Another damning enviromental report :(

[Spec]

Originally posted by Azazel




There is nothing wrong with Coal power plants when they have the proper filters. They actually contribute less to global warming than gas power.

Gas as in? Petrolium or propane. As for your filter stuff, I have to check this one out by myself, I dont buy it.

Propane (Natural gas) is fairly clean when burned. Hydrogen is the wave of the futur imo, but no one uses it because a plasma burner is to expensive, or so they say. Anyone here watches Daily Planet regularly?


Spec.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Sinking islands, disappearing glaciers, the destruction of the boreal forest by insects that should not be able to survive so far north, the melting of the permafrost (which is both hurting the boreal forests and turning the tundra into a swamp), etc. All this is stuff that hasn't been previously recorded in history.

You mean the ~6000 years which humans actually recorded anything?

Ot of the mllions and millions of years of the earth's history.

All of those have happened.

Just because it wasn't recorded in history doesn't mean it didn't happen either.

I doubt for instance that people cared that the permafrost melted.

ACK!

[child of Thor]

Or we may not adapt. In the past when pushed, we've come close to going out(Ice Ages etc) - but we always were left with a natural enviroment to recover in. Our biology is closely tied into the biology of our enviroment.

Unfortuneatly much of the post industrial revolution impact we have had, has tended to leave rather nasty and toxic stuff laying around, stuff that is anti our biology(and most of the natural wildlife and fauna).

I think this will be our greatest enemy in our future existence. Our reckless polluting with these chemicals does cause many problems now - in 10-20 years on our current course i cant think of a good resolution to this.

[Dis]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That's not in doubt. The quality of life is. When the environment takes a nose dive, so does the quality of life of those remaining alive.

there's no disputing that. I fully support the declining quality of life.

human deserve it for the rape they inflicted on the environment.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Tuberski
You mean the ~6000 years which humans actually recorded anything?

That's the important part, because that's the period in which civilization arose.

Just cuz you think people might not have cared if the permafost melted (though I suspect if your home was underwater, you'd care) doesn't mean someone wouldn't have recorded it. Granted, people with the knowledge of writing may not have been around to record such changes, so by itself, that wouldn't be proof. Alpine glaciers don't recover as quickly as forests, however, and since we have ice cores showing how old the glaciers are, we have a very good record of climactic changes going back further than human written history. So with the physical and written evidence supporting the facts we see today, which would only have appeared if the theories prediciting it were correct, you have a pretty strong case for the actuality of global warming.

As I wrote, global warming is not in dispite by any reputable scientist. What is in dispute is the amount of effect human input has had upon it.

[Az]

Gas as in? Petrolium or propane. As for your filter stuff, I have to check this one out by myself, I dont buy it.

Gas not gasoline or something.

Propane (Natural gas) is fairly clean when burned. Hydrogen is the wave of the futur imo, but no one uses it because a plasma burner is to expensive, or so they say. Anyone here watches Daily Planet regularly?


Spec.

Hydrogen is rather rare in nature. You can't mine it, thus it's not an energy source.


And filters can be damn good. believe me.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Dissident


there's no disputing that. I fully support the declining quality of life.

human deserve it for the rape they inflicted on the environment.

good one

[Whoha]

the scientists are too late, we all died in the great ice age of the 80s.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Whoha
the scientists are too late, we all died in the great ice age of the 80s.

Yep, cuz a handful of scientists were wrong once, all scientists most be wrong now and forever more.

Bad logic. Try again.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Azazel

Hydrogen is rather rare in nature. You can't mine it, thus it's not an energy source.

And filters can be damn good. believe me.

You dont MINE Hydrogen, you make it. Like.....juice let's say. And I found nothing that proves that coal factories with filters pollute less than Natural gas factories. Please, show me, I want proof


Read this Azazel

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/pollution.htm

For example, carbon monoxide (CO) comprises 56% of all air pollutants when looked at in terms of total mass. However, when looked at in terms of effect, CO makes up only 2.5% of the pollutants. In contrast, hydrocarbons make up 13% of all pollutants when look at in terms of mass but that number jumps to 71.5% when looked at from an effect point of view.

Also

http://www.consciouschoice.com/2001/cc1402/note1402.html

When the U.S. Congress updated the Clean Air Act in 1970 and 1977, it exempted coal-burning power plants that had been built before 1977 from complying with the stricter air pollution emission requirements. Who would have believed that these aging plants would still be going strong twenty-five or more years later? In some cases there has been almost no modernization of the equipment. Who would have thought that we would be seeing a significant increase in power produced from these grandfathered plants in the 1990s (partly as a result of the nationwide move toward electricity deregulation)? In Illinois, twenty-four such dirty coal plants continue to belch filth into the air today, despite numerous studies demonstrating the appalling extent of their pollution and the severe dangers such pollution poses to public health and the environment.

Proove me wrong. Please, seriously. Show me those new filters and what they do, and if you do, show me that the US government is intangible with corporations not using them. Strict regulations my ass.


SPec.

[Dis]

I believe making hydrogen consumes more energy than burning it releases.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Spec
Strict regulations my ass.

I wasn't talking about powerplants, but land usage. That should have been clear fom the context of my posts.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Tuberski
So?

Do they not produce oxygen?

ACK!

For relevant values of producing oxygen, forests don't produce oxygen. Ocean plankton is the primary absorber of carbon dioxide and producer of oxygen out there.

Forests prevent erosion, maintain water tables, encourage stable wildlife populations, and ensure plant diversity. They also have a different albedo from grasslands, but that's not super-relevant.

Forests are useful for reasons unrelated to oxygen.

[Spec]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I wasn't talking about powerplants, but land usage. That should have been clear fom the context of my posts.

Sorry Che. But Since this is an enviromental thread, I took "regulations" as how they are generaly. And if you take it from this point of view, I am right.

I dont know about your land usage regulations but I know that the US buys all our wood, which in consequence made our wood price triple in the last 2 years. So you dont cut as much wood as you think you do. Take a look at EARTH LIGHTS and you'll see that there isn't to many forests left in the US.

Spec.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Whoha
the scientists are too late, we all died in the great ice age of the 80s.

I don't think that the boy-who-crief-wolf parable applies. Thermodynamics isn't wrong because caloric was, general relativity isn't wrong because aether was, and nuclear fusion isn't wrong because alchemy was. Similarly, global warming should not be considered wrong because wrong models forecasted an ice age.