Erroneous Environmental claptrap....
 

This goes to the heart of some of the "Change your ways" arguments made about how Americans need to modify our lives. It unfortunately means slaughtering some environmental "sacred cows". It also is based purely on ia vew from INSIDE the US - because if we are talking about US changing - then we should start with the US don't you think? In other words - its just futher proof that the tree huggers get it all wrong.... again......

************************************************** ***********
#1 Turn off the AC because its inefficient and wasteful - harming nature!
Ok - it seems to make sense on the surface. But actually HEATING your home is much more inefficient. A comfortable 70 degrees means you need alot more energy to heat your home when its 0 degrees outside - vs it being 110 and you wanting to cool your home. The average home in Phoenix, AZ creates 900 lbs of CO2 a year in heating and cooling. The same home in the Northeast - 13,000 lbs - due to heating. Fact is - it takes less energy to cool a given space by one degree than it does to heat the same space by one degree.

Cooling the US during the summer heat produced 110 metric tons of carbon. Heating the US for the same period of time - 8 times as much....

#2 Speaking of heating - avoid gas or electric - go natural!!!
Oh boy what a wrong answer - burning wood releases all the CO2 it had absorbed back into the environment. The chemical reaction of fire itself also creates carbon dioxide as it absorbs oxygen. Petroleum based heat (Natural Gas or Oil) does create CO2 as well, just not as much. Electric heat creates virtually NO CO2 during use - the only time it does is when the electricity is created - but more on electricity at the end.

#3 Leave nature alone - go ORGANIC!!!!
God if people only paid attention. "Organic" cows for example - takes 25 of them to make the same amount of milk that 23 normal "industrial" cows do. More cows = more methane. Oh - and organic cows release 16% more gas PER COW than regular ones. Can you say double whammy? Well lets just eat grass fed cattle - only problem is that it takes them longer to reach slaughter weight - meaning they pollute longer than your regular Black Angus. Pasture beef also burp up almost twice as much greenhouse gas as grain fed cattle according to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization. What about vegetables and such you ask? Well, the vast majority of organic food is grown by "BIG AG" - in hot houses - and then shipped thousands of miles to your grocer. Think of all that CO2 from vehicles just so you could scarf down dinner and feel good about eating "organic".

#4 Leave nature alone - again!! Agro Genetic Engineering is BAD!!!!
6 BILLION people in the world - feeding them creates more so called greenhouse gas than all the world's cars, trucks, trains, ships and planes put together. Agriculture creates nearly 15% of those gases. Thats according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The largest single Agro source is from nitrogen based fertilizers. The solution, wonderful things like genetically engineered crops. For example - Arcadia Biosciences has worked on a genetically engineered gene that - introduced into rice crops alone - could save 50 Million Tons of CO2 annually. Genetically engineered corn can create higher yields from lower nitrogen soil - meaning less fertilizer. How about those crops currently in development that will allow the stalks and leaves to be turned into biofuels more efficiently? Lets not forget genetically friendly meat - without feet. Keeps us from being cruel to animals and saves the planet.... but all these things are supposedly EVIL!

#5 - Do your part - Ditch the SUV and buy a hybrid!
You have GOT to be kidding me. Not only are you not going to get me into a Prius, the real fact of the matter is even making the thing is harmful to the environment. Get this - pound for pound - making a Hummer results in LESS carbon emmisions into the atmosphere than a Prius does. The nickel used in the battery of the Prius is the biggest culprit. And you have to replace those on a regular basis - meaning your repeating the cycle and wiping away any gains you had made with an "eco" friendly car. Want to cut down on emissions? Buy a 1998 Tercel. Making a new Prius uses 113 Million BTUs according to one leading sustainability expert - Pablo Paster. A gallon of gas contains 113,000 BTU's - so that Tercel has a 1000 gallon "emissions" lead on the Prius to start with. Since the Tercel gets ~35MPG - the Prius has to go 100,000 miles just to CATCH UP! Buy a 1994 Geo Metro XFi (one of the most fuel efficient cars ever built) - and the Prius can never mathematically win the emissions race as it gets the same mileage. These numbers don't even factor in that the original owner has already "paid" off the carbon debt.

#6 Embrace the world - sign the Kyoto Protocol and help save the Earth!!!
You know what the KP actually does? Between the bait and switch fallacy of "carbon offsets" (which we will touch on momentarily) and its industrial scale brother "emissions trading" the real end result intended in Kyoto? An admirable reduction of CO2 emmisions by 2012 of 175 Million tons. Now thats total - from what we would be doing then if we do nothing - vs what we would be outputting then by signing onto Kyoto. Seems like a good thing? Well, for all the cost and hardship it will cause - guess what - that amount will slow the rise of carbon emissions by... hold onto your hat now ... all of 6.5 DAYS! (Source - Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado). Lets wreck our economy further for the whole difference of less than ONE week of the worlds CO2 output. Yea right......

#7 If you can't change - buy carbon offsets!!!
Anyone need any "Snake Oil"? Same thing with emissions trading. Its all a sham. Ok your paying someone to plant a tree in TimbukThree to make good on that airplane trip you just HAD to take. Who says it really gets planted? And who is gonna be watching over that tree to make sure it lives long enough to suck up the requisite carbon before some guy chops it down? Besides - planting trees as an offset doesn't work - though we will tackle that next. So what else are they going to do to save the carbon? Anyone? Anyone? Why is it all I hear is crickets?????

#8 Save old growth forests - stop logging and tree farming!!!!
Could they be MORE wrong? (Well yes - but thats #9 :smug: ) Sure, trees absorb carbon right? Well - kind of. The late, Great Communicator - Ronald Reagan himself once said "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles." While tree huggers will scoff - the facts are he was right. In warm weather or zones, trees release chemicals that contribute and can cause smog. It gets worse. Letting old growth forests be turns them into carbon FACTORIES!!! A tree is able to absorb carbon very well - until it hits about the age of 55. After that, its ability to absorb carbon diminishes rapidly. Canada signed on to the KP we talked about earlier. Then they did a study, thinking that their 583 MILLION acres of woodland would get them an easy offset that would keep them well within the KP mandated greenhouse gas emissions. Guess what - instead of being a net gain - those old growth forests were actually PRODUCING more carbon than they were absorbing. The carbon emissions were mainly from decomposing wood. Fires also contributed.
Want to make the woods into a real carbon sponge? Don't tell a tree hugger, but it would mean cleaning out old growth forests, planting seedlings, and harvesting them in about half a century and repeating the cycle - perhaps using them to make high quality durable goods like furniture and houses.

#9 Alternative energy is the answer - NOT NUKES! (Can you hear the "NO NUKES, NO NUKES, NO NUKES" chant in the background???)
OK - check out the US EPA's CO2 per KWH map. 2 places are immediately noticable as low carbon emmision areas. The Hydroelectric powered Northwest, and Vermont. (There are others, but these are examples.) Guess what's in Vermont.... She is called the Vermont Yankee - a 30 yr old Nuke plant that powers almost all the state. The darkest area - Washington DC. Now the scientists say its because of all the coal fired electrical plants - but personally I suspect its all the hot air politicians. Either way, you get 520 TIMES as much carbon pollution in DC than you do in Vermont. Why? Because Nuclear Power has an almost non existent carbon footprint. The environmentalists stamp their feet and yell about the waste - but we have the technology to build and use reactors that use 99.9999% of the energy in the reactants. Europe has mandated all new nuke factories be this type. The waste from them is not enrichable so no fear of it being used for weapons either. The only things that are as environmentally friendly? Hydopower is already mentioned, but isn't available everywhere. The other is wind - but sometimes the wind doesn't blow..... The UK government says that factoring in everything from mining the uranium to the day a nuke plant is decommissioned results in between 2 and 6 percent of the carbon emissions of a natural gas plant. Natural Gas is the cleanest of the "fossil fuels" by the way. Electrical power emits 26% of the worlds "greenhouse gases" - though the US electrical generation only emits 9% of our total - still - worldwide energy making is the largest single contributor to "global warming" gas release. Kill this no nukes tree hugging sacred cow, and solve at least 25% of the "problem" immediately.

************************************************** ************
For sources sake and in the interest of full credit - this numbered items above are a paraphrasing of an article in WIRED magazine (June 2008 edition) written by Spencer Reiss with the additional sources listed in each paragraph.
************************************************** ************

Ultimately the "fixes" that so called enviromentalists call for are simply not reasonable solutions. To often its a matter of "feel good" policies that accomplish nothing. While I am not a convert to the whole global warming theory, the fact is that answers exist that could keep it from being a problem if it is real.

All of these "save the Earth" ideas are not going to do any such thing. They will however stifle economic strength, innovation and true progress. One could argue about the merits of the pro's and con's of the global warming arguments. What does that do? Nothing. Telling me or another person we have to change our lives based on flawed reasoning doesn't do more than cause friction. Instead, lets look at what alternatives there are out there. Take each with a critical eye, examine the realities of the ideas instead of embracing them immediately due to a "it feels good" mentality. Do that, and we as a country, or a world, could make real progress on many fronts, not just environmental.

This ends todays lecture here in Reality 101. :know: Have a nice day.

there's certainly some claptrap around here:roll:

Say it ain't so, Joe. Here I laid out specifics, with facts backing them up, sited the initial source and the secondary ones, and yet you roll your eyes and act like facts are not important. See, this is what really gets me. People claim they are "openminded" and want real change, but they only want those things when it means they can dictate what we should or shouldn't believe, think and do. If it comes to having to deal with facts, no tree huggers care to be involved. Why is that?

This was done to cause thinking - something too many people don't care to do anymore. Point out where I, and the foundational article, are wrong. Or at least be willing to discuss the reality, rather than act like individual thought and discernment is a silly thing. We are not the Borg collective yet you know.....

I am open to serious discussion - I guess no lefties care to actually have that.

First of all you could have linked the article, it's right here. Secondly, although it has its few good points it's seriously flawed in most parts. This is one article that explains how and why.

"Suggestive posting" - does one say that?

Fincuan, your RealClimate article is also wrong in certain respects. I'm only going to speak about A/C and heating; since I sell these for a living I know a little bit about it. First, air conditioning and the SEER rating: You get the EER by dividing the cooling output in BTUs by the energy usage in watts. A 10 SEER unit will use 3600 watts to give 36000 BTUs of cooling. The minimum SEER allowed by law to be manufactured in the US is 13, and has been since January 1, 2006. 10 SEERs were the minimum back in 1996 when I started selling these things, and they've been manufactured since the late 1980s, but I don't know the exact date they were forced to switch to this efficiency.

If you want to talk about the average SEER of a/c equipment out there in the country, 10 might be right considering the old stuff that's still around (I had a customer in here last year with a relay on a 1958 model Lennox unit that's still running). However, if you want to make that comparison, you have to compare it with the average of all heating systems out there too.

Down here in Louisiana, they just don't sell oil-fired furnaces so I know jack about them. However, in gas heat, the minimum allowed these days is only 80% efficient. It does NOT convert anything close to 100% energy into heat in the house. The highest efficiency furnace I can get is 95% efficient. Older units again are far less efficient than current models, so if you're averaging them all I don't really know what you'd wind up with.

Air conditioning is a closed system. There are no emisions from it. Electric heat and heat pumps are closed systems, again with no emissions. Gas, coal, and oil heat have emissions.

The energy required to heat air 1 degree is exactly the same as the energy required to cool the air by 1 degree. Where you live determines which you need to do more and how much of the year you need to do either.

Heat pumps are only an option in places where the temperature stays above freezing the majority of the time. You can't use the reverse flow when the temperature is below the freezing point of water; the outside coil will ice over. They use oil/gas heating in the north because it's more efficient in terms of cost/heat output. Both articles are misleading in certain fashions, but it looks to me like Wired decided to compare the emissions of one of the poster children of the environmental movement with one of the never-mentioned counterparts, while RealClimate decided to change the units to obfuscate the issue.

While on the subject..

Has anyone given thought as to what happens when it comes time to 'dispose' of the new 'hybrid' electric cars.

There are a lot of heavy metals involved in their construction. :hmm:

CFLs (compact flourescent lightbulbs so loved by the environmental movement) all contain mercury.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, I'm happy to do my bit when it isnt forced down my throat like a goose being fattened up.

As far as I'm concerned, people pushing for environmental change need to look at the whole life cycle of a product before claiming it is green or environmentally friendly.

blog.judgingtruth.com/2007/10/hybrid-lie.html

This link helps me to convey my point, complete with a nice little picture as well! I don't necessarily agree 110% with what is written, but my point about the whole life cycle is raised

Clean up directions for a broken CFL by the EPA...


Fluorescent light bulbs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing. EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal below. Please also read the information on this page about what never to do with a mercury spill.
Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room

• Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
• Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
• Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.

Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces

• <LI value=4>Carefully scoop up glass pieces and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
• Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
• Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug

• <LI value=4>Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
• If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.
• Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.

Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding and Other Soft Materials

• If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.
• You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.
• If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.

Disposal of Clean-up Materials

• <LI value=8>Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.
• Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.
• Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.

Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming

• <LI value=11>The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window before vacuuming.
• Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.

Then there is the 'small' problem with Bio Fuels

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...enewableenergy

OK - now we see some of the problems - on BOTH the wasteful consumption for the mere sake of it - which I agree with folks like Skybird should not continue - as well as the sheer stupidity of some of the "green" things we are supposed to do.

So how should we solve our energy needs while conserving the health of the earth? *Note I said conserve- because I am a conservative!!!!!

It's progress that we are talking about solutions instead of just claiming there isn't a problem.

Solutions.

In terms of energy for electricity, nuclear is the best option. Yes, there is some waste, that is unavoidable, but newer plants put out so little waste compared to energy that instead of wasting billions on advertising and fear-mongering, peolpe could use that money to research and finance a perfectly safe and stable way of storing nuclear waste.

For vehicles - lets face it. No matter how green you want to go with cars, batteries are messy to make and even worse to dispose of. I can't see a long-term, viable and truly green solution for this, however I feel LPG should be promoted almost to the point of being standard, whilst more errort is put into hydrogen powered vehicles and other forms of propulsion. I also suspect we'll see much more use of light rail networks throughout cities of say, 500,000 people or bigger, powered by the above power plants :) Oh, and do away with biofuels, that fad is abhorrent.

Sea levels rising - we're never going to stop that happening. I've seen predictions of a cm or 2 over the next century, and up to a metre. Eitherway, some land will be lost and those who've built mansions on the beach will be concerned, not to mention thoseliving on atolls etc. People can always move house and home, but I dont think sea levels is an issue to worry about until we see levels which create an inland sea in Oz again.

Small wind turbines, like the type posted by subman several months back, should (sooner than later) be installed at least on any new home built, and ideally, fitted retrospectively to established buildings. Sure, wind may not blow all the time, but why not make the most of it when it does blow?! Mass produced, the cost should be quite low (how many could one build for $700 billion??:lol: ), and it would reduce reliance on coal fired power until such time as nuclear power can be widely introduced.

I personally would recommend against solar panels. Yes I'm aware they're popular right now and they're all the rage, but making them is very messy and environmentally unfriendly. It's a shame, because the sun is a great source of energy, it'll be interesting to see if we can somehow harness it in a cleaner manner.

Ideas such as becoming vegan might help in some respects - there's no denying that cows and other domesticated animals stink to high heaven - but its not in our best interests as a species. Homo Sapiens, like most (all?) other great apes, are omnivorous, not herbivorous. Thats how we work, to try and deny it is like trying to say the earth is flat.

A couple of solutions, but obviously more will be done. Ultimately, our lifestyles will need to change in general - but they should change based on adequate solutions, and not temporary and ill-planned half steps and token gestures. The change itself will be a natural progression, as we've seen over the past 60-odd years.

Lifestyle changes alone will not do it.

What needs to be done is to stop the uncontrolled growth of world human population. As long as it remains unchecked any conservatory measures we may make are doomed to failure.

Of course it must be said that we still don't know enough about climate to say whether the global warming we are creating isn't what's keeping the overdue ice age from beginning.