Lutz: always entertaining
#21
02-26-2008, 08:14 AM
Re: Lutz: always entertaining
My my, lots of disdain have we...?
Somehow I dont disagree with anything you say, I just disagree with how you seem to think your priority in doing your part to help with today's problem is the best way (...if not stated, it sure comes across like it). I can easily use your own argument against the use of ethanol: "I say we have much bigger problems to fix before FOREIGN OIL IDEPENDENCY <ie ethanol and hydrogen>" like clean water for african children, etc, etc.
Argument by citing degree change in temperature is detrimental to the issue of climate change (unless that's your intent). It's little changes in a global scale that would have devastating effects, ESPECIALLY to the poorest part of the world who do not have the resources to cope when adjustment occurs.
Wow, let's lump everyone who tries do what they can for our environment and the issue of climate change as wacky. The more issues, including one of the more prominent in the psyche of Americans, right now, i.e. GW, the better for the world in general. Not everyone can be Brad&Angelina for Africans, but everyone can collectively reduce waste and be more energy efficient (including big business and government) when Climate Change is on their mind. Saving the polar bears is not a goal to spend wasteful resources on itself, but by knowing that and put it forefront makes us more aware that we are incrementally destroying our environment, and allows us to do our little bit to amend, that collectively, can help, in more than one goal, I might add.
Love, Peace, Happiness!
(hey, same wants, just different ways)
We have lots of evidence, I would even say "proof" that the planet is warming.
Show me proof, or even evidence that this is bad for humankind?
More people on earth, 14 times as many in fact, freeze to death as "sweat to death".
It is irrelevent what happens to Polar Bears.
It is only relevant what happens to humanity.
Should humans intentionally harm polar bears? No. That is immoral.
Should humans intentionally preserve polar bears? No. Equally immoral.
If you don't understand the question, answer this:
Should humans "bring back" through technology, the Wooly Mammoth?
Is the planet worse without Wooly Mammoths?
Would the planet be better with Wooly Mammoths?
I say NO! The planet would be "different" with Wooly Mammoths.
Not better, not worse, just different.
The world will be different without polar bears, if it comes to that.
The world will not be worse.
Now, would all African childern be better off with clean drinking water?
Would all African children be worse off with less clean drinking water?
Or would the African children just be "different" without drinking water?
I'm saying we have much larger problems to fix BEFORE global warming.
I'm saying we have problems that could easily be fixed with 99% success rate, if the time, energy, and money spent towards reducing the planet 1 degree were applied.
Show me proof, or even evidence that this is bad for humankind?
More people on earth, 14 times as many in fact, freeze to death as "sweat to death".
It is irrelevent what happens to Polar Bears.
It is only relevant what happens to humanity.
Should humans intentionally harm polar bears? No. That is immoral.
Should humans intentionally preserve polar bears? No. Equally immoral.
If you don't understand the question, answer this:
Should humans "bring back" through technology, the Wooly Mammoth?
Is the planet worse without Wooly Mammoths?
Would the planet be better with Wooly Mammoths?
I say NO! The planet would be "different" with Wooly Mammoths.
Not better, not worse, just different.
The world will be different without polar bears, if it comes to that.
The world will not be worse.
Now, would all African childern be better off with clean drinking water?
Would all African children be worse off with less clean drinking water?
Or would the African children just be "different" without drinking water?
I'm saying we have much larger problems to fix BEFORE global warming.
I'm saying we have problems that could easily be fixed with 99% success rate, if the time, energy, and money spent towards reducing the planet 1 degree were applied.
The sick child with no clean water is not going to benefit from cooling the planet 1 degree. It's unlikely your child will gain anything from it either.
After we cure hunger and heath issuse, should we not then try to adjust climate? I think the planet can be "cleaned up" and warmed up at the same time to humaniy's benefit.
After we cure hunger and heath issuse, should we not then try to adjust climate? I think the planet can be "cleaned up" and warmed up at the same time to humaniy's benefit.
Wow, let's lump everyone who tries do what they can for our environment and the issue of climate change as wacky. The more issues, including one of the more prominent in the psyche of Americans, right now, i.e. GW, the better for the world in general. Not everyone can be Brad&Angelina for Africans, but everyone can collectively reduce waste and be more energy efficient (including big business and government) when Climate Change is on their mind. Saving the polar bears is not a goal to spend wasteful resources on itself, but by knowing that and put it forefront makes us more aware that we are incrementally destroying our environment, and allows us to do our little bit to amend, that collectively, can help, in more than one goal, I might add.
Love, Peace, Happiness!
(hey, same wants, just different ways)
#22
02-26-2008, 04:41 PM
Re: Lutz: always entertaining
Obvioulsly, not every person would be able to contribute literally more than a million dollars to counteract GW. But that is the real cost, per capita, on average. Obviously large corporations will have to pick up the slack and pay for more, ( taxes, tariffs, fees, etc. ) and pass that cost along to the consumers in increased prices for goods and services. The increased cost of doing business may slow trade at addtional cost to the consumer, and increased prices may deny the poor from receiving some goods and services.
Here is an example, I don't claim it is the best example, just one I found quickly. Taken from "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.
The magazine Environment May, 2000 had an article on how we can buy a recyclable toothbrush to "take a bite out of landfill use". At $17.50 for a 4-pak each comes with a recycling mailer, such that the used toothbrush may be returned and made into outdoor furnature. The important question is: how important will this toothbrush be in reducing landfill?
If every person in the U.S. replaced every toothbrush with this one, it would reduce landfill by by 20,000 tons. Sound significant? In 2000 the U.S. sent 220,000,000 tons to landfill. It is estimated each person generates 4.44 pounds of garbage per day. This toothbrush reduces the average to 4.439 pounds per day.
This does not even consider the added environmental effects of the postal system handling another half a billion packages a year [ or the cost and effects of making half a billion return envelopes ]. The cost is huge, while the benefit seems slight at best.
So you guys on here tell me. What's the real cost/benefit ratio of recycling a toothbrush? You could extend this analogy to countless other items. Before long, you've spent your entire salary, and have little, if any environmental advantage to show for it.
-John
Here is an example, I don't claim it is the best example, just one I found quickly. Taken from "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.
The magazine Environment May, 2000 had an article on how we can buy a recyclable toothbrush to "take a bite out of landfill use". At $17.50 for a 4-pak each comes with a recycling mailer, such that the used toothbrush may be returned and made into outdoor furnature. The important question is: how important will this toothbrush be in reducing landfill?
If every person in the U.S. replaced every toothbrush with this one, it would reduce landfill by by 20,000 tons. Sound significant? In 2000 the U.S. sent 220,000,000 tons to landfill. It is estimated each person generates 4.44 pounds of garbage per day. This toothbrush reduces the average to 4.439 pounds per day.
This does not even consider the added environmental effects of the postal system handling another half a billion packages a year [ or the cost and effects of making half a billion return envelopes ]. The cost is huge, while the benefit seems slight at best.
So you guys on here tell me. What's the real cost/benefit ratio of recycling a toothbrush? You could extend this analogy to countless other items. Before long, you've spent your entire salary, and have little, if any environmental advantage to show for it.
-John
I think many cities or communities have recycling programs. One benefit is the landfills for garbage fill slower, irrespective of GW. Those tooth brushes? I would toss them into the recycler.
Everything costs. Nothing goes for nothing.
When I was growing up in Chicago we would recycle incandescent light bulbs - when ours burned out we (or I) would take them to Commonwealth Edison and exchange them for fresh. Somewhere along the line that became to burdensome to CE, and the exchange was dropped. So we bought the bulbs and when they burned out we tossed them and bought more.
I look at the price of ethanol at this time as the, Bait. . . Down the line, when we Switch - that's when the price will increase because, although corn is renewable, it can and will become scarce. Food producers which has been using high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener will begin jacking their prices up as the increasing scarcity of corn ripples outward.
The price of milk will climb as the price of corn increases to the dairy herds. Eventually those dairy farmers will find it too costly to continue in business. As each herd becomes tomorrow's school lunch, the price of milk will increase.
For me? I think I'll take my ethanol in a merlot.
Thread
Topic Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
clett
Journalism & The Media
3
10-01-2006 06:01 AM
