Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Climate Change
-
02-07-2009 1:16pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I'm going to argue the following... and it's obviously a copypasta, since I use the same argument each time this topic comes up:
I'm sick of it being the be all and end all of environmentalism. Would people say the aim of environmentalism is to reduce the resource usage on the planet? That being more efficient in our use of planetary resources will bring more benefit in the long run than just reducing carbon emission.
I'm not going to Waffle on this.
But remember, between 70-90% of all greenhouse gas is made up of simple water vapour, depending on who you talk to. The world has been steadily warming since the little ice-age ended. The climate does fluctuate a great deal, even on it's own.
That, and I find it hard not to be skeptical of a movement that's turned into something of a frenzied witchhunt. This wide eyed belief that carbon is the devil, and we must spend as much resources as we can to kill the great satan... It's grown almost alarmist, with every random freak of nature being blamed on Global Warming. It's hard not to be skeptical when you see it as some sort of Spanish inquisition.
Hydrocarbon fuels are one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas.
Within 50-70 years, hydrocarbon fuels will be on the wane, again maybe sooner. Seems like we're going to stop this Co2 mallarky soon enough as it is.
Now then, Here's something:
A little idealistic African country (Randomtania) wants to develop. They start building more power generation for industry. Solar Panels, the west wants to sell them. Green Solar Panels. Expensive Solar panels. Green Wind Turbines Expensive Wind turbines too.
But why can't you sell us an oil fired plant? The ask.
Because it's not environmentally friendly, say the big countries. We have to be green you know... save the planet.
But you have oil?
Yes but.... you know.... We'll give you money! Money to buy our green-stuff that you can pack back with interest....
****it... lets go back to starving.... less bull****. Hello Concern...
Nothing beats using starving Africans as a poster boy for random causes. Global warming causes starving Africans. so does environmentalism. But well, that's just a widening social inequality. I saw it somewhere on the web... I think from a video somewhere.... I'm trying to find it again.
But, that's just the way the world is. No matter what, it won't change. So I'm nopt going to bitch about it.
Okay, to go back to resource usage -v- Carbon emissions.
There's only so much hydrocarbon fuels (oil, coal, gas), right? Only so much. Eventually we'll peter out to a trickle. That's a given. When that happens, anthropogenic carbon emissions will hit a brick wall. Again, they won't stop, but with hydrocarbon fuels being the largest source, they'll certainly slow a good deal. Depending on how alarmist the scientist behind the report is being, that point will come in either 10 years, or sometime near the end of the century.
There's about 100 years left of our carbon habit. 100 years on an environmental/climatological scale is nothing. 300 years since the industrial revolution is nothing. The Earth has been far hotter with far more carbon in the atmosphere (see note1 below), and even far cooler than it is to day. If we were to dissapear tomorrow, just poof gone, it would continue fluctuating and wavering around. The Earth does not tend towards a single point and stay there. It's chaotic.
But anyway, in 100 years time either we'll have found a new energy source, or we'll be collectively starving beneath a holocaust of resource wars as the junkie struggles for the last few drops of the black gold. I'm pitting my hopes on a new energy source. The point is, even if we do nothing today, absolutely nothing.... Carbon emmissions will stop soon enough. The Earth's climate will keep wobbling around, things will happen, the world will keep turning and doing it's thing whether we're here to see it or not.
But here's the thing. Every human activity requires Resources. Food, water, electricity, heat, transport. At the heart of it, these require resources. Oil, coal, Iron, Aluminium, Wood, Arable landmass, a million other requirements that are in finite supply. The extraction of resources, requires resources. So then, unnecessary extraction of resources, breeds more unnecessary resource usage.
Which, if you're Carbon inclined, also leeds to unnecessary carbon emissions.
Lets take the little plastic kettle you have in your kitchen. One morning, you get up, same as always, and go downstairs for your morning cup of tea. You flip the switch for the kettle, and it doesn't turn on. Of course, something has broken.
Now then, do you:
A: Take the kettle apart, to see if the problem is fixable. All it might need is a new switch, 50c at an alectronics shope. Kettle's working. Net cost to the planets resources... 1 switch... a few grams of steel and plastic. Extraction, processing and shipping of this one single part is not much... relatively.
B: Just go buy a newer, more efficient 'green' kettle. Net cost to you, between 10 and 50 euro. (anybody who spends more than 50 on a kettle is an idiot.) Net cost to the planet. About a Kilo and a half of plastic, depending. The metal for the element. Copper cabling in the electric lead. Processing, extraction and shipping of all these to the factory. Manufacture, and shipping to your home. And of course, one little switch in the handle, the exact same as the old Kettle, because in all honesty, how different are two switches? And all this before the kettle ever boils a single cup of tea. (see note2)
From a Resource usage standpoint, action A is obviously the best. Even from a carbon standpoint, it can be difficult to argue against it. (Unless you pay an extra 50 quid and pl;ant a tree) And yet, action B is what the vast majority of the developed world will take. It's this throwaway culture that's causing us to burn through the planets resources. When the oil runs low, so will carbon emissions, but we're still going to need Resources. It doesnt matter how the hell we generate electricity for industry if we don't have the raw materials to actually process.
Recycling helps. Recycling the old kettle will certainly offset some (A good fraction) of the resource cost of producing the new kettle. You can get a good deal of the material back, but you still need to clean, refine it and process it into it's new form. Recycling merely reduces the initial extraction and processing costs. There is still some. You recycle an aluminium can, it still needs to be melted down into a fresh aluminium ingot. You do also loose a bit of material in the process, so there will always be some resource extraction required. 1 recycled can /= 1 new can.
To take another example I'm going to compare my 7 year old Renault Laguna, with maybe 40k miles on it, to a brand new 2009 Prius. I'm going to say that my car has taken an NCT(Like a smog test/MOT)today, and failed due to a defect in the emissions control system. A fault that will cost more than the car is worth to fix. This technically renders the car illegal to drive, though it is otherwise safe and roadworthy..
Now then I can:
A: Carry on regardless, emitting as I go. Technically illegal, but unless your car is literally falling apart, only an arsehole of a copper will care. (At least here) Net cost to the planet: The fuel my car uses. The pollution it emits. It may need an overhaul in the next few years, but otherwise it's fine.
B: Replace the damaged pollution control system. Expensive, and certainly a cost more than the car's worth. The car would keep emitting, but at a lower level. Net cost to the planet: Production of one exhaust system, including a catalytic converter. Fuel usage and slightly lower emissions.
c: Scrap the car (No chance of resale due to technically being unroadworthy) and pony up the cash for a New Car. I'll take a Toyota Prius (Actually, I'd buy a BMW 320D but that's a different argument) because I'm feeling green. Whirr out the dealership in a brand new car, and be confident that I'm not pollutting the planet. Then I get bored.
Net cost to the planet... whatever resources are required to build the Prius. Metal bodyshell and engine. Chassis parts. The generator. The battery (big resource hog) . The plastic/fabric interior. All have to be extracted, processed, shipped to Japan, processed and constructed in a factory. Shipped halfway around the world to my local Toyota dealer... all before I drive it.
And my perfectly good car is melted down into scrap.
And a Prius is dull as **** to drive.
Take the bus.
Problem with public transport is:
It's unreliable.
It doesnt go exactly where I want.
It's Public and I hate the ****ing Public.
Now then, looking up at that. What is the best answer? From a resource standpoint, it's obviously D. From a personal standpoint, I would be an A (being a cheap git) A lot of Irish people would take that option too... (Being cheap gits too). Maybe if I wanted to be actively green and reduce carbon, I would take option B. A blithering idiot would take Option C. Celebrities do it. Carbon-ninnies insist on it being the best option (Why not a diesel then?... but that's another debate)
What I don't understand though is how taking option C is possibly green. Even from a Carbon standpoint. Sure, over the next ten years, my Renault will emit maybe double what a new Prius does per Km... probably more. But before that Prius ever turns a wheel, there is still the great glut of carbon emissions that come from the construction of the new car, before you ever drive it. They may not be local Carbon emissions, or local resource usage, but they still exist, they're still happening somewhere in the world. It's almost like the problem is being shuffled away around the world somewhere.
Now then, my Renault might fall apart completely in three years. Then, I buy my new car. Personally I wouldn't buy a Prius, I prefer a Diesel...BMW 320D maybe. Roughly the same emissions and fuel economy as a Prius, but more fun to drive and a better bloody car.
We see a larger expansion of this as the 'Replace everything with the Green! Green! Green! Green!. Build new Green stuff! who cares why it's green and makes us look good'. It feels to me as if this whole Carbon movement is nothing more than a feel-good extension of the consumer culture of the last few decades. The throwaway buy a new one craze. Everything in passing, and less pass it quickly because it's out of fasion. It really does. Just look how hard things are being sold based on their 'carbon credentials'. It seems to me, that people are junking perfectly functional and capable objects, for the mere surface appearance of being environmental. While behind them, the landfills are overflowing with their trash of the old, the oil wells are running dry, and money and resources have been diverted away from new energy projects that might actually be feasible to folly's like Wind and Solar power (long story), or the downright daft like covering glaciers in blankets.
We may be (theoretically) reducing our carbon emmissions, but we're swallowing planetary resources at a faster rate than ever. We might stop emitting carbon, but we might also find we dont have enough land to feed ourselves, enough wood/steel for our homes, enough heat, light, water... we might drive ourselves out of the raw materials of life.
Formless one says we're not doing enough. I say, we may be doing the wrong thing entirely.
My problem with straight Carbon reduction, is that , as it is today inefficient with regards to the use of planetary resources. I also beleive that if we find away to improve the efficiency of our use of planetary resources, our carbon use should fall as a secondary bonus, as the innefficiency's in the system, such as unnecessary transportation/refining/processing as a whole work out.
And of course, the Africans will continue to starve.... but some things never change.
Now then, what do we spend our resources on?
Note1 -> Please don't take this as some sort of tacit admission that Co2 is the cause of high temperatures. I am merely stating that both Co2 levels and global temperature have been much higher in the past than they are to day, not that these levels were concurrent, or connected.
Note2 -> Yes you can recycle, but... honestly... most people just **** the bloody thing out in the trash. That's the world we live in. We suck.
Note3 -> It took me two bloody hours to write this.... Jesus christ. That's it, back to spamming, this thinkin' stuff is too hard.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement