Message boards :
Politics :
Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 . . . 33 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20460 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
And a noticeable part of the world are awake to climate change, land use, and the corruption behind all that: Where next for Avaaz in 2014? ... Priorities... Interstingly, the major group of people are in education... Perhaps we really do need a lot more of education to save our world from ourselves. Also note the repeated meme that the more highly educated overall appear to feel a far lesser need/desire for "large families"... A simple equation of: Better education for EVERYONE = better awareness, better life, less corruption, and a stable population ? This is our only one planet! All on our only one planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24882 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
Yep, education is sorely needed... ...for spammers posting the same link on various threads. |
The Simonator Send message Joined: 18 Nov 04 Posts: 5700 Credit: 3,855,702 RAC: 50 |
Yep, education is sorely needed... To be fair, it was different parts of the link destination that were valid for both threads. Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge. |
The Simonator Send message Joined: 18 Nov 04 Posts: 5700 Credit: 3,855,702 RAC: 50 |
Where next for Avaaz in 2014? ... Priorities... One part of that list i'm dubious about is this: "Safeguarding our health and food, including from GMOs" Pretty well everything we eat is genetically modified, admittedly not always by specific gene manipulation, but selective breeding is still genetic modification, just at a slower rate. Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge. |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20460 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
Where next for Avaaz in 2014? ... Priorities... A big difference is in the way of the manipulation and the business intent... Selective breeding is usually done to breed something beneficial or desirable. The 'desirable' traits might not be beneficial for health (as is the case for "pedigree dogs" for example), but at least the 'natural breeding' aspect limits what harm can be done. With artificial food-GM, you truly can introduce or take out almost anything you like and without care for whether the result is healthy and viable or not. Indeed, one of the first traits to be introduced was what came to be termed the "knockout gene" to ensure farmers could not sow any viable seeds for next year's crop! Also note how nearly all food-GM is directed to allow ever higher levels of toxicity to be generated or tolerated and to tie that in with whatever pesticides and herbicides that company Markets... That is a double win for the agribusiness and an ecological disaster for everything else. We also eventually get to eat the (more highly toxic) stuff... And once food-GM genetic traits escape into the wild, it stays out there for anything viable. As is now being suffered for various "super-weeds" in the US and Canada that are now additionally resistant to the same super-herbicides as the intended crops... From my observations, food-GM is being cynically used as a patents abused Marketing tool to lock up our food chain. Meanwhile, in the name of no-morals business: Science, our environment, and all consumers be damned. In very great stark contrast, note the great benefits being sown for medical-GM. However, also note how that is used and controlled in a very different way. All on our only one planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
Where next for Avaaz in 2014? ... Priorities... Simonator and Martin, you BOTH raise some good points here. As Simonator points out, there is not much difference between traditional selective breeding and 'GM'... The main one is that 'GM' is MUCH MUCH faster to produce a desired result. As Martin points out, there are ALWAYS unintended consequences in doing EITHER ONE. And here the speed of 'GM' is a drawback... a potentially DANGEROUS one. Martin goes on to criticize big agribusiness, with IMO quite a bit of justification. Many people dislike some big business sectors such as 'Big Oil' or 'Big Pharma'. IMO, 'Big Agribusiness' is worse than both of those put together. My opinion... To combat it, I would suggest to start with a world-wide effort at patent reform. Specifically to remove chemical compounds, genetic codes, business methods, algorithms (linux rocks!), and other ideas and/or naturally occurring things from being patentable. Not so much 'Big Oil', but 'Big Pharma' and 'Big Agribusiness' are using the patent system to extort large amounts of cash out of the people of the world. It needs to stop, along with the other unethical practices that they do. I know this has little to do with Solutions to 'climate change'/greenhouse effects', but I thought when you two brought it up, it needed saying. Have a happy 'US Income Tax' day... |
anniet Send message Joined: 2 Feb 14 Posts: 7105 Credit: 1,577,368 RAC: 75 |
Where next for Avaaz in 2014? ... Priorities... Ooooh... don't get me started on patent and Intellectual property rights! Oooh no!! Makes me quite heated it does!! So YES! :) Everything said here +100... and raised to... well let me see now... infinity Oh, and apologies for not saying hello :) |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19136 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
A small step in the right direction. British Airways announces green fuel plant in Essex BA will commit to buy 50,000 tonnes of jet fuel made from converted waste as part of GreenSky project |
The Simonator Send message Joined: 18 Nov 04 Posts: 5700 Credit: 3,855,702 RAC: 50 |
A small step in the right direction. British Airways announces green fuel plant in Essex A good start, but since a 747 hold 165 tonnes of fuel, that's only enough to fill 303 747s. Still, if it works other plants will probably spring up, so things are going the right way. Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19136 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
Is this the way forward? Methane hydrate: dirty fuel or energy saviour? |
anniet Send message Joined: 2 Feb 14 Posts: 7105 Credit: 1,577,368 RAC: 75 |
Is this the way forward? Methane hydrate: dirty fuel or energy saviour? :/ well... let's hope BP doesn't get involved... or Exxon... or... actually ... given the energy industries' track record... are we going to see them do a quick backtrack on global warming - say - oh yeah - it is happening - so we'd better getter that stuff out before it melts...? Interesting link Winterknight! Thank you - I think :) |
Julie Send message Joined: 28 Oct 09 Posts: 34054 Credit: 18,883,157 RAC: 18 |
Coal vs Uranium: Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste Coal is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions. Developing countries like India and China continue to unveil new coal-fired plants—at the rate of one every seven to 10 days in the latter nation. And the U.S. still draws around half of its electricity from coal. But coal plants have an additional strike against them: they emit harmful greenhouse gases. Nuclear Energy= the future rOZZ Music Pictures |
James Sotherden Send message Joined: 16 May 99 Posts: 10436 Credit: 110,373,059 RAC: 54 |
Is this the way forward? Methane hydrate: dirty fuel or energy saviour? But methane hydrate kept under pressure does not melt.Its the pressure of whats on top of it that keeps it solid. An undersea mudslide or quake that realeases that weight will realease it though. [/quote] Old James |
anniet Send message Joined: 2 Feb 14 Posts: 7105 Credit: 1,577,368 RAC: 75 |
Is this the way forward? Methane hydrate: dirty fuel or energy saviour? Hi James! How are you? :) Yes, my verbal shorthand went a little awry there. :/ Moral of the story... don't post when you're in a hurry :) I was referring to the following section of the article: As global temperatures rise, warming oceans and melting permafrost, the enormous reserves of methane trapped in ice may be released naturally. The consequences could be a catastrophic circular reaction, as warming temperatures release more methane, which in turn raises temperatures further. and not the methane hydrate itself actually "melting". Hope you enjoy the Easter break - if you're getting one of course. :) |
James Sotherden Send message Joined: 16 May 99 Posts: 10436 Credit: 110,373,059 RAC: 54 |
Hi anniet, yes I am getting Good Friday off. I just love a 3 day weekend. Methane hydrate is according to some of the scinece shows I watch a possible suspect in ships sinking. The theory is that if a massive methane hydrate release is under a ship then the ship cant be bouyant in bubbles. A tv show over here called Mythbusters tried to do that. But I dont think they had a large enough bubble field and or a longer sustained air flow. [/quote] Old James |
Wiggo Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 35096 Credit: 261,360,520 RAC: 489 |
Hi anniet, yes I am getting Good Friday off. I just love a 3 day weekend. Yeah I seen that Mythbusters episode, but they just used regular "air" bubbles which is why their experiment failed I reckon. :-( Cheers. |
Wiggo Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 35096 Credit: 261,360,520 RAC: 489 |
Corn waste fuel 'not better than petrol' BIOFUELS made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than petrol for global warming in the short term, a study shows, challenging the Obama administration's conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help fight climate change. Cheers. |
anniet Send message Joined: 2 Feb 14 Posts: 7105 Credit: 1,577,368 RAC: 75 |
Corn waste fuel 'not better than petrol' Hi Wiggo :) Thanks for the post. Another little quote from the report: An assessment paid for by DuPont said that the ethanol it will produce there could be more than 100 per cent better than petrol in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Given that DuPont is one of the "Big 6" Biotech Corporations (along with BASF, Bayer, Dow Chemical Company, Syngenta, and Monsanto (ooh - can someone open a window please - it's beginning to reek in here)) they dominate the agricultural input market and own the world’s seed, pesticide and biotechnology industries (accounting for almost 100% of the genetically engineered seed and 60% of the global pesticide market). Thanks to their input we now have potato plants that have to be registered as pesticides, corn plants where every cell contains pesticides that cannot be washed or boiled away (60% of which is fed to livestock), and crops being produced worldwide that, once upon a time, farmers could spray with herbicides before planting, but not after, (as herbicides would kill the intended crop) but now they can spray them willy nilly at all times without "harm" and are indeed encouraged to do so. I'm not going to even go into the horrors that are being done in their labs re: animal experimentation. :( We've known all this since the nineties. So why are we still believing their lies? Now... we're between a rock and hard place. We might be being told that no farmer in his right mind would remove all the corn crop residue for the biofuel market... The biofuel industry and administration officials immediately criticised the research as flawed. ... but what farmer in his right mind would want to leave any of that toxic stuff to naturally decay on their land... and leach poisons into nearby rivers and streams... :( |
anniet Send message Joined: 2 Feb 14 Posts: 7105 Credit: 1,577,368 RAC: 75 |
Coal vs Uranium: Hi Julie :) Thanks for the post. Most interesting in a sort of grim, "oh... bum" sort of way :/ Historically speaking, I have not been a great proponent of nuclear power. I still can't call myself a fan, but that is probably more to do with factors involving human error bordering on criminal folly that has occurred within the industry at times. Hold that up against the fossil fuel industry, and it does pale considerably in comparison however. So... whilst I would say, given a choice between two evils, I would probably lean towards nuclear power... given that the risks are so potentially devastating environmentally... and have such long-term contamination associated with it - I would like to think that we would be much more intelligent siting and building our plants than we have been in the past. That however could prove quite tricky in view of the impact that climate change is expected to have... for example: on water temperatures and water levels. Cumbrian nuclear dump 'virtually certain' to be eroded by rising sea levels effect of warmer temperatures and drought on existing nuclear power plants ... and unfortunately doesn't solve the problem of thermal pollution (excess heat) which whilst it may not contain much in the way of CO2, chemical toxins and particulants - does contain a lot of... well heat, which doesn't exactly solve all our problems. :( And we would also have to hope that those doing the planning and building weren't flat-out deniers of climate change :/ or we could have nuclear plants going into meltdown all around us if they are wrong. :( So I'm back looking at renewables (such as wind and solar) and hoping that they remain in the mix for our energy needs... and that over time they could play an increasingly bigger role in satisfying what will hopefully be our more responsible and less wasteful requirements. :) |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20460 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
All a victim of a windy gale of success? Will the wind in Spain blow slower on the plain? For the first time in Spain's history, wind contributed the same proportion (21%) of electricity as nuclear last year... Both now contribute more than any other power source. ... ... In Spain's renewable energy success story, encompassing wind, solar (photovoltaic and thermal) and hydro, installed power capacity has risen to 49.1%... [But] "Installation levels in Spain have been declining sharply [since the government withdrew its support]," ... "There used to be 41,000 wind energy jobs in Spain; now there are only 23,000. The politics of this have been really toxic." The figures speak for themselves. In 2012, Spain installed 1,110 megawatts (MW) of new wind capacity. By the end of last year, this figure had dropped to just 175MW. But Spain is not alone. Most EU countries have scaled back on their level of new wind capacity installation. By contrast, Germany has powered ahead, increasing new capacity by 2,297MW in 2012 and by 3,238MW last year. The UK also strongly increased new capacity. This is especially ironic given the impression that wind is a controversial and difficult issue in the country... [And yet...] ... "Lower costs have enabled subsidies for new projects to be reduced, and brought wind and solar much closer to full competitiveness with fossil-fuel alternatives," it states. The report says that, in the absence of cheap indigenous coal or gas, and given plentiful sunshine and wind, solar and wind power can be cheaper than fossil fuel generation... As always, all more a game of politics and financial games rather than anything to do with technical merit... And our planet be damned... Hopefully, the winds of good will prevail! All on our only one planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.