Global warming and pollution... what are YOU going to do, or not do?
POSTED BY: needleseye
UPDATED: Saturday, July 18, 2026 13:17
VIEWED: 6104
PAGE 3 of 4
Quote:Yeah, the Gulf...and the tsunami in the Pacific. More to come.
Originally posted by JaynezTown:
maybe it exists, but it seems we need more scientific study
New Orleans was hit bad, forest fire in Europe and many homes damaged in Alabama
Question is: how much more will it take before we all agree this planet is changing?
We are livin' in interesting times
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As for what I do about global warming, the answer is nothing, intentionally. I receive the IPCC report, because for some reason I’m a contributor I think. I have no idea why or how. I’ve yet to see any reason to be concerned that it is a threat. Too much of the science is hockey and too much of the politics is more based on a desire for socialism then any help for the environment. One of my biggest pet peeves are global warming activists, because so many of them are more interested in a Left-wing agenda then the environment, especially the doomsday types, who are drooling over the socialist policies they can push down the throats of people terrified by a threat that has little to no scientific bases. I don’t know what bothers me more the socialism or the entire lack of concern for nature.
As far as the environment is concerned, I’m a big outdoorsmen. I spend a lot of time enjoying wilderness environments. I backpack and climb mountains, often at the same time. I recycle everything, even what the city won’t pick up. I store my recyclables in the garage in big bins until someone comes and gets it or I have time to load it up and take it to the center myself. I heat or cool my house to maintain a temperature between the range ~60 to ~85 degrees. The larger margin allows me to reduce the amount of time my heat pump is running (it also keeps away unwanted relatives.) I use fans or space heaters which are more cost effective. Gas consumption was a big contributor to my choice in all three of the cars I’ve owned in my life. I get my gas almost exclusively from the BP, which is a major conflict for me, because I’m also real big into buying American. I’m a huge supporter of Hydrogen fuel, and even did some work in that area, although quite minimal. This is how much of a fanatic I am, I carry my burlap bags to the grocery store, because I don’t want those damn plastic bags to carry home and throw away. I get a lot of funny looks for that one, but I hate those damn plastic bags.
I get up in the morning, sit and watch the sun come up over the pristine foothills of the Arsenal from my balcony, while I sip my Italian Roast Maxwell House (American brand). And if I’m lucky I can hear clap and echo of munitions testing and I’m off to work. 
Oh, I almost forgot, I use only florescent light bulbs.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm going to start a plastic burning business with franchises based right next to wildlife preserves. I also promise to drive an out of tune vehicle that gets 3 gallons to the mile. Finally, I will give my support and donations to companies with histories of massive air pollution and burning.
In all actuallity, I just plan to keep my car in tune, recycle as I can, carpool. Common sense stuff, like what Auraptor said.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Engineer - USS SereniTREE
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
Real Fans Wait - 09/30/05
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn mac Cumhall,
i applaude your efforts as an outdoorsman, however, you mad some statements that are somewhat illogical.
"Too much of the science is hockey and too much of the politics is more based on a desire for socialism then any help for the environment."
i think that you are incorrect about the science. Many of the dead on solid scientific conclusions have been muddled deliberately by notably conservative elements. You remember the "gentleman" whose only job in the Whitehouse was to "edit" (a polite term for creating complete fabrication of results) the climate reports made by government scientists? He was NOT a scientist by any means, and after his job description was published, he went back into the industry he came from: The OIL industry. In short, his job was to LIE to the public.
The process of science moves on, notwithstanding the current administration's attempt to block the truth. Measure again, and again, in many different ways and then cross-check the results. For example, the discrepancies from the ground based temperature measurments, balloon born and satellite temperature measurements have now been reconciled. All are now in complete agreement: Global Warming is a FACT.
As for the socialist agendas to which you allude: The problem is a global problem with a global SOCIETY. Yes, a significant portion of the CO2 comes from the 3rd world. A social solution seems in order. Poor dirt farmers cooking over wood/peat/coke stoves, using slash and burn agrarian methods. You could order them to stop, and then watch as they STARVE. What's the alternative? Simply kill them? Or perhaps we could sacrifice some of our overall wealth and prosperity to make change.
We could do nothing. We watch as the concentrations of CO2 go up, and then watch as CH4 concentrations rise as the Arctic permafrost thaws and begins to rot. i can see it in the atmospheric FTIR spectra. If we don't use a "socialist" type of solution "there", we will be using one HERE. What do you call all of the "assistance" going to New Orleans, LA and Mississippi? Do you think they're going to PAY for all of the men and material moving to the south? Hardly! BTW: That's socialism in action.
However, i really do admire your commitment to the the environment by your actions. i find most "outdoorsmen" share the same values to the environment.
One thing PLEASE: Stop listening to Fox News, and start listening to NPR. Recent studies show that listeners to NPR are usually correct (70- 80%), while listeners to Fox and simlar right wing broadcasters are more likey to be WRONG, and they were also be MUCH more likely to be dead on certain they were correct. i learned a new word from that study: "Pseudo-certainty".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So what? The mean global temperature goes up and down all the time. That’s certainly as much a fact, for all we know.
Originally posted by Spaghetti:
Global Warming is a FACT.
Quote:Of course, the only solution is world wide socialist reform. Even though, the Kyoto Accord, if perfectly implemented (and assumed to work) will barely make a dent. It’s a solution that even its supporter admit won’t work, so the reason they are supporting it can’t be for the environment. I’m not that dumb. But if you don’t agree with it, then it can only be because you want brown people to starve. There’s so much political nonsense floating around this global warming stuff.
Originally posted by Spaghetti:
As for the socialist agendas to which you allude: The problem is a global problem with a global SOCIETY. Yes, a significant portion of the CO2 comes from the 3rd world. A social solution seems in order. Poor dirt farmers cooking over wood/peat/coke stoves, using slash and burn agrarian methods. You could order them to stop, and then watch as they STARVE. What's the alternative? Simply kill them? Or perhaps we could sacrifice some of our overall wealth and prosperity to make change.
Quote:If the NPR people are so damn smart, then why can’t they pay for their own network?
Originally posted by Spaghetti:
One thing PLEASE: Stop listening to Fox News, and start listening to NPR. Recent studies show that listeners to NPR are usually correct (70- 80%), while listeners to Fox and simlar right wing broadcasters are more likey to be WRONG, and they were also be MUCH more likely to be dead on certain they were correct. i learned a new word from that study: "Pseudo-certainty".
Quote:Indeed. No greater love for the environment will be found then a person who is will to trudge low-impact through the mountains. I know people who pack out their own crap, just to keep from making an impact. I'm not that fanatical, but I'm proud to say that I've never left behind anything that wouldn't completely and harmlessly degrade in under a months time.
Originally posted by Spaghetti:
However, i really do admire your commitment to the the environment by your actions. i find most "outdoorsmen" share the same values to the environment.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey guys, have you researched recycling or does it just sound good? I have heard convincing arguments that recycling anything but aluminum causes MORE pollution than using new. We don't have the tech yet to make it earth- friendly. Good idea, but wrong time for it just yet. Also the argument that there are more trees now than before because lumberjacks ain't so stupid they'd chainsaw there way out of a job. Besides, most of our oxygen comes from the ocean (plankton and such). As to global warming, our planet heats and freezes on its own, even without our help. Even if we could control that, is it a good idea? Some of this stuff I believe and some I don't, but I love playing devil's advocate, and can't stay away from a good debate. By the same token, I love seeing Hummers on the road. I hope gas goes up to $546 per gallon. Then humanity, and it's technology will be FORCED to evolve. A hardcore global disaster would give us incentive do do something serious with our floundering space program. A little Darwin-esque I admit, but name 3 times humanity did something right immediately just because it was morally correct. Now name 3 times we achieved something phenominal due to incredible crisis. Which list was easier to make?
I am planning on growing a big black moustache. I'm a traditionalist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by OurMrReynolds:
Hey guys, have you researched recycling or does it just sound good? I have heard convincing arguments that recycling anything but aluminum causes MORE pollution than using new. We don't have the tech yet to make it earth- friendly. Good idea, but wrong time for it just yet. Also the argument that there are more trees now than before because lumberjacks ain't so stupid they'd chainsaw there way out of a job. Besides, most of our oxygen comes from the ocean (plankton and such). As to global warming, our planet heats and freezes on its own, even without our help. Even if we could control that, is it a good idea? Some of this stuff I believe and some I don't, but I love playing devil's advocate, and can't stay away from a good debate. By the same token, I love seeing Hummers on the road. I hope gas goes up to $546 per gallon. Then humanity, and it's technology will be FORCED to evolve. A hardcore global disaster would give us incentive do do something serious with our floundering space program. A little Darwin-esque I admit, but name 3 times humanity did something right immediately just because it was morally correct. Now name 3 times we achieved something phenominal due to incredible crisis. Which list was easier to make?
I am planning on growing a big black moustache. I'm a traditionalist.
There is much truth in what you say, despite that many won't want to hear it. However, what about recyclilng of paper, plastic? I know those are both huge industries, and seem like they've been going on for decades. While I don't have any research to back it up, it seems that there'd be more than just aluminum that's being recycled economically/ ecologically. Just a thought.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, recycling aluminum does NOT cause more pollution than mining it fresh. Being a chemist working in air pollution regulation, I know quite a bit about industrial processes and I work with a lot of engineers. I also reviewed and toured a local aluminum recycling plant. Refining bauxite is an extremely energy intensive operation that requires huge amounts of electricity and fluoride to reduce the oxide to the metal. Recycling aluminum really only requires a chipper, chip dryer and regular metal-melting crucible. Don't know where that notion came from... probably one of those urban legend things that makes the rounds.
Edited to add: I misread the post. But I also know about glass recycling. Recycled glass ("cullet") melts at a much lower temperature than virgin sand, so the energy savings alone (less CO2, less NOx) makes glass recycling a positive environmental option. In fact, our local glass plants throw cullet into their furances to reduce NOx pollution to acceptable levels... It also helps them with their energy bills.
I haven't tracked paper recycling. I know there are considerable problems "de-inking" POST consumer waste. On the other hand, industry scrap is a breeze to recycle and is a clear winner.
I guess it depends on what kind of recycled paper product you want to make. If you want to make whiter-than-white paper you're going to spend a lot of energy de-inking and (peroxide) bleaching post-consumer waste. On the other hand, if you're making brown paper towels and brown napkins and slightly "speckly" toilet paper... like the kind I buy (which BTW works great) then between forest preservation, lumber transportation, paper production (requires a lot of water) and landfill preservation, recycling paper prolly comes out with a slight edge. If virgin timber harvest wasn't so heavily SUBSIDIZED by the "get the cut out" Forest Service recycled paper would be economically more viable.
What is REALLY a problem is recycling plastic. Too many kinds and not enough market for the recycled product. And I hate those plastic bags too.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
But single working mothers in NE Ohio need 4WDs in the winter to get to work. NEED them. Fuel efficiency, emissions be damned. Look out my window. SNOW. More snow falling. Covered roads. Snowed Sunday.
Bullshit. We live in upstate NY, where it REALLY snows, plus constant lake effect snowfall coming off Lake Ontario. My wife and I both drive little front-wheel-drive economy cars, and we do just fine; so do thousands of others here. No, the cars we generally see ending up in ditches are SUVs, driven by idiots who think they've bought themselves "get out of jail, free" cards exempting them from simple physics. Slippery roads and four small points of contact are the same, no matter how much horsepower you hook up to your tires. We've never so much as swapped ends even in the worst snow/freezing rain conditions here.
If the streets in some Ohio town reqire 4WD to get through them during winter, the government of that town is shamefully inadequate to keeping them properly plowed. Simple as that.
----
I can see you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What am I prepared to do about worldwide climate changes and pollution levels?
Might as well ask me what I'm prepared to do about the next rainstorm.
Get out of the rain. Try to stay dry.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME