Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Movie night and talk about corals sound great.  Too bad I didn't see this sooner.. maybe next time!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CrabbyCrabs said:

How about the mining, processing, and recycling of the materials for solar panels and batteries for electric cars. Wonder why all that is done in foreign countries with near zero pollution controls. Solar panels are highly toxic to manufacture and recycle, same with all forms of batteries. That's why it's all done in countries like china who don't care about the environment, they just dump it in their rivers or bury it. How much of the the great barrier reef bleaching is due directly from us diving amongst it? How about cruise ships and tour boats that dump their sewage/garbage overboard? They are real close to china/India compared to us who just dump toxic waste into their water. If you want real change, go after the countries with big pollution! Hint, it's not the U.S. and selling carbon credits won't do anything except make everyone pay more for everything. 

It's true that we need to consider our global ecological footprint. For all of the luxuries that we enjoy here in the USA, other countries like China are paying an environmental price. As an example, the issue of acid rain in the industrial Midwest had become much less of a problem since the 70s in the USA because of two factors: 1) The clean air act, and 2) the fact that we have exported much of our heavy industry to China. Where is acid rain a big problem now? China. Outsourcing of sustainable energy manufacturing is certainly a concern, but it is less of an issue than continuing with business as usual in a carbon based energy economy. The Germans have figured this out already, and are way ahead of us in developing sustainable infrastructure.

However, you are wrong about the US not being a major polluter on a global scale. We are number 2 in total carbon emissions behind China. See 2015 data here:

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

On a per-capita basis we are also right at the top, behind rich middle eastern countries like the United Arab Emirates, which boasts such carbon intensive features as an indoor snow skiing hill (in the middle of the desert).

Carbon regulation is coming. The question is whether we want to be ahead of the curve with creative solutions, like Germany, or whether we want to be reactive and fall far behind.

The Great Barrier Reef, I fear, will be dramatically changed, if not completely lost, no matter what path we take. 😟

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solar is not sustainable so called green energy based solely on the fact it is extremely toxic to manufacture and recycle. It also requires massive amounts of your so called carbon emissions to produce, everything has to be mined and trucked which requires massive amounts of diesel.  If you really think we are number 2 in pollution, you are completely ignoring India. Like china, India has basically zero emissions controls. But go ahead, ship more manufacturing offshore to those countries in the name of saving our environment, which actually has the opposite effect, due to their non existent pollution controls. 

The ONLY real solution to environmental pollution, and one nobody wants to talk about, is population. The growing populationat its current rate, is not sustainable without killing the environment. PERIOD! Anybody that disagrees is completely lost. 

Another fact that people are lost on is co2, if co2 gets below about 250ppm, plant life pretty much stops growing, then everything dies. Millions of years ago the average temp and co2 concentration was much higher than now, and there were lush green forests, it was well over 2000ppm and the average earth temp was in  the low 100's Harmful to humans, yes, but not plants. Also, 1 volcano erupting puts more co2, methane, particulate into the air than humans have in 100 years. 

I do agree we pollute too much(garbage patch in Pacific). Part of that is to be blamed on the so called tree huggers of the 70's and 80's that killed the logging industry in favor of so called plastic bags and shipping packages as they were recyclable, now look where we are at, going back to paper but it's not made here. It's made in China or Canada and once again shipped, by diesel, to the US. Remember, there are zero pollution controls on freight ships, anything crossing the ocean by boat is a huge source of pollution.

When it comes to the great barrier reef, maybe a 100% ban on human activities within 100 miles will help, not sure. Maybe only allow scientist to study it. Same with all reefs, ban taking of fish, coral, rocks, period. Maybe it won't stop the decline but it definitely won't hurt. 

Without answering to the elephant in the room, population, then it's really not going to get better other than slowing the destruction. But that requires the whole earth to get involved, not just the U.S. and Germany. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, CrabbyCrabs said:

Solar is not sustainable so called green energy based solely on the fact it is extremely toxic to manufacture and recycle. It also requires massive amounts of your so called carbon emissions to produce, everything has to be mined and trucked which requires massive amounts of diesel.  If you really think we are number 2 in pollution, you are completely ignoring India. Like china, India has basically zero emissions controls. But go ahead, ship more manufacturing offshore to those countries in the name of saving our environment, which actually has the opposite effect, due to their non existent pollution controls. 

The ONLY real solution to environmental pollution, and one nobody wants to talk about, is population. The growing populationat its current rate, is not sustainable without killing the environment. PERIOD! Anybody that disagrees is completely lost. 

Another fact that people are lost on is co2, if co2 gets below about 250ppm, plant life pretty much stops growing, then everything dies. Millions of years ago the average temp and co2 concentration was much higher than now, and there were lush green forests, it was well over 2000ppm and the average earth temp was in  the low 100's Harmful to humans, yes, but not plants. Also, 1 volcano erupting puts more co2, methane, particulate into the air than humans have in 100 years. 

I do agree we pollute too much(garbage patch in Pacific). Part of that is to be blamed on the so called tree huggers of the 70's and 80's that killed the logging industry in favor of so called plastic bags and shipping packages as they were recyclable, now look where we are at, going back to paper but it's not made here. It's made in China or Canada and once again shipped, by diesel, to the US. Remember, there are zero pollution controls on freight ships, anything crossing the ocean by boat is a huge source of pollution.

When it comes to the great barrier reef, maybe a 100% ban on human activities within 100 miles will help, not sure. Maybe only allow scientist to study it. Same with all reefs, ban taking of fish, coral, rocks, period. Maybe it won't stop the decline but it definitely won't hurt. 

Without answering to the elephant in the room, population, then it's really not going to get better other than slowing the destruction. But that requires the whole earth to get involved, not just the U.S. and Germany. 

If you had looked at my list, you would have seen that India is #3 in carbon pollution worldwide, after the USA and China.

Yes, the production of batteries and photocells for solar is a challenge to do in a sustainable way. Unfortunately for us, Europe is leading the way in research on the sustainable production of photocells and batteries.  Here's an example: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-03/kift-sbp030519.php

What's the alternative? Fossil fuels are the biggest carbon polluters---yes, much bigger than solar infrastructure manufacturing----and fossil fuels will run out. We have to innovate in other areas. There's nuclear, but we will eventually run out of uranium, and then there is the problem of safe disposal of waste.

Yes, population growth is a main driver of global increases in carbon emissions (In the USA and Europe population growth is flat or declining). I'm not sure what you are thinking of here, but top down measures to control population are either unethical or do not work (ask China why they reversed their one-child policy). Fortunately, we know that development of economies and increased education results in a reduction of reproductive rates. It has happened everywhere it has been measured.

See here for more information: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/fertility/world-fertility-patterns-2015.pdf

As the world develops, and if birth rates continue to fall with increasing development and education, we could stabilize around 10 billion people by 2100. See below:

https://www.livescience.com/16479-10-billion-people-2100-population.html

10 billion people does not have to be the end of us. But, in order to make it to 10 billion people, face the agricultural challenges caused by climate change, declining fossil fuel supplies, shortages in fresh water, etc..., without global calamity, we need to innovate in areas like solar power, and we need to start talking about regulating carbon... Ultimately, you and I may not be affected that much, but it's likely our kids will pay the price.

As far as bans on reefs to protect them, I don't agree. Climate change and increasing sea temps are the biggest threat to the reefs. Sustainable collection of corals and fish and ecotourism has a minimal impact. Most of the problems faced by the GBR have nothing to do with collecting or ecotourism.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CrabbyCrabs said:

Another fact that people are lost on is co2, if co2 gets below about 250ppm, plant life pretty much stops growing, then everything dies. Millions of years ago the average temp and co2 concentration was much higher than now, and there were lush green forests, it was well over 2000ppm and the average earth temp was in  the low 100's Harmful to humans, yes, but not plants. Also, 1 volcano erupting puts more co2, methane, particulate into the air than humans have in 100 years. 

 

 

I’m afraid that your 2,000 ppm figure is wrong. And I'm not sure where you get the 250 ppm figure, but we are currently at 405 ppm. 405 ppm is a level that has NEVER been observed going back 1 million years in the glacial record. See the graph below from 850,000 years. We'll never get close to 250 ppm no matter how much we control our emissions.

Your comment about volcanic eruptions is a common misconception that is wrong. We know that the CO2 levels are increasing in modern times because of human activities because of the Suess effect, which is change in the carbon ratios in atmospheric CO2. The CO2 in plants and fossil fuels has a different carbon ratio than the CO2 in volcanoes.

 

Screenshot (10).png

Screenshot (11).png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...