It's Not Easy Being Green (solar, recycling, mercury, organic)

[guidoLaMoto]

I'm new around here and some may think me a contrarian based on my previous posts. I'm more of a pragmatist. I live in the Real World, not the Fantasyland of The ThreeHuggers.

We can prove Newton's Theory of Gravity is correct by dropping a feather and a marble simultaneously in an evacuated bell jar in the lab. Both will fall at the same rate. But that's true only in the artificial conditions in the lab. In The Real World a feather encounters other real world factors, like air resistance, that affect the outcome.

So it is with other Green Pipe Dreams: alternative energy, organic farming, reducing co2 footprint, re-cylcing...the list goes on.

Here's an article depicting how Britain's Green Energy Policy is affecting their economy. Green Energy may have Just Cost Britain 40,000 Jobs | Watts Up With That? What's particularly stupid about this is that, as we've mentioned on another thread, due to the requirement to keep coal fire plants operational as back-up to alternatives, there is no reduction in co2 production with this plan. As steel production shifts away from GB to China, the use of coal will continue unabated: only the location of steel plants will be changed,not the demand for steel .*


*But then, that's the real aim of the UN IPCC: to shift economic power to the Third World. "Environmentalism" is only their mechanism of persuasion. BTW- if you're not familiar with Saul Alinski's Rules for Radicals, you should dig a little deeper before you drink the KoolAid.

[DCforever]

You sound like a ideologue not a pragmatist.

[canadian citizen]

Would this be a good time to point out that..........


Here in the Province of Ontario, we have completely stopped using coal as a way to generate electrical energy. No more coal since 2014. Instead we use water power generation, such as at Niagara Falls, and dozens of other water falls, as well as nuclear generating stations, and wind and solar generating fields.


Here is a link to the Ontario Power Generating Corporation's website.


Ontario


A few facts about Ontario. It is the second largest Province in Canada, about twice the size of Texas in square mile area, with a population of 13 million people. It is the main industrial hub in Canada, as well as having the most farms, factories, and office buildings, of any Province.


Toronto, the capital city of Ontario is the largest city in Canada with a metropolitan area of over 500 square miles, and a population of 6 million people.


It can be done, but there has to be a political will , and public support, to get it done.


Jim B.

[harry chickpea]

I think that the average person still goes under the idea that those in power and those with money must know what they are doing in other areas as well. Those with power as a career are interested in ways to gain more power, those who have lots of money are generally interested in making more. Neither equates to how well they can cook an omelet or anything else.

Changing technologies means that some past ecologically sound practices no longer are valid. Toss in climate change (which has happened since the earth was formed) and between all the factors some bizarre things happen.

I've challenged in the past that the overall effect of radon remediation is to cause MORE deaths. Radon is a real danger for miners and certain other professions, but the forces of the legal profession and anti-nuke fear has turned it into a massive industry. When you start to compute the eco-costs of running fans constantly (sucking up coal burning power, which releases Co2 and mercury and other pollutants), the costs of manufacturing the barrier plastic, fans, controls, wiring, and the challenges of installation and diversion of monies that could be more effectively spent elsewhere, there is a net loss.

Those of us who have been on the planet for a while recognize certain changes. Bucolic Vermont was dotted with family owned small farms and was a window on "traditional" American life of the 1800s. In attempts to maintain that, and the almighty tourist dollars, laws were passed and restrictions implemented. A side effect is that change, like water in a balloon that has been squeezed, simply expressed in different ways. Many of the fantastic views and hillside open pastures are gone now. Brush grows up when areas are not actively tended, or browsed by cattle or goats. Trees grow to block views. Land either becomes a place for residential or reverts back to scrub.

Recycling of glass bottles saved energy when all bottles were glass and bottle makers distributed around the country. Now it is another net loss, and at best a source of a hidden tax.

There are still plenty of things that ARE ecologically sound, but those in large houses and with money to burn don't want to hear them. The myth of their recycling actually making a difference is all they need to justify their excesses in other areas and feel good about themselves.

[guidoLaMoto]

Originally Posted by canadian citizen

It can be done, but there has to be a political will , and public support, .... .

.....And a lot of water falls.

It wouldn't work too well in Arizona.

[guidoLaMoto]

Originally Posted by DCforever

You sound like a ideologue not a pragmatist.

Don't you think it's amazing that one's stance on so many environmental issues (GW, re-cycling, alt.energy, GMO foods, industrial ag practices etc) correlates so highly with one's political predisposition?

Could it be that one side's view tends to ignore the scientific facts? My reference above to Alinski should suggest the explanation.

[guidoLaMoto]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

There are still plenty of things that ARE ecologically sound, but .......

And you have a big but there, Harry. Good post. You seem to see my point.

[DCforever]

Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto

Don't you think it's amazing that one's stance on so many environmental issues (GW, re-cycling, alt.energy, GMO foods, industrial ag practices etc) correlates so highly with one's political predisposition?

Could it be that one side's view tends to ignore the scientific facts? My reference above to Alinski should suggest the explanation.

I'll just use myself as an example

GW -- Sound science important issue
re-cycle -- mostly feel good stuff -- steel, aluminum, paper, etc make sense to recycle.
GMO foods -- good intentions, wrong villain -- drug and hormone laced foods are the real problem
industrial ag practices -- I don't even know what this is?

I am a democrat and I know quite a few Republicans who accept the science of climate change, believe we need to stop polluting our environment, and that our food supply is not as healthy as it should be. Of the people who reject all of the above, I don't know a single Democrat. They are all RW Republicans who reject science.

So you are 1/2 right. There is a big faction of Republicans who live in denial.

[guidoLaMoto]

Industrial ag--you do know what it is, you just don't know that you know it. You mentioned it: hormones & drugs, among other things. You also don't know that the hormones, drugs & pesticides used in industrial farming don't show up in our food. Just another example of a Liberal forming an opinion without knowing the science.

Re: GW. I won't argue the "science" involved in AGW, just the philosophy of science and how it applies here and why you should logically reject the Liberal position:

A theory is judged not by being it's being right or wrong, but by its utility. Its utility is judged by its ability to accurately predict the results of future observations & events.

Take Newton and gravity, for instance. He came up with his classic F = G x m1 x m2 /r^2. That was good enough to accurately predict the orbits of eight planets in our solar system, put many artificial satellites in orbit around Earth, to send men to the Moon & back and to miraculously launch satellites that would take 10 yr journeys to closely approach the outer planets in succession.

But it wasn't good enough to predict the orbit of the planet Mercury. It took Einstein's theory of gravity to do that.

Does that mean Newton was wrong? No. It only means that Newton's was only good up to a certain level of accuracy. That level is good enough for many, but not all, applications.

Now, apply that philosophy to the theory of anthropogenic global warming. (We could quit right here: if it's "global" warming, why haven't temps in the southern hemisphere been going up? You weren't aware they haven't, were you?)

1) There has been no warming for the past 20 yrs, although [co2] has gone up from 360ppm to 400ppm during that time. It was predicted 30 yrs ago that temps would be 4degF higher today than they turned out to be.

2) It was predicted that glaciers would all be gone by now. But they're still here.

3) It was predicted that there would be no more arctic ice or snowy winters. But that hasn't turned out to be true.

4) Sea levels were predicted to rise by 3 ft by now. Well, they have risen 2mm.

5) It was predicted that hurricanes & tornadoes would be more sever & more frequent. Just the opposite has turned out to be true.

At what point do we declare "GW due to co2" a useless theory?

When you drop a feather, you must account for air resistance in determining its trajectory, but not when you shoot a basketball. For the basketball, other factors are so important and air resistance so small that it can be safely ignored.

So is it with co2 & the heat balance of our atmosphere. It's such a small factor it can be safely ignored.

edited to add: those Republicans who deny science are the few Fundamentalist Christians, the Bible Bangers, on the far right. They can be safely ignored too.

[DCforever]

Rather than respond to all of the bunk, let's just set aside the ridiculous assertion that there has been no warming in the last 20 years.