EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 8:06 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:26 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:45 pm
Posts: 2
Hey everyone, so I've been deliberating sustainability in one of my classes and wanted to hear some other thoughts. Several solutions we discussed that could counteract diminishing resources were government intervention programs and changing our culture as a whole.

I'm aware that there is usually much resistance when people are forced by the government to alter their lifestyles, but I wonder that it may be one of the only ways to implement change as quickly as it is needed. Changing our entire culture seems a more ideal and long-lasting solution to me. But I think by the time it takes several generations to adapt to a new lifestyle/way of thinking, it might be too late for any changes made to have a significant effect on the environment. I know there are other ways to solve the problem, and combining solutions would be beneficial as well.

Any thoughts on these two?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:18 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:24 am
Posts: 87
The problem is that the government may want "business as usual" because that's the only way it receives more tax revenues, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:04 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:45 pm
Posts: 2
ralfy wrote:
The problem is that the government may want "business as usual" because that's the only way it receives more tax revenues, etc.


That is true, a major disruption like that could have a negative impact on the government. But I was just thinking, hypothetically, if either or both of the two options were going to be carried out that one might be more of a necessity in order to promote change at a faster rate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:03 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2255
Location: Central Colorado
The main thing is to reduce emissions to one tenth 2000 levels by 2024 at the latest!
Get rid of diesel ships, jet aircraft in the transportation category, too. This is 30% of emissions. Get rid of fossil fueled power plants, they produce 40% of emissions. Get rid of slash and burn farming, it produces 27% of emissions. The last 3% is from farm and ranch animals, some of which can be used to burn methane for power in a more benign emission of CO2. Reduce population, and quickly go to Gen IV nuclear waste using safe power to replace fossil fueled power plants and some ship propulsion systems, along with massive use of sails again. Unfortunately the gas hog jet age is over and people must sacrifice that ability, just as they must sacrifice and have one or none with kids until sustainability is reached and the biosphere heals.
Government intervention (AND CHANGE TO BEING NON-CORRUPT), and societal change (in morals, behavior and education/increase in IQ) are both needed. :-({|= :mrgreen:

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:54 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 301
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
The main thing is to reduce emissions to one tenth 2000 levels by 2024 at the latest!
Get rid of diesel ships, jet aircraft in the transportation category, too. This is 30% of emissions. Get rid of fossil fueled power plants, they produce 40% of emissions. Get rid of slash and burn farming, it produces 27% of emissions. The last 3% is from farm and ranch animals, some of which can be used to burn methane for power in a more benign emission of CO2. Reduce population, and quickly go to Gen IV nuclear waste using safe power to replace fossil fueled power plants and some ship propulsion systems, along with massive use of sails again. Unfortunately the gas hog jet age is over and people must sacrifice that ability, just as they must sacrifice and have one or none with kids until sustainability is reached and the biosphere heals.
Government intervention (AND CHANGE TO BEING NON-CORRUPT), and societal change (in morals, behavior and education/increase in IQ) are both needed. :-({|= :mrgreen:


And if you did all that you would reduce the total carbon budget by only 4 percent.

RedRed what makes you think government is trustworthy enough to decide how the majority should live?

RedRed exactly what in the Constitution would give the government the power to decide how the majority should live?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:24 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
RedRed exactly what in the Constitution would give the government the power to decide how the majority should live?


To promote and provide for the general welfare of the country.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:54 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2255
Location: Central Colorado
Milton Banana wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
The main thing is to reduce emissions to one tenth 2000 levels by 2024 at the latest!
>Get rid of diesel ships, jet aircraft in the transportation category, too. This is 30% of emissions. >Get rid of fossil fueled power plants, they produce 40% of emissions. >Get rid of slash and burn farming, it produces 27% of emissions. The last 3% is from farm and ranch animals, some of which can be used to burn methane for power in a more benign emission of CO2. Reduce population, and quickly go to Gen IV nuclear waste using safe power to replace fossil fueled power plants and some ship propulsion systems, along with massive use of sails again. Unfortunately the gas hog jet age is over and people must sacrifice that ability, just as they must sacrifice and have one or none with kids until sustainability is reached and the biosphere heals.
Government intervention (AND CHANGE TO BEING NON-CORRUPT), and societal change (in morals, behavior and education/increase in IQ) are both needed. :-({|= :mrgreen:


And if you did all that you would reduce the total carbon budget by only 4 percent.


WHAT?????????????

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:43 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Milton Banana wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
The main thing is to reduce emissions to one tenth 2000 levels by 2024 at the latest!
>Get rid of diesel ships, jet aircraft in the transportation category, too. This is 30% of emissions. >Get rid of fossil fueled power plants, they produce 40% of emissions. >Get rid of slash and burn farming, it produces 27% of emissions. The last 3% is from farm and ranch animals, some of which can be used to burn methane for power in a more benign emission of CO2. Reduce population, and quickly go to Gen IV nuclear waste using safe power to replace fossil fueled power plants and some ship propulsion systems, along with massive use of sails again. Unfortunately the gas hog jet age is over and people must sacrifice that ability, just as they must sacrifice and have one or none with kids until sustainability is reached and the biosphere heals.
Government intervention (AND CHANGE TO BEING NON-CORRUPT), and societal change (in morals, behavior and education/increase in IQ) are both needed. :-({|= :mrgreen:


And if you did all that you would reduce the total carbon budget by only 4 percent.


WHAT?????????????


I think he is including the carbon cycle in the attempt to make it seem trivial when it is not.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:02 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 301
Just trying to provide some perspective. Man's carbon is not the only carbon going in this system. There is plenty of carbon before we arrived on the scene. Yes, I was refering to the total carbon budget. Man's contribution is not insignificant, but it is trival really. Anyone reading just google "total carbon budget" and educate yourself. Or let me provide a NASA study. :clap:

Image

Here is a look at a NASA carbon study. Clearly showing nature provides much more carbon into our system. No question about it. Basically it breaks down as follows.

Total CO2

Surface Ocean contains about 1,000 Gigatons of CO2

Intermediate and deep ocean contains about 38,000 Gt of CO2

In contrast to the atmosphere containing about 750 GT of CO2

Vegetation, Soils, and Detritus contains about 2,200 GT of CO2

Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 GT C;
vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 GT C; marine biota and the surface ocean,
50 GT C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 GT
C."

Mankind emits about 8.5 GT of CO2 per year.

The atmosphere CO2 is cycled out in less than 8 years.

CO2 is NOT pollution.

770,000 mmt of CO2 is from NATURAL SOURCE

23,100 mmt of CO2 is from MAN MADE SOURCE

770,000 + 23,100 = 793,000 TOTAL

Absorption is 781,400 mmt

So as I have clearly demonstrated nature produces 96 percent of the carbon in our system. It doesn't matter really CO2 just cannot do what the climate change advocated say it does. No way it is just not possible.

Here is another carbon study in case your on the fence.

Image

Carbon budgets are to be avoided at all costs if you want to conceal the true nature of climate.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:24 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Just trying to provide some perspective. Man's carbon is not the only carbon going in this system.


But it is the majority of what is being added to the system.


Quote:
There is plenty of carbon before we arrived on the scene. Yes, I was refering to the total carbon budget.


Which is a blatent attempt at misleading since the carbon cycle IS the system which is being discussed.

Quote:
Man's contribution is not insignificant, but it is trival really.


No, it is no if one has at least a basic understanding of science. You see the carbon cycle represents a system which is in near equilibrium and the carbon transfers from one part of the system to the other. Not much carbon is added by nature and not much is removed, which is why it takes so long for the atmospheric concentration to be lowered by nature.


Quote:
Anyone reading just google "total carbon budget" and educate yourself. Or let me provide a NASA study. :clap:


If you educated yourself you need a better teacher. :-

Quote:
Image

Here is a look at a NASA carbon study. Clearly showing nature provides much more carbon into our system. No question about it. Basically it breaks down as follows.


No, it is showing the system through which carbon flows in out biosphere. The items being mislables as emissions tell the tale of misrepresentation you confirmed in the use of "exchange" and "emit" for what is in the carbon cycle and what is added to it.

Quote:
Total CO2

Surface Ocean contains about 1,000 Gigatons of CO2

Intermediate and deep ocean contains about 38,000 Gt of CO2

In contrast to the atmosphere containing about 750 GT of CO2

Vegetation, Soils, and Detritus contains about 2,200 GT of CO2

Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 GT C;
vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 GT C; marine biota and the surface ocean,
50 GT C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 GT
C."


Note that the system EXCHANGES carbon.

Quote:
Mankind emits about 8.5 GT of CO2 per year.


While mankind ADDS to the system.

Quote:
The atmosphere CO2 is cycled out in less than 8 years.


No, the individual molecules will be exchanged in about that timeframe, but the concentration in the atmosphere will be unaffected. This is where you are confused about the carbon cycle.

Quote:
CO2 is NOT pollution.


Yes, it is.

Quote:
770,000 mmt of CO2 is from NATURAL SOURCE


Moving within the system.

Quote:
23,100 mmt of CO2 is from MAN MADE SOURCE


Being added to the system.

Quote:
770,000 + 23,100 = 793,000 TOTAL


Faulty logic presented as math.

Quote:
Absorption is 781,400 mmt


The other part of the cycle, which has a built in buffer to handle the small amount of carbon nature normally will add to the system. This would include weathering, volcanic action, tectonic action and the like.

Quote:
So as I have clearly demonstrated nature produces 96 percent of the carbon in our system.


No the carbon is not produced, but only exchanged. There is a huge difference between the two. That difference is why the amount humans have added to the system has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and changed the pH of the oceans.

Quote:
It doesn't matter really CO2 just cannot do what the climate change advocated say it does. No way it is just not possible.


Given the espressed lack of basice science knowledge here, I would not take your word on it, sorry.

Here is another carbon study in case your on the fence.

Quote:
Image

Carbon budgets are to be avoided at all costs if you want to conceal the true nature of climate.


Only to those who either cannot or do not wish to understand the basic science being discussed. It is no a problem for those who understand science and do not have an agenda they are desparate to support.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 5:17 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:58 pm
Posts: 1
We can no longer rely on government to make change. It's time for us citizens to rise up and take control of our own lives.

You know it all starts with control. If we have it, super! If we relinquish control, problems always arise.

Since the day we've been electing politicians in government, we've given up our responsibilities to them to do the right thing. The result - many things have gone wrong. One case is how government is providing huge tax incentives to the oil industry. As a result, oil is still inexpensive compared to other alternative energy sources.

We need to make a change and it starts in our own homes.

I'm starting a newsletter on how we can live a low impact lifestyle by changing how we build, maintain and operate in our homes. Please let me know if you're interested in this newsletter!

www.energeticbuilding.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:30 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2255
Location: Central Colorado
Humans added 31.6 Billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere in 2012.
Here is another aspect of the government affecting many of our lives;
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001xFo7KJbT ... vEhVTh3Mg=

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 4:59 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 123
It is above my pay grade to predict the future but I think a certain important crossroads may occur. When you have a critical mass of people who see no future in our present direction what happens? Why for instance pay into social security which presumes a benefit well into the future, a future that may not be there. The idea of a viable future is built into the orderly running of our culture. If we don't believe in that future and we have one serious break down in our society, where is the central force coming from to pull things back together? Maybe we need to develop contingencies for that shock and awe moment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:10 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Dingo wrote:
It is above my pay grade to predict the future but I think a certain important crossroads may occur. When you have a critical mass of people who see no future in our present direction what happens? Why for instance pay into social security which presumes a benefit well into the future, a future that may not be there. The idea of a viable future is built into the orderly running of our culture. If we don't believe in that future and we have one serious break down in our society, where is the central force coming from to pull things back together? Maybe we need to develop contingencies for that shock and awe moment.


I think that may be at least part of the basis for the appeal of the zombie apocalypse in our society .... a representation of a contingency for an unexpected shock and awe situation.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group