Climate change, deforestation, mass extinction...

[Rationalt]

I think religion(s) Don't have much influence over environmental issues. Rapid progress in Science paved way for increasing human life spans and survival.Industrial revolution paved way for mass production of goods resulting in increased consumption with attended environmental problems .Recycling looks good on paper but the over all impact is not significant .Unless rapid strides or made in scientific/industrial discoveries sustainable living, that can take care of environment , will not be possible.

 

[dazed]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Nobody HAS produced a scientific paper (or very few anyway) because you need proper evidence and to be able to cite scientifically sound, independent studies to do so.

I think you just contradicted "HAS".

It leaves us with the KNOWLEDGE that the climate is changing and that it is going to be horrendous for our species and for many others upon some of which we depend, if something is not done by those who have the power to do it.

Climate is always changing!!! Where I'm typing right now was submerged under water or blanketed with ice for the past millenia. Meaning the Earth was a lot hotter than it is now.

There is no reason why we should be the ultimate species on Earth.

 

[dcalling]

You realize, don't you, that LEDs as lighting is a very recent development, while florescent lighting is over 100 years old?

In terms of a debate over energy efficiency, the only reason florescent lighting didn't dominate the market half a century ago is because it has had problems with longevity and responsiveness compared to incandescents.



Which event was that? Europe suffered a "little ice age" from 1300 to the late 1800s. Europe had gone through the worst of the "little ice age" half a century before the Tambora eruption and was well on the way out of it.

I do realize florescent light has a much longer history then LEDs, but they also contain mercury which in my mind is a much worse environment hazard than CO2.

The event I mentioned is 1883 eruption of Krakatoam, it is stated that "In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F)".

Just one volcano can do that, imagine what the smog that covers entire china can do to the climate.

That is why I think most client scientists are wrong, their computer models only calculates effect of CO2s, and forget all the other parts. To prove that at least some of their models are deadly wrong, I had the famous hockey stick climate change graph (it is not a model, but they have models that actually backs it up lol).

I am not firmly saying that global warming is happening or not, all I want is to stop some of the more dangers policies that we are implementing right now
1. florescent lights, we should ban it, and use LEDs
2. more nuclear power plants, they are much cleaner (and the new ones are much safer).
3. All climate change meetings should be conducted online instead of flying. It is so laughable that all those climate meetings are still conducted in person in this age. They are not interested in climate change, they are interested in free travel.
4. bio diesel. Not the ones that mass produced by farmers, I've heard they are even worse for the environment. The ones that people uses MacDonald wast oil and convert them to bio diesel is just much better. We should give them all the incentives to do more.

 

[BaconWizard]

That is why I think most client scientists are wrong, their computer models only calculates effect of CO2s, and forget all the other parts.

I agree with almost all of your post, but this quote is simply not true. Only the models reported in the popular press or engaged-with by politicians do so. That's not at ALL the same thing. Methane for example, is frequently looked-at, as is simple water-vapour and many other things.

On a positive note, solar power is actually just starting to look viable (not the stuff we already have, but in development)
As is, crucially and at LAST, battery technology which makes renewables much more efficient and gives us electric cars that cost the same as petrol cars, and outperform them in every other way including range and speed.

 

[RDKirk]

I do realize florescent light has a much longer history then LEDs, but they also contain mercury which in my mind is a much worse environment hazard than CO2.

In the first half century of florescent lighting, mercury was not known to be a problem. It would have made incandescents obsolete if it had only become more reliable years ago.

The event I mentioned is 1883 eruption of Krakatoam, it is stated that "In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F)".

Just one volcano can do that, imagine what the smog that covers entire china can do to the climate.

By then the European "little ice age" was over and done. The effects of Krakatoa were completely diminished within five years--nothing that could be called an "ice age" and less significant than sunspot cycles.

The truth is that the world lacks the political will to actually do anything to prevent the climate from changing, and some scientists say it's impossible anyway (indeed, there is indication that humans began changing the climate with the invention of agriculture--and we're certainly not going to abandon that). The better policy is to identify how it's changing and prepare for it, such as developing properly hardy strains of grain, determining how we will deal with longer mosquito seasons farther north, et cetera.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Due to this economic motivation there seems to be a relationship between climate change denier's beliefs when it comes to the world in general; most of it is near term "well I am comfortable now so screw later generations" with regards to climate change and pollution in general. "It's not in my backyard so its not my problem" mentality.

Hopefully that can change if we consider the future before we simply act in the present..

 

[Zoness]

That is why I think most client scientists are wrong, their computer models only calculates effect of CO2s, and forget all the other parts. To prove that at least some of their models are deadly wrong, I had the famous hockey stick climate change graph (it is not a model, but they have models that actually backs it up lol).

I contest this; most models, including the ones I simulate for a volunteer project are basically ocean or atmosphere slabs that don't directly measure or predict the contents in the air but rather pressure, drift and radiation escaping Earth.

Currently my most CPU/GPU intensive model is a Thermohaline Circulation model followed by Sulphur cycles. No model that I can pull up right now works directly with CO2. I have screenshots if you want to see my models and pretty Linux desktop!

I am not firmly saying that global warming is happening or not, all I want is to stop some of the more dangers policies that we are implementing right now
1. florescent lights, we should ban it, and use LEDs
2. more nuclear power plants, they are much cleaner (and the new ones are much safer).
3. All climate change meetings should be conducted online instead of flying. It is so laughable that all those climate meetings are still conducted in person in this age. They are not interested in climate change, they are interested in free travel.
4. bio diesel. Not the ones that mass produced by farmers, I've heard they are even worse for the environment. The ones that people uses MacDonald wast oil and convert them to bio diesel is just much better. We should give them all the incentives to do more.

1. I don't agree for a myriad of reasons, its already being covered in the thread.
2. I agree. Of course such facilities need to be built in the most ecologically and geologically stable places possible. I think the world got a wakeup call from Fukushima-Daiichi.
3. I agree. Plus we have the technology to have 1080p quality meetings with screensharing and file sharing. If we could aggregate these streams and make them publicly available, that would be a valuable resource. There is a place for in-person networking and collaboration but one does not need to fly to every talk everywhere in the world.
4. I think there is potential here; methane conversion from rotting garbage is a potential form of collecting fuel as well. Biofuels have a lot of potential expansion room with many creature uses that haven't been invented yet.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Combating climate change with nuclear power strikes me as a rather poor idea, for various reasons.
1. Nuclear power does not encourage more efficient usage and storage of Energie. Quite the contrary, such power plants all but DEMAND a constantly high level of consumption.
2. In order to be economically feasible, nuclear power companies will ALWAYS seek to cut down on security as much as possible, and/or obfuscate the real costs by outsourcing them to the public while keeping the profits in private hands.
3. While the plants themselves do not contribute to climate change, the processes surrounding the acquisition and generation do. Massively so.
4. Even after half a century, nobody has found a way to safely depose of the highly toxic waste. No one. Globally speaking. That's like building airplanes but no landing strips, claiming that somebody will be sure to do so before the engines stall.

 

[BaconWizard]

Combating climate change with nuclear power strikes me as a rather poor idea, for various reasons.
1. Nuclear power does not encourage more efficient usage and storage of Energie. Quite the contrary, such power plants all but DEMAND a constantly high level of consumption.
2. In order to be economically feasible, nuclear power companies will ALWAYS seek to cut down on security as much as possible, and/or obfuscate the real costs by outsourcing them to the public while keeping the profits in private hands.
3. While the plants themselves do not contribute to climate change, the processes surrounding the acquisition and generation do. Massively so.
4. Even after half a century, nobody has found a way to safely depose of the highly toxic waste. No one. Globally speaking. That's like building airplanes but no landing strips, claiming that somebody will be sure to do so before the engines stall.

In theory, none of this is true of thorium reactions.

 

[dcalling]

I agree with almost all of your post, but this quote is simply not true. Only the models reported in the popular press or engaged-with by politicians do so. That's not at ALL the same thing. Methane for example, is frequently looked-at, as is simple water-vapour and many other things.

On a positive note, solar power is actually just starting to look viable (not the stuff we already have, but in development)
As is, crucially and at LAST, battery technology which makes renewables much more efficient and gives us electric cars that cost the same as petrol cars, and outperform them in every other way including range and speed.

Solar will be very nice, three are advances but not enough (and they need to be washed etc so a lot of up keeping).
The batteries are a major pollutant, I wish there are environmentally safe batteries that can simply dissolve and be environmentally safe.

 

[dcalling]

In the first half century of florescent lighting, mercury was not known to be a problem. It would have made incandescents obsolete if it had only become more reliable years ago.

By then the European "little ice age" was over and done. The effects of Krakatoa were completely diminished within five years--nothing that could be called an "ice age" and less significant than sunspot cycles.

The truth is that the world lacks the political will to actually do anything to prevent the climate from changing, and some scientists say it's impossible anyway (indeed, there is indication that humans began changing the climate with the invention of agriculture--and we're certainly not going to abandon that). The better policy is to identify how it's changing and prepare for it, such as developing properly hardy strains of grain, determining how we will deal with longer mosquito seasons farther north, et cetera.

The effect of one volcano eruption lasted 5 years. So how many years of effect will we feel when there are a whole smog on top of China constantly? The real danger is global cooling, not warming. Overall, greenland was green before, so the global can be much warmer.

 

[dcalling]

I contest this; most models, including the ones I simulate for a volunteer project are basically ocean or atmosphere slabs that don't directly measure or predict the contents in the air but rather pressure, drift and radiation escaping Earth.

Currently my most CPU/GPU intensive model is a Thermohaline Circulation model followed by Sulphur cycles. No model that I can pull up right now works directly with CO2. I have screenshots if you want to see my models and pretty Linux desktop!

Your model is much more confined (sort of fluid dynamics), and more well defined. And you must know how much your model can change by tweaking parameters

Will be nice to see screen shots

1. I don't agree for a myriad of reasons, its already being covered in the thread.
2. I agree. Of course such facilities need to be built in the most ecologically and geologically stable places possible. I think the world got a wakeup call from Fukushima-Daiichi.
3. I agree. Plus we have the technology to have 1080p quality meetings with screensharing and file sharing. If we could aggregate these streams and make them publicly available, that would be a valuable resource. There is a place for in-person networking and collaboration but one does not need to fly to every talk everywhere in the world.
4. I think there is potential here; methane conversion from rotting garbage is a potential form of collecting fuel as well. Biofuels have a lot of potential expansion room with many creature uses that haven't been invented yet.

Thanks! I guess we will be disagreeing on mercury for a long time. I dislike mercury, major pollutant and affect the nerve system.

 

[dcalling]

Combating climate change with nuclear power strikes me as a rather poor idea, for various reasons.
1. Nuclear power does not encourage more efficient usage and storage of Energie. Quite the contrary, such power plants all but DEMAND a constantly high level of consumption.
2. In order to be economically feasible, nuclear power companies will ALWAYS seek to cut down on security as much as possible, and/or obfuscate the real costs by outsourcing them to the public while keeping the profits in private hands.
3. While the plants themselves do not contribute to climate change, the processes surrounding the acquisition and generation do. Massively so.
4. Even after half a century, nobody has found a way to safely depose of the highly toxic waste. No one. Globally speaking. That's like building airplanes but no landing strips, claiming that somebody will be sure to do so before the engines stall.

Jane,
Humans will always fine ways to up energy consumption, so either a clean one or dirty one.

And you do realize there are radio active things in coal and fossil fuel, once burned instead of stay in one place they float in air....

 

[RDKirk]

The effect of one volcano eruption lasted 5 years.

The scientifically observable effect lasted five years--not the climatologically significant effect.

So how many years of effect will we feel when there are a whole smog on top of China constantly?

Now you're talking about pollution, not volcanos.

The real danger is global cooling, not warming. Overall, greenland was green before, so the global can be much warmer.

A real ice age would be worse for civilization than a bit of warming, but some of the models indicate that slight warming would actually kick off an ice age.

But if Christians are called to be good stewards, the bottom line for a good steward is: Do not waste the master's resources. It does not matter whether the master has plenty of resources, a good steward does not waste the master's resources.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

... if Christians are called to be good stewards, the bottom line for a good steward is: Do not waste the master's resources. It does not matter whether the master has plenty of resources, a good steward does not waste the master's resources.

Part of addressing the issue, IMHO, has to go beyond noting that a good steward not waste His Master's resources. Rather, he must go about asking what kind of plan must be in place to do so - and how to go about it.

It's like driving a car to a destination - it's not enough to know that one has to reach their destination in a wise manner. What matters is knowing how to get there the most effectively and how to pack or treat your car in a way that doesn't add more pressure to the drive. And it seems that many have not really considered how to use resources in ways that may be quite radical.

It's interesting to witness the ways that others have offered solutions on the issue of how to use resources. I am reminded of those who advocate Anarcho-Primitivism. Some have advocated that adopting an anarchist perspective is the best means of preventing civilization from falling apart ...and going back to the model used by Indigenous people/First Nations groups, even though those groups have often been very bothered by the ways others may label them as anarchist if their version of anarchy operates from a colonial mindset (more in Anti-Colonial Anarchism vs Decolonization | Unsettling America as well as Anarchism and Indigenous Resistance in Bolivia: Interview with Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui and Original Affluence, nomadic lifestyle lessons for capitalists ).

For more, one may wish to investigate Locating An Indigenous Anarchism (Aragorn!) | The Anarchist Library and Anarcho-primitivism, Green Anarchism and Civilization – Jesus Radicals .....as well as these excellent presentations.

Noam Chomsky "Anarchism and Indigenous Societies" - YouTube

rebellion, possibilities of a decentralizing model and inclusions of other perspectives in anarchism - YouTube

John Zerzan - Anarcho-Primitivism and Transhumanism (2nd discussion) - YouTube

David Graeber - Delivers a talk on 'indigenous' peoples. - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTMT1gnoTvs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjpt6fOYDi8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LZpJr53d2Y

The advancement of society has literally skyrocketed - yet concern for how we advance has not....and thus, there's A LOT of imbalance because of where we have not found a way to live in symbiosis with the world we live in. It doesn't mean we automatically have to move out of our buildings or stop using modern inventions of science - as I support others in the scientific and technological world who've developed ways with eco-friendly environments being more realistic. Moreover, we've forgotten what Indigenous Peoples/First Nation's groups understood when it came to respecting the world we live in and choosing to intentionally live on less. Other Native American followers of Jesus have done a really amazing job on addressing that - one conference I am reminded of entitled "An American Theology of the Land" where several (i.e. Richard Twiss, Randy Woodley of the book Shalom and the Community of Creation: An Indigenous Vision , etc.) Native Americans shared on the ways that addressing the world from a theistic perspective required seeing how we are a part of it and not meant to be above it.

 

[RDKirk]

Part of addressing the issue, IMHO, has to go beyond noting that a good steward not waste His Master's resources. Rather, he must go about asking what kind of plan must be in place to do so - and how to go about it.

That's not "going beyond it" that's just doing it.

The point I'm making is that the Christian's response to the waste of resources should never be, "First prove we're running out!"

 

[Gxg (G²)]

That's not "going beyond it" that's just doing it.

And doing it is going BEYOND just talking about it - no different than talking about the need to have a home...then going a step further in not just seeking to buy one, but also laying out plans and details to compare which is the best.

The point I'm making is that the Christian's response to the waste of resources should never be, "First prove we're running out!"

Of course that should be the case - it should be understood that resources are limited and thus it needs to be a given that they can run out just as places can be polluted. On the same token, there's the reality that we need to consider strongly that it is insufficient to simply do something.

There may be need for some radical alterations - and in a sense that it may not be comfortable.

 

[Zoness]

Your model is much more confined (sort of fluid dynamics), and more well defined. And you must know how much your model can change by tweaking parameters

Will be nice to see screen shots

You're right, the tweaking of parameters is what makes the whole process so CP intensive because you have dozens of parameters that have decimal-precision changes. Then you have those models run over a 200 year or 50 year model depending on the scope of the model, then you have global and regional.

Remind me to come back to this for screens; I'm at work now.

Thanks! I guess we will be disagreeing on mercury for a long time. I dislike mercury, major pollutant and affect the nerve system.

I absolutely agree that Mercury is dangerous, I didn't mean to imply it isn't. However, I haven't seen much substantial information stating that CFL bulbs are significantly more damaging to individuals. I haven't heard of leaking or anything of the sort.

NOW the major risk is disposal; chances are people are just throwing their bulbs away. This could significantly impact the environment and individuals in a negative way if Mercury is leaching into the soil and water. It must have careful disposal rivaling e-waste. That's definitely a problem I recognize.

 

[dazed]

And doing it is going BEYOND just talking about it - no different than talking about the need to have a home...then going a step further in not just seeking to buy one, but also laying out plans and details to compare which is the best.

Of course that should be the case - it should be understood that resources are limited and thus it needs to be a given that they can run out just as places can be polluted. On the same token, there's the reality that we need to consider strongly that it is insufficient to simply do something.

There may be need for some radical alterations - and in a sense that it may not be comfortable.

Well, I think Gore conveniently forgot this fact with his carbon neutral scheme. The currently crowd is not that much better. Basically, the solution more or less boiled down to "G7 must use less energy through a carbon tax. The revenue will be redistribute to the poor nations. And the poor nations can use as much energy as they need". IOW, we will run out resources anyway.

 

[gord44]

There may be need for some radical alterations - and in a sense that it may not be comfortable.

That's the main point there. People don't like change, especially when they are used to what they already have. It will probably take some sort of catastrophe before the majority of the developed world changes its ways. Myself included as I have gotten used to a certain lifestyle and although I like to think I could 'cut back' it may take a good hard push to actually take that step.