretty fuel efficient, getting at least 30 mpg. However, that's just not possible for some people. Take our next door neighbors. There's a husband and wife, and they have 5 children, all under 8 years old. If they go out as a family, they need at least a mini-van for transportation. There's simply no way they can find a 35-40 mpg vehicle that their family can fit into.

As far as energy efficient home and appliances, I'm of the general opinion that I will replace or improve these things on an as-needed basis. If I was building a new home, I would certainly take these things into consideration, but doing something to make my home more efficient - like replacing or adding to all the existing insulation - is very expensive.

My wife and I go in opposite directions to work. I have a 40 mile drive to work, and she has a 15 mile drive to work. There's no way we could move closer to one of the work locations without moving further from the other, so for me, living close to work is really not an option.

Finally, although somewhat

As a chemist, I do not think either Nature or Science is considered very prestigious by most scientists, and that should tell you a lot. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most scientists view publications of Science and Nature to be more popular science than real science. Basically, we feel that they are science for people without scientifc backgrounds. Sure, they serve a purpose of giving information to the public at large, but they aren't prestigious scientific journals.

 

1. Reduce home energy use by 10%

My house is already well insulated and I just installed a new high efficiency furnace this summer. I have done as much as I plan to.

2. Choose an energy-efficient home & appliances

See 1.

3. Don't use pesticides

Let me get back to you on this one after I poison the hell out of my lawn's population of leatherjackets.

4. Eat meat-free meals one day a week

This one is just not going to happen.

5. Buy locally grown and produced food

When possible sure I will do so but the options for doing so are a little limited up here in the Great White North. There tends not to be all that much in the way of local fruit and vegatables when there is a couple feet of snow on the ground.

6. Choose a fuel-efficient vehicle

The vehicle I am driving right now is about as fuel-efficient as you can get.

7. Walk, bike, carpool or take transit

Walk/bike - When feasible - yes. Going the 50 KM (each way) to work - I think not.

Carpool - Until a couple of weeks ago I did, but then the guy I was car pooling with changed jobs. I don't know anyone else who works in the city and puts in hours that are consistent with mine.

Transit - Sure if I want to double my already long commute time and hugely increase my expenses over driving. The transit system here is really a joke, and if you have to go from the suburbs into the area of the city where I work it is just terrible.

8. Choose a home close to work or school

Sorry but work is available in the city and
(a) I wouldn't want to live there - a quality of life issue, the idea of living in a cramped and grassless slum doesn't really appeal to me
(b) my house would cost three times as much if it was in the city
(c) I like the house I have right now
and (d) I have lived in this suburb for over 20 years so my family and friends are all here

9. Support alternative transportation

If there is something economically sensible I would be more than happy to support it.

10.Learn more and share with others.

 

Big Tank said:

I never said they were under any obligation. I just said that they weren't "exempt" from it, as you said. I felt that exempt was the wrong word, because it implies that there is something different about USA and China.

Big Tank said:

Forget the economic figures, the figures that matter more than anything are the horrifying figures that keep rising in severity as time passes. We need to do something! I believe saving the homo sapiens and many other species from oblivion is worth the risk to our global economy.

 

Geoff: I would think exempt would be the right word, if a person didn't sign to something for example. Kind of like the reverse for signing into an exemption?

 

"Exempt" would imply that the U.S. is not bound by the agreement due to specific clauses in that agreement which give it special privilege; that is not the case here. The U.S. simply decided not to sign the agreement; I think "not party to" would be better terminology.

 

It gets worse, it takes more energy to manufacture fuel-cells than they can produce.

The next clean source of fuel will probably the nuclear battery, ofcourse the mere mention of the word nuclear will cause many treehuggers to shake in their boots, forgetting that Uranium is a natural resource, and "Mother Nature" had a very own nuclear reactor nowadays called Oklo

Even windpower(which seems to be the only solution they can come up with) may cause global climate changes, link

[ November 19, 2004, 10:34: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

Here's what I'm doing:

1. Reduce home energy use by 10%
Hmm, just moved to a bigger house so I've probably increased energy use
2. Choose an energy-efficient home & appliances
Don't know how
3. Don't use pesticides
Yes! No pesticides on my garden - I can't afford to buy any
4. Eat meat-free meals one day a week
Maybe, once a fortnight
5. Buy locally grown and produced food
I do try and do this, but it would mean no coffee or bananas
6. Choose a fuel-efficient vehicle
Well, I don't have a big engined car so I suppose I am doing this
7. Walk, bike, carpool or take transit
I catch the bus to work. Does that count?
8. Choose a home close to work or school
That would be far too expensive
9. Support alternative transportation
Alternative to what?
10.Learn more and share with others
I'm doing that right now

 

@Splunge: Yeah, I think that's much better. Being an Engineer kind of hacks up my ability to use the english language.

 

You think being an engineer gives you linguistic problems - you should try being Canadian! (Eh.)

 

I am a Canadian.

[Yikes! ] -Tal

[ November 20, 2004, 02:04: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

That Slashdot Page said:

Well, at least that's a start at cooling the arctic and making sure our polar icecaps remain frozen!
Besides, perhaps that study just chose to place the wind farms in the wrong spots. Perhaps if they were placed differently, or perhaps if they were on a different continent, there would be no worries.

Morgoth said:

Solar power?