Earth Hour?

[Lote-Tree]

Chaps and Chapsess,

What do you think of this:

http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en_uk/earthhour/

[Lily Adams]

Cool. I'll do it.

[papayahed]

I'll give it a whirl.

[Pensive]

Hmmmm... Pakistan should be given some award concerning electricity conservation. In some areas here, twelve-hours per-day of electricity break-down have been announced....

[Niamh]

I had my lights off!:D
My mam thinks its such a great idea, shes threatening to make us do it every night.:p

[Virgil]

I saw it here in the states. Silly. Very silly. Poor people have to keep the house in the dark. Or people who lived prior to the 20th century. We are consciously lowering our standard of living.

[papayahed]

Damn, I forgot about it.

[Shalot]

I didn't do it. I didn't forget about it, I just didn't do it. I am hopped up on caffeine (it's the American way) and I had to get to Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart doesn't observe Earth Hour, why should anyone else? Gotta stay caffeinated. 24-7. Go go go.

[Niamh]

We reduced electricity use in Ireland by 1.5% during earth hour.

[Lote-Tree]

I saw it here in the states. Silly. Very silly.

How so?



Poor people have to keep the house in the dark.


And why do you have poor people?




Or people who lived prior to the 20th century. We are consciously lowering our standard of living.

1 hour less playstation playing is not lowering living standard!


We reduced electricity use in Ireland by 1.5% during earth hour.


Well done Niam!!! :D

You have staved off Ireland being under water for an hour ;-)

[Virgil]

How so?



And why do you have poor people?




1 hour less playstation playing is not lowering living standard!
http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/1207koreaelectricitygrikf0.jpg
This is a picture at night from a satallite of North and South Korea. The dark half is North Korea. The lit up half is South Korea. North Korea is not in the dark because it wishes to "save" the environment. It's in the dark because it can't afford to be in the light. I've seen such pictures of the entire world at night and the places that are similarly in the dark are also third world nations. I choose to live in the modern world. To live in the dark when one doesn't have to, is not just silly, it's asinine.

[TheFifthElement]

My first reaction is that it's just another gimmick, like Live Earth was. Yes people might turn their lights off for an hour a year, but won't walk or use a bike for short journeys, give up their 24/7 365 days a year availability of seasonal foodstuffs and foodstuffs not available in their locality, cheap clothes imported from the far east, or their annual foreign holiday, etc, etc. So what difference does it make, really, other than make people feel they have been socially responsible when in fact they've done very little? Neither does Earth hour increase the availability of environmentally friendly technology, or make it cheap enough to be used in the average home - for example availability of wind turbines/solar panels/heat exchangers for home use (at a reasonable price or, here's a thought, perhaps the Government could pay for them to be fitted to homes out of the extortionate tax on fuel (shock horror!)).

If people believe in climate change, and if they want to make a difference, then the difference is going to come from big lifestyle change, possibly a lifestyle change beyond that which most people would accept or, and this seems the more likely avenue, the development of better technology. Switching the lights off for an hour does nothing but turn us back to the 'dark ages'. It doesn't seem to me that moving backwards is the answer.

[Lote-Tree]

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/1207koreaelectricitygrikf0.jpg

This is a picture at night from a satallite of North and South Korea. The dark half is North Korea. The lit up half is South Korea.

Lighted areas shows the amount of pollution!

[quote]
I choose to live in the modern world.


I choose to live in the Real World where every action has consequences. And Standard of living is not measured by amount of electricity you have to play your wii consoles.



To live in the dark when one doesn't have to, is not just silly, it's asinine.

To live in the light while destroying everything else is stupid.

[TheFifthElement]

And Standard of living is not measured by amount of electricity you have to play your wii consoles.

Lote, Virgil doesn't play computer games, remember! I guess that makes him more environmentally friendly than you ;)

[Lote-Tree]

Lote, Virgil doesn't play computer games, remember!


But you should know well by now...my remarks are never directed at anyone personally ;-)

[Virgil]

Lote, Virgil doesn't play computer games, remember! I guess that makes him more environmentally friendly than you ;)

:lol: :lol: Thanks for the support.

And what is one supposed to do in the dark, sit by the hearth and watch the embers glow? Oh, wait a second, a hearth implies firewood and that requires cutting down a tree. I guess you can't do that either Lote. :p

[Petrarch's Love]

I saw it here in the states. Silly. Very silly. Poor people have to keep the house in the dark. Or people who lived prior to the 20th century. We are consciously lowering our standard of living.


My first reaction is that it's just another gimmick, like Live Earth was. Yes people might turn their lights off for an hour a year, but won't walk or use a bike for short journeys, give up their 24/7 365 days a year availability of seasonal foodstuffs and foodstuffs not available in their locality, cheap clothes imported from the far east, or their annual foreign holiday, etc, etc. So what difference does it make, really, other than make people feel they have been socially responsible when in fact they've done very little? Neither does Earth hour increase the availability of environmentally friendly technology, or make it cheap enough to be used in the average home - for example availability of wind turbines/solar panels/heat exchangers for home use (at a reasonable price or, here's a thought, perhaps the Government could pay for them to be fitted to homes out of the extortionate tax on fuel (shock horror!)).

If people believe in climate change, and if they want to make a difference, then the difference is going to come from big lifestyle change, possibly a lifestyle change beyond that which most people would accept or, and this seems the more likely avenue, the development of better technology. Switching the lights off for an hour does nothing but turn us back to the 'dark ages'. It doesn't seem to me that moving backwards is the answer.

I don't think the point of this thing was to either make a move toward forcing us all to live in the dark or to effect dramatic environmental change simply because people turn their lights off for an hour. Surely the point is to get people talking about the issue of the environment with an aim to hopefully get people to do something somewhere in between living in the dark like cave men and wantonly wasting electricity. The stunt seems to have at least acheived the goal of getting the people around here talking some.

[Lote-Tree]

And what is one supposed to do in the dark, sit by the hearth and watch the embers glow? Oh, wait a second, a hearth implies firewood and that requires cutting down a tree.


Erm wear a jumper and cuddle upto your fellow man/woman (whatever way you are inclined)! not only you are saving energy you are also sharing your humanity :D Brotherhood of man (and women - lets not be sexist anymore)!



I guess you can't do that either Lote. :p
[/quote]

We have lived in the light too much and forgotten the beauty of darkness ;-)

[Virgil]

I don't think the point of this thing was to either make a move toward forcing us all to live in the dark or to effect dramatic environmental change simply because people turn their lights off for an hour. Surely the point is to get people talking about the issue of the environment

As if people aren't talking it to death??? All i hear is this nonsense about global warming. It's taken on a myth of its own.


with an aim to hopefully get people to do something somewhere in between living in the dark like cave men and wantonly wasting electricity. The stunt seems to have at least acheived the goal of getting the people around here talking some.
In my opinion this is a political stunt orienting people to act in a particular way.


Erm wear a jumper and cuddle upto your fellow man/woman (whatever way you are inclined)! not only you are saving energy you are also sharing your humanity :D Brotherhood of man (and women - lets not be sexist anymore)!


Actually this will cause more global warming. Power outages, it has been shown, result in little mini spikes in conceptions, and therefore the poulation will increase. :D I'm one that actually believes in increasing the human poulation (without getting into it, it's a good thing; population increases across time have resulted in increased standards of living) so perhaps we should have this hour of darkness afterall. :D

[kilted exile]

I ignored it. I found the whole idea fundamentally stupid. The idea that people switching off a 60W bulb for an hour will make the slightest bit of difference is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Lights went off, lamps went on. TV's, radio's, all other consumers of electricity stayed on. It was a pointless escapade designed to make people feel less guilty for a while.

The other thing is the main drawers off electrical power for lighting are things like streetlights. Municipalities are not going to be switching them off & they shouldn't either.

The other thing is that if everyone actually DID switch off all electrical consumers for an hour, the switch back on point would likely cause such a huge surge of energy that you would have transformers blowing all over the place. Yeah, great idea:idea:

[manolia]

I ignored it. I found the whole idea fundamentally stupid. The idea that people switching off a 60W bulb for an hour will make the slightest bit of difference is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.


Thank you and amen!

[Lote-Tree]

I ignored it. I found the whole idea fundamentally stupid. The idea that people switching off a 60W bulb for an hour will make the slightest bit of difference is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.


Stupid would be to assume that was the purpose of the Earth Hour!

It was meant to raise awareness - that is all!

Sometimes people's arrogance and ego blinds them.



Actually this will cause more global warming. Power outages, it has been shown, result in little mini spikes in conceptions, and therefore the poulation will increase.


Use a condom!



:D I'm one that actually believes in increasing the human poulation (without getting into it, it's a good thing;


I find you sometimes bafflingly bizzare!



so perhaps we should have this hour of darkness afterall. :D

And admire the heavens in it's glory just like our ancestors did;-)


Thank you and amen!

Come on lassie - you are smarter than Kilty ;-)

[Chava]

The other thing is the main drawers off electrical power for lighting are things like streetlights. Municipalities are not going to be switching them off & they shouldn't either.


They did here, copenhagen went dark. And i agree with Lote, it's a raise awareness issue, and it's about getting people to talk about it. And no it's not talked to death.
Global warming or not, we are going through natural resources faster than they are being replenished, and enough funding isn't going into alternative energy yet to replace it. It's about making people conserve as much as it's about reducing CO2 emissions.
Heck, it could even be a financial pointed finger! If you switch off all those standby appliances and turn off the lights when you leave a room, you're saving yourself on the electricity bill.
I don't see why so many find this a dissagreeable idea?

[Virgil]

I find you sometimes bafflingly bizzare!

That's because you accept conventional thinking and I don't. I've seen enough conventional thinking proved wrong, both in general and professionally.

Just because it's in the newspapers doesn't make it true.



Global warming or not, we are going through natural resources faster than they are being replenished,
Which resources? The oil in the earth we have used since the beinning of the industrial revolution is only 18%. That's in over 150 years. 82% still remains untapped.


and enough funding isn't going into alternative energy yet to replace it. It's about making people conserve as much as it's about reducing CO2 emissions.
Oh please. Lots and lots of money is being spent, mostly wasted because they keep seaching for a panacea that doesn't exist. The only real alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power. And many of the environmentalist whackos are against that too. They don't want to use oil. They don't want to use coal, they don't want nuclear, they don't even want to cut down a tree for wood. They want us to live like cave people.


I don't see why so many find this a dissagreeable idea?
What are you talking about? I see mostly people agreeing with you. In fact the people who have disagreed here, myself, Kilt, and Manolia all have scientific backgrounds.

[TheFifthElement]

And many of the environmentalist whackos are against that too.

Don't mince your words Virgil ;)


In fact the people who have disagreed here, myself, Kilt, and Manolia all have scientific backgrounds.

Count me in, though I'm not from a scientific background, and my objections are perhaps different to yours. Earth Hour = gimmick.

[Lote-Tree]

That's because you accept conventional thinking and I don't.


I speak from Experience as oppose to Conventional Thinking.

Have you ever been to India, Pakistan, Bangladesh Virgil?



Just because it's in the newspapers doesn't make it true.


I don't read CNNs and Foxes of this world!

You don't have to read any of that to see the changes that are happening.

In my own city I can vouch for the levels of pollution with 20 years of my living there!

edit: Yes I am from a scientific background.

[Chava]

Which resources? The oil in the earth we have used since the beinning of the industrial revolution is only 18%. That's in over 150 years. 82% still remains untapped.

Those reseources aren't available to us yet, they're working on methods of extraction, but aren't there yet. And if you want to get into details, the coal that is being extracted is done so under horiffic and unsafe conditions, thousands die trying to provide you with energy, just check up the amount of accidents and deaths related to diseases as a result of mining for coal.
Nuclear power is not the only sustainable source of energy, Norway gets most of it's energy from hydro electric power; waterfalls and rivers. Denmark is reknown around the world for it's windmill parks, and is even now working on exporting them to China, I'd hate to seem presumptive, but please do some research.
Secondly the problem of nuclear waste is still relevant as no one has found a safe means of destroying it.

[Koa]

I didn't do it though I had heard of it because I live with 3 morons and as long as there are people like them the world won't be a better place. Let me have a point before I explain why.

To me the point of this is remembering that electricity is not always NECESSARY. It's not about living in the 3rd world, it's about remembering that sometimes you don't need that bloody light on if you can actually see anyway, that you don't need a TV to be constantly on, that you can do laundry less often and if you forgot to wash something wait for next time...

And now, concrete example, my housemates. They NEVER switch lights off, to the point that if on a weekend I'm the first one to wake up at stupid times like 11am, I have to turn off the light in the kitchen. Chances are someone went there to get a drink in the night, what's the point of not switching the light back off? And what enrages me more is that they leave the TV on and go back to their rooms, or even OUT. I could kill for that. Once one of them washed ONE t-shirt in the washing machine... I swear, there was only that poor lonely t-shirt. (I should add that our bills are included in the rent, otherwise I would have already killed them)

I'm appalled. If they are like that I bet their families are too? And how many more people I've never met are like that too? I find waste to be disgusting. I don't want to refrain from my shameful privileges for being born on the lucky side of the planet, but I hate the idea of abusing them. Talks of global warming aside, it's just disrespectful, how many useful things could have been done with the energy used to keep a light on all night when no one is in the room? Maybe even simple useful things like being in that room and needing that light, or watching that TV instead of leaving it babbling to itself out loud for hours... (on a couple of occasions I got home and NO ONE was in, but the TV was on).

Wow, love to rant.

[kilted exile]

Stupid would be to assume that was the purpose of the Earth Hour!

It was meant to raise awareness - that is all!

Sometimes people's arrogance and ego blinds them.

My arrogance & ego are blinding me to nothing. My study of the subject however does blind me to pointless gimmicks & personal interest groups which distract from the issue at hand and prevent a real, frank discussion of the subject from taking place.

The idea of this stunt raising awareness is ridiculous, anyone who heard about "earth hour" I am quite sure has also heard the phrase "global warming". I would imagine the % who were enlightened by this gimmick would be under 10%.

If we actually want to do something concrete & purposeful we have to start investing real money in research & development of technology. The time for gimmicks is over, all it does is bring the debate back to the oversimplified & sophomoric "energy use is bad" - which the GP pigs have daubed all over the wall of the farm house, I'm just waiting for the addition to go up.

[Chava]

If we actually want to do something concrete & purposeful we have to start investing real money in research & development of technology. The time for gimmicks is over, all it does is bring the debate back to the oversimplified & sophomoric "energy use is bad" - which the GP pigs have daubed all over the wall of the farm house, I'm just waiting for the addition to go up.

That really made my day :) You're a darling kilted

[Koa]

GP?
:confused:

[Virgil]

Use a condom!

I'm sure people plan on it, but the statistics show that conceptions increase when people are stuck in the dark.


I find you sometimes bafflingly bizzare!
:lol: I take that as a compliment. An individual doesn't follow the herd. I'm living proof that one can be an individual without having tattoos or piercings.


I speak from Experience as oppose to Conventional Thinking.

Have you ever been to India, Pakistan, Bangladesh Virgil?

What does going to those countries that have to do with global warming? All I know is that I want those countries to live in a decent standard of living. It's not my position on environmentalism that condemns people to poverty. I want them to have cars and air conditioning and whatever else makes their lives better. And the same goes for the far east and for Africa and for everywhere else in the world.


You don't have to read any of that to see the changes that are happening.
What changes??? At worst case the claim is that we have increase a degree? How can you see that? It's imperceptable.


In my own city I can vouch for the levels of pollution with 20 years of my living there!
Well, that's different issue completely. I'm for reducing pollution. We had a grave pollution problem in the US and the 1970s legislation has made an incredible difference. I have heard that European cities are more polluted than the US. I don't know if that's true or not, but yes if you got a pollution problem do something about it.


edit: Yes I am from a scientific background.
Ok, good. :) But we disagree on this. ;)


Nuclear power is not the only sustainable source of energy, Norway gets most of it's energy from hydro electric power; waterfalls and rivers.
Great, I have nothing against that, but Norway's population is under 5 million for a huge land mass. In New York we have eight million people in one city alone. We derive hydro power too, most notably Niagara Falls. I'm not against that. It helps, but it isn't suficient. You made the claim back there that not enough was being done for alternative sources. I disagree. Where electric companies can save money by not buying oil, it's done. You seem to have this impression that we can do without fossil fuels. That's a pipe dream.


Denmark is reknown around the world for it's windmill parks, and is even now working on exporting them to China, I'd hate to seem presumptive, but please do some research.
I've passed these windmill parks (we have them too) and frankly they are as ugly as can be to the landscape. Talk about anti-Romanticism. Be that as it may I have heard that windmills are not that efficient and that they cause a lot of deaths of birds. And if you take energy out of natural air flow, aren't you altering the environment? Aren't you changing the pattern of airflow? Same thing with hydraulic power. Aren't you changing the waterflow and the biology of those river? Yes you are.


Secondly the problem of nuclear waste is still relevant as no one has found a safe means of destroying it.
I'm not concerned about the waste, that gets buried deep into the earth. What I'm concerned about are risks (like Chernoble). But Chernoble seems to be an isolated episode. You Europeans have lots of nucear plants and seem safe enough.

[Lote-Tree]

I'm sure people plan on it, but the statistics show that conceptions increase when people are stuck in the dark.


No. Conception increases when people have sex. It's nothing to do with the dark ;-)



:lol: I take that as a compliment.


Off course. All bizzare people do because they don't know anything better ;-)



An individual doesn't follow the herd.


It's not about one's Ego. It's about our future!



I'm living proof that one can be an individual without having tattoos or piercings.


Individual Dinosaurs died out a long time ago ;-)



I want them to have cars and air conditioning and whatever else makes their lives better.


If they are drowned, their land and air poisoned - air conditioning and cars will not make no difference to their lives!

And if you have not visited India, Pakistan or Bangladesh - how would know about what a massive increase in population does to a society? How would you know what global warming effect is having on them?

In far as away as China - Buddha statues that stood for 2000 years are now being eaten away by acid rain!

No. Destroying everything else so that people can own and drive cars and have air conditiong - is so stupid!

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

Please discuss the issue, not each other.

Posts with personal remarks will be deleted without any further warning.

[Virgil]

No. Conception increases when people have sex. It's nothing to do with the dark ;-)

Oh well, a little dim lighting helps the mood you know. Unless you're a porn star and likes to do it under bright camera lights.:p


Off course. All bizzare people do because they don't know anything better ;-)
I guess it depends what you consider bizzare. I'm not the one running around like a chicken without a head yelling the sky is falling. :D


It's not about one's Ego. It's about our future!
Huh?


If they are drowned, their land and air poisoned - air conditioning and cars will not make no difference to their lives!
Lote, whatever may be, the sky is not falling. Please. The apocolypse is not imminent.


And if you have not visited India, Pakistan or Bangladesh - how would know about what a massive increase in population does to a society? How would you know what global warming effect is having on them?
I believe that India had a massive population well before anyone even thought of global warming. What effect is it having on them? Their economy has never been better. Their standard of living has dramatically improved. Or do you want them to them to live in poverty? And may I ask who appointed you dictator of India (or should I call you Raj) to tell their citizens you can't have cars or modern transportation or modern conveniences, while you live in your 21st century world?


In far as away as China - Buddha statues that stood for 2000 years are now being eaten away by acid rain!
That's not global warming. You're confusing subjects.


No. Destroying everything else so that people can own and drive cars and have air conditiong - is so stupid!
I assume you don't have a car. Or air conditioning or electricity or a washer machine or a dish washer or an oven or whatever. I assume your clothes aren't made by modern technology and your food isn't harvested by modern farm equipment. Bueno. Then you must be a monk praying to mother earth in complete fear of the apocolyspe in some sparten four walled room.

[TheFifthElement]

Virgil, you've raised a lot of interesting comments, but I have to disagree with this one:


I've passed these windmill parks (we have them too) and frankly they are as ugly as can be to the landscape. Talk about anti-Romanticism. Be that as it may I have heard that windmills are not that efficient and that they cause a lot of deaths of birds. And if you take energy out of natural air flow, aren't you altering the environment? Aren't you changing the pattern of airflow? Same thing with hydraulic power. Aren't you changing the waterflow and the biology of those river? Yes you are.

Aesthetics isn't a reason not to have windmill parks, personally I think they are beautiful, graceful. The problem most people have with the aesthetics is that they see these plants as a 'blot' on the landscape, but if you put a convention powerplant in the same location it wouldn't be so pleasing on the eye either, in fact I think most people would say less so.

But you also raise an interesting point, though theoretical I also have some concerns about the 'butterfly' effect. I guess there is probably no way, not with current technologies at least, of meeting our power needs without those needs having any consequence; but perhaps we need to use our energy a bit smarter. There are lots of technologies around which combined would significantly reduce power consumption in the average home, i.e. use of heat exchange technology, solar panels, wind turbines, under floor heating, but the problem is that these technologies are still too expensive for the average family to use in the home. What it needs is for the Govt's to push for the technology to be more widely available, and better education for the home owner or how to use these technologies to their benefit, and ultimately the benefit of the environment. I think that any approach will have to be a combination of fossil fuels, nuclear technology, and 'green' technologies. None of them in isolation is a solution.

and Lote:


In my own city I can vouch for the levels of pollution with 20 years of my living there!

where do you live? Pollution levels are going down in UK - when was the last time you saw smog (and I mean real smog!)? Don't confuse 'scruffy' with 'polluted'.

[Virgil]

Virgil, you've raised a lot of interesting comments, but I have to disagree with this one:


Aesthetics isn't a reason not to have windmill parks, personally I think they are beautiful, graceful. The problem most people have with the aesthetics is that they see these plants as a 'blot' on the landscape, but if you put a convention powerplant in the same location it wouldn't be so pleasing on the eye either, in fact I think most people would say less so.

True, but a power plant is one building. These things stretch for miles. What about the forest you have to cut down? We have them in desert areas where there isn't too much of an impact to the landscape. I don't have a problem with them really. They're not in my back yard so i don't have to see them. I can see how in a generation or two people will despise them and use them as a symbol in literature. ;) If they are a net financial plus economically, then sure let's build them. But I've heard mixed things. I guess power companies will determine whether they are economically feasible. What I don't want is politicians forcing inefficient things down our throats to satisfy a whining constituency.


But you also raise an interesting point, though theoretical I also have some concerns about the 'butterfly' effect. I guess there is probably no way, not with current technologies at least, of meeting our power needs without those needs having any consequence; but perhaps we need to use our energy a bit smarter.
Right. I agree. I'm stingy. If something saves me money, I'm for it. If we can reduce the cost of electricity with windmills supplementing power generation, great. It's just these environmentalists who just think there are no other consequences with alternatives. Like if we go electric cars, what about the battery disposal? The chemicals in batteries are very environmentally hazardous. If you have billions of cars with huge batteries, what happens to those batteries when you scrap the car?


There are lots of technologies around which combined would significantly reduce power consumption in the average home, i.e. use of heat exchange technology, solar panels, wind turbines, under floor heating, but the problem is that these technologies are still too expensive for the average family to use in the home. What it needs is for the Govt's to push for the technology to be more widely available, and better education for the home owner or how to use these technologies to their benefit, and ultimately the benefit of the environment. I think that any approach will have to be a combination of fossil fuels, nuclear technology, and 'green' technologies. None of them in isolation is a solution.
Hey I'm an engineer. I love new technology. I do think we can design houses better on heat savings, but some of those ideas just don't pay for themselves. I've always felt that solar power is free energy and we should take advantage of it. But I've seen articles where people have spent over 50thousand dollars to equip their homes with solar panels. And it was calculated that they would break even in costs in something like (I don't remember the exact numbers) in something like 50 years. They're going to be dead and gone, so why would anyone do it? It doesn't make economic sense. I would think if things made economic sense, they would be on the market and everyone would be rushing to save money.

[Madhuri]

And if you have not visited India, Pakistan or Bangladesh - how would know about what a massive increase in population does to a society? How would you know what global warming effect is having on them?


Population control is an issue in itself, different from global warming. We have awarness programs that are helping control the situation, the change will not come overnight, it takes time. This we are doing it not because of global warming, we do it so that people can have better lives at the basic level.

The concern for global warming is for societies that are saturated in terms for development (I think) and are looking for things to save the world. This is not our primary concern. The issues like education, population, health care etc are very important, and in a country like India, these issues take precedence over global warming, things are not as dismal, eventhough, we are a deveoping nation.

I will not go for any power cuts, because as it is that happens without us wanting it to happen. There are power cuts for a few mins, few hours (could be even 10-12 hrs a day), no big deal. So whatever time I am getting electricity, I would like to be in light and not darkness.

If at all because of global warming India is in water, then it will not be the only country that will see the consequence. It will happen all over the world. So, it does not mean that people should be concerned about the issue of global warming so that countries like India, Pak, or Bangladesh can be saved.

[TheFifthElement]

True, but a power plant is one building. These things stretch for miles. What about the forest you have to cut down? We have them in desert areas where there isn't too much of an impact to the landscape. I don't have a problem with them really. They're not in my back yard so i don't have to see them.

I think the approach perhaps differs from country to country. In UK windfarms are generally coastal or on the moors, there's no land clearance or cutting down of trees. Power plants are more than one building. On balance I'd rather have a windfarm:
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd68/TheFifthElement_photos/delabolewf.jpg

than a coal fired power plant:
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd68/TheFifthElement_photos/PowerStation.jpg

or a nuclear powerplant:
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd68/TheFifthElement_photos/sellafield.jpg

in my backyard.


Hey I'm an engineer. I love new technology. I do think we can design houses better on heat savings, but some of those ideas just don't pay for themselves. I've always felt that solar power is free energy and we should take advantage of it. But I've seen articles where people have spent over 50thousand dollars to equip their homes with solar panels. And it was calculated that they would break even in costs in something like (I don't remember the exact numbers) in something like 50 years. They're going to be dead and gone, so why would anyone do it? It doesn't make economic sense. I would think if things made economic sense, they would be on the market and everyone would be rushing to save money.

I agree with you, but your argument is based on current pricing levels. I agree that the Governments need to act to assist to reduce the cost of these types of technologies if they're really serious about reducing carbon emissions. Solar panels are a good example, they do eventually pay for themselves, and if you were to combine them with other energy saving methods then they'd pay for themselves quicker. The thing is, it'll be a variety of technologies that help this happen, reduced energy lightbulbs (which will be compulsory in EU from 2010), improvements in in-home technology specifically designed to lower the wattage consumption, improved heating systems, etc, etc. The thing with renewable energy sources in the home such as solar panels, wind turbines, is that eventually they will pay for themselves, and then you start to make savings. If you rely on conventional electricity supplies alone then you'll never make a saving. In addition it has been shown that adding energy efficiencies to a home can increase the value of the home by up to 10%, so that needs to be factored in too.

Bear in mind that technology does get cheaper, especially where it's in widespread consumer use. For example, when I bought my first DVD player 8 years ago it cost £800, now I can get an equivalent quality DVD player for less than £50!

Certainly in UK (can't really speak for anywhere else) if the Government were truly serious about reducing carbon footprints then they would plough some of the significant tax income they get from fuel into 'green' energy initiatives, specifically by helping the average guy get the best energy efficiency from their home. Without a viable alternative to petrol powered transport the savings aren't going to be made by reducing car journeys (again, because there's not much of a viable alternative to that either), but considering that currently the price of petrol in UK is roughly £1.10 per litre, 72% of the price of which is tax, there's a significant pot of money there which at least some of which could go towards developing more cost effective solutions.

[Lote-Tree]

Oh well, a little dim lighting helps the mood you know. Unless you're a porn star and likes to do it under bright camera lights.:p


How did you know? I am Randy Organ. Have we met? But alas I am not gay! ;-)



I guess it depends what you consider bizzare. I'm not the one running around like a chicken without a head yelling the sky is falling. :D

Huh?

Lote, whatever may be, the sky is not falling. Please. The apocolypse is not imminent.


Low lands of India and Bangladesh already flooded - what else do you need? Whether patterns have changed and changing.

Pollution made in America have washed up and landed on far away places like outer mongolia!



What effect is it having on them?


See above.



Their economy has never been better. Their standard of living has dramatically improved.


Yes for the few. Millions still live in Shanti towns!



Or do you want them to them to live in poverty?


No. But you do don't you?

If not why don't you give away your wealth and resources?

That would remove the poverty?



And may I ask who appointed you dictator of India


Not of India but whole whole world by virtue of Superior Morality.

Not morality of the Ego!



(or should I call you Raj) to tell their citizens you can't have cars or modern transportation or modern conveniences, while you live in your 21st century world?


Modern convienices like chemically preserved Frozen Meals at Tesco's?

Wow so much for modernity!

I don't think they are craving for such things!

Come on Virgil are you for real!?

It's not want of cars and air-conditioning that blights the lives of these people. It is poverty. And poverty is caused by what?



I assume you don't have a car.


No. I don't need one. I give my money to a poor village india so that they start to cultivate their land.



Or air conditioning


No. I prefer the clean air!



or electricity


Yes. Generated by non polluting renewable sources.



or a washer machine


No. I can wash my own clothes. I am not lazy.



or a dish washer


No. I am not lazy.



I assume your clothes aren't made by modern technology


No. I go about naked. I am closet nudist!



and your food isn't harvested by modern farm equipment.




Then you must be a monk praying to mother earth in complete fear of the apocolyspe in some sparten four walled room.

Not a Monk but strive to live an Ego-less life.

And no I have no fear.

But I can see and experiennce. And I see and experience that our actions is having consequences around the world...


Population control is an issue in itself, different from global warming.


Yes. Mads but Virgil and I are talking about two things.

He thinks population increase is not a problem.

I say it is when there is not enough resources availbe to support them all.

And the second is global warming. But the consequecences of global warming to countries like bangladesh and lowlands of india is bad. Areas around sunderbands for example have already been flooded.

[Koa]

It makes me laugh that the first points for modernity in Virgil's mind are two things I loathe and wish never existed: cars and air conditioning.

Of course we need transport but public transport is fine. Air conditioning is for sissies. It's getting common now in Italy so that the past 2-3 summers there have been power black-outs. I detest the heat but air cond is so innatural that it makes me feel bad anyway, and I've been fine without it for a good 18-20 years or more, don't remember when my parents got it.
And I've heard that Africa is hotter than Italy but I doubt a/c is popular...
We're just spoilt. Electricity is needed and no one can question that, but we're taking it too far with our comforts in my opinion (such as I was mentioning the morons not bothering switching lights off etc)

[Virgil]

Low lands of India and Bangladesh already flooded - what else do you need? Whether patterns have changed and changing.

Weather and weather patterns have changed since the beginning of time. There is no significant, in my opinion, link between man made activity and global warming. If the planet has warmed one damn degree ("oh my God, the sky is falling") there are mutliple factors going on, of which the predominant variable is natural. What you're confusing is a lower order effect that if eliminated will change essentially nothing. You're wasting your time.


Yes for the few. Millions still live in Shanti towns!
Oh get off your socialism. The standard of living is improving and spreading across the population, everyone. Ask the people of India what they would prefer.


If not why don't you give away your wealth and resources?

That would remove the poverty?
No giving them my money without changing their economy just makes us both poor. Look how much money has been thrown down a rat hole in Africa. They are quite capable of earning their own living and having the self respect of not taking charity. Your paternalism is stunning.


Not of India but whole whole world by virtue of Superior Morality.
Just like all the dictators of the world, Hitler, Stalin, they all insisted on their superior morality.


Modern convienices like chemically preserved Frozen Meals at Tesco's?

Wow so much for modernity!

I don't think they are craving for such things!

Come on Virgil are you for real!?
No are you for real? Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. They are free to choose whatever their free wills desire. If they want frozen meals they don't need to get permission from the Raj of superiror morality.


It's not want of cars and air-conditioning that blights the lives of these people. It is poverty. And poverty is caused by what?
Poverty is caused by the lack of industrialization and a free market economy.


No. I don't need one. I give my money to a poor village india so that they start to cultivate their land.
:lol: I guess you've been reading Candide. It is not a shock to look at the demographics of population and see that from the beginning of the 19th century when industrialization first came that people have been racing away from farming. Farming is one of the hardest lives you can possibly lead, and you have no guarentee that you'll be able to eat that year. You want to condemn people to a farming life? I bet you don't even garden. I garden, but if I had to live off the garden I would be in real trouble. In fact this proves you are monk. Live by candle light, pray to mother earth, wait for the apocalypse, live off your garden, and the extent of your travels is the next monestary. :D


He thinks population increase is not a problem.
I don't know how many times I've read in the paper how the population decrease in Europe is a major problem. You Europeans are a dying breed because you don't populate. Population increase is not a problem. We continually increase the efficiency of food production. We throw away more food in the US than is imaginable. Population decrease is a major problem.


I say it is when there is not enough resources availbe to support them all.
Rediculous.


And the second is global warming. But the consequecences of global warming to countries like bangladesh and lowlands of india is bad. Areas around sunderbands for example have already been flooded.
If a person has a cup of coffee in the morning and is diagnosed with cancer in the afternnon, Lote's logic would assume that the cancer was caused by the cup of coffee.

[Virgil]

It makes me laugh that the first points for modernity in Virgil's mind are two things I loathe and wish never existed: cars and air conditioning.

Of course we need transport but public transport is fine. Air conditioning is for sissies. It's getting common now in Italy so that the past 2-3 summers there have been power black-outs. I detest the heat but air cond is so innatural that it makes me feel bad anyway, and I've been fine without it for a good 18-20 years or more, don't remember when my parents got it.
And I've heard that Africa is hotter than Italy but I doubt a/c is popular...
We're just spoilt. Electricity is needed and no one can question that, but we're taking it too far with our comforts in my opinion (such as I was mentioning the morons not bothering switching lights off etc)

You don't have over 35C degree and 90% humidity days in Italy or probably Europe in general. It's quite common here and people die from heat exhaustion. As to not wanting a car, that's your personal preference. I know if cars were denied in Italy the population would go crazy. To many, a car is a) an essential and more importantly b) a means of freedom. There is nothing more free than to drive somewhere you've never been at your time (not that of a train schedule) and go where you want and desire.

[Lote-Tree]

Weather and weather patterns have changed since the beginning of time. There is no significant, in my opinion, link between man made activity and global warming. If the planet has warmed one damn degree ("oh my God, the sky is falling") there are mutliple factors going on, of which the predominant variable is natural. What you're confusing is a lower order effect that if eliminated will change essentially nothing. You're wasting your time.


With you it seems it will be a waste of time because you reject evidence.



Oh get off your socialism.


I find you so bizzare! You demonstrate compassion yet you are all for Ego-tism? People die not because they can't drive 4x4! People die because of hunger and malnutirition, of lack of resource. Not enough to go round.



The standard of living is improving and spreading across the population, everyone. Ask the people of India what they would prefer.


Standard of living is mot measured in being able have air conditioning. That is nonsense!



They are quite capable of earning their own living and having the self respect of not taking charity.


That is why they are poor! Your outlook is so stunningly bizzare!



Just like all the dictators of the world, Hitler, Stalin, they all insisted on their superior morality.


My morality is the morality of compassion. It is not of dictators or Egotists.



Don't put words in my mouth.


You mentioned Modern conviniences.



I never said that.


Cars and Air-conditioning?



Poverty is caused by the lack of industrialization and a free market economy.


You mean like America? And that is why 28 million get food stamps?

No. Poverty is caused by lack of resources. Not enough rersources for everyone.



I bet you don't even garden. I garden, but if I had to live off the garden I would be in real trouble.


Because you are lazy?



In fact this proves you are monk.


That is why I am typing on computer and have a job ;-)



Live by candle light, pray to mother earth, wait for the apocalypse, live off your garden, and the extent of your travels is the next monestary. :D


I am not even superstious ;-)

How you seen the majesty of the universe in the dark?



I don't know how many times I've read in the paper how the population decrease in Europe is a major problem. You Europeans are a dying breed because you don't populate. Population increase is not a problem. We continually increase the efficiency of food production. We throw away more food in the US than is imaginable. Population decrease is a major problem.
Rediculous.


OK chappy...house the millions of the shanty towns of India and Bangladesh - they don't have any land - so what shall we do with?



If a person has a cup of coffee in the morning and is diagnosed with cancer in the afternnon, Lote's logic would assume that the cancer was caused by the cup of coffee.

When I see chemicals made in Europe poisoning the land and air in outer mongolia...the I say...our actions indeed have consequences.

[Virgil]

With you it seems it will be a waste of time because you reject evidence.

I am too looking at the evidence. The worse case increase is one degree increase in a 100 years or so. the earth over its life time has fluctuate more than five degrees. You can't prove that the one degree increase is not natural fluctuation. Even the climatologist will assign a probablity to the assumption that it's all man made. Those probabiliies are in my opinion hocus pocus with numbers. The fact remains that the earth has increased one degree and that's within the tolerance band of natural fluctuation. I have too looked at the evidence.


I find you so bizzare! You demonstrate compassion yet you are all for Ego-tism? People die not because they can't drive 4x4! People die because of hunger and malnutirition, of lack of resource. Not enough to go round.
At one time 99% of the people on the earth lived with the standard of living you deplore. That changed with industrialization, commercialism, and free markets. That's what changes people's standards of living. If you can't understand that, then we just fundementally disagree. I look to help the world rise from poverty, not be trapped in it.


Standard of living is mot measured in being able have air conditioning. That is nonsense!
It's measured in the ability to spend your money in whatever way you chose to make your life better.


You mean like America? And that is why 28 million get food stamps?
Oh please, everyone who's never lived in this country seems to know everything about us. I'd like to compare the standard of living of those people with anyone around the world. First of all in your country you subsidize people in all sorts of ways. Second food stamps is as much about getting rid of excess food and subsidizing farmers as giving out food.


No. Poverty is caused by lack of resources. Not enough rersources for everyone.
Resources are not finite. Someday you will undertand that.

[Virgil]

Ha!!! Look at the following:


U.N. Forecasters: Global Temperatures to Decrease
Friday, April 04, 2008

Average global temperatures in 2008 are forecast to be lower than in previous years, thanks to the cooling effect of the ocean current in the Pacific, U.N. meteorologists say.

The World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, said it was likely that La Nina, an abnormal cooling of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, would continue into the summer.

If the forecast holds true, global temperatures will not have risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory. [SNIP]
You can read the rest here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346310,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/naturalscience

But forget the rest, the key statement is that "global temperatures will not have risen since 1998." That's with all the industrialzation going on in China and India. They have been industrializing exponentially in the last ten years and the earth has actually cooled. Got that? Cooled. That tells you that whatever man has been contributing is a lower order effect. It's peanuts. The real driver, if the temperature measurements can be believed at all, is natural phenomena. This one degree increase is in the tolerance band of natural flutuaction. It's natural. Do you get it?

[Koa]

What I don't get, Virgy, is why then waste of energy is ok. I am also not convinced that global warming is man's product, or if it is it's just partially, but I don't see why then it's ok to abuse of electricity. When some people don't even have it anyway, no matter how China and India have developed.


You don't have over 35C degree and 90% humidity days in Italy or probably Europe in general.

:lol: :lol: :lol: This is the funniest joke I've heard in a while. In Northern Italy, namely in the Po plain (pianura padana) area, where I'm from, that's pretty much what summer is like. Well over 35 and THAT humidity is a bit of an extreme day, although possible, but give me 33-34 and 70-80% humidity, and that could be a random day between June and August. You sit without moving at 10pm in the dark, and you sweat. It doesn't cool off too much at night, which is why my dad got air conditioning, to be able to sleep. In the infamous summer of 2003, which did cause a rise in deaths especially in France if I'm not wrong, from June to end of August in my city there were like 5 days under 30 degrees. That was awful...
And I don't think I should remind you that the South of Italy can get to 35-40 pretty easily, even though it's not so humid and for us Northeners can feel like paradise because of that and of the breeze...
Even the UK gets over 35 on some extraordinary days once every several years...
I was surprised when I learnt that New York has such summers, as you also have super cold winters... but well using just my ignorant judgement, I can try and suppose that summer in NY is shorter than it is in Italy?


As to not wanting a car, that's your personal preference. I know if cars were denied in Italy the population would go crazy. To many, a car is a) an essential and more importantly b) a means of freedom. There is nothing more free than to drive somewhere you've never been at your time (not that of a train schedule) and go where you want and desire.

Oh most definitely, I've never seen anyone so mad about cars like Italians - but I've never been to the US. Using public transport is just not cool - and I'm not saying for the occasional trip but for daily routines like going to work. I don't know how people do it, last time I've been there I spent half an hour in a traffic jam and I thought I'd go insane, to think people do it every day to go back from work etc... I just think that in an ideal world the public transport would be so good that cars would be mostly unnecessary... Ok with a train you have a schedule but you have no pressure, no responsiblities, you can enjoy the journey and even use it to do something else, reading talking on the phone eating listening to music...

[Virgil]

What I don't get, Virgy, is why then waste of energy is ok. I am also not convinced that global warming is man's product, or if it is it's just partially, but I don't see why then it's ok to abuse of electricity. When some people don't even have it anyway, no matter how China and India have developed.

Like I said Koa, I'm cheap. I don't waste electricity and other resources if I don't have to. What I'm objecting is this forced acesticism for a cause (global warming) that isn't even real.


:lol: :lol: :lol: This is the funniest joke I've heard in a while. In Northern Italy, namely in the Po plain (pianura padana) area, where I'm from, that's pretty much what summer is like. Well over 35 and THAT humidity is a bit of an extreme day, although possible, but give me 33-34 and 70-80% humidity, and that could be a random day between June and August. You sit without moving at 10pm in the dark, and you sweat. It doesn't cool off too much at night, which is why my dad got air conditioning, to be able to sleep. In the infamous summer of 2003, which did cause a rise in deaths especially in France if I'm not wrong, from June to end of August in my city there were like 5 days under 30 degrees. That was awful...
And I don't think I should remind you that the South of Italy can get to 35-40 pretty easily, even though it's not so humid and for us Northeners can feel like paradise because of that and of the breeze...
I didn't know it got that hot and humid in Italy. I'm familiar with Rome, Tuscany, and Naples regions, and they are not as oppresive as New York City. Not sure what the temperatures get to, but the humidity is very comfortable. Yes I remember about those people in France dying. How come then Italians don't use air conditioning as much as Americans?


I was surprised when I learnt that New York has such summers, as you also have super cold winters... but well using just my ignorant judgement, I can try and suppose that summer in NY is shorter than it is in Italy?
Not sure about the last question, but we get more extreme temperatures than Italy. It depends on the wind flow. We get the cold Canadian artic winds in the winter and the hot humid Caribbean winds in the summer. Spring and Fall are fairly nice.



Oh most definitely, I've never seen anyone so mad about cars like Italians - but I've never been to the US. Using public transport is just not cool - and I'm not saying for the occasional trip but for daily routines like going to work. I don't know how people do it, last time I've been there I spent half an hour in a traffic jam and I thought I'd go insane, to think people do it every day to go back from work etc... I just think that in an ideal world the public transport would be so good that cars would be mostly unnecessary... Ok with a train you have a schedule but you have no pressure, no responsiblities, you can enjoy the journey and even use it to do something else, reading talking on the phone eating listening to music...
Yeah, I'm not sure who loves their cars more, Americans or Italians. It's pretty close. What about me that's Italian-American? :D

[ben.!]

I took part in Earth Hour!

I unplugged my laptop from a power source, switched off all the lights and switches in my powerboard. I worked on my laptop that ran on battery in pitch darkness! :P

[Virgil]

I took part in Earth Hour!

I unplugged my laptop from a power source, switched off all the lights and switches in my powerboard. I worked on my laptop that ran on battery in pitch darkness! :P

Well, you have to recharge that battery. What exacty did you accomplish?

[Koa]

YOU are cheap but a lot of morons aren't, see the rant about the idiots I live with. :( And yeah lol unplugging the laptop is not a major change I suppose...



I didn't know it got that hot and humid in Italy. I'm familiar with Rome, Tuscany, and Naples regions, and they are not as oppresive as New York City. Not sure what the temperatures get to, but the humidity is very comfortable. Yes I remember about those people in France dying. How come then Italians don't use air conditioning as much as Americans?

How come... less developed country maybe? Every technological device that is out in the US, we get it 2-3 years later. And I suppose they're more expensive so no one felt air cond was necessary until a couple of years ago. Plus, our power network (?) is very weak so this use (and abuse) of air cond has caused problems in these past years when the use has increased quickly but the power supply is the same. There have been days when power was cut for one hour in each area of the city (a different area each hour I mean) to prevent sudden black-outs - this was on weekdays when factories where working so consuming energy etc. Infrastructure is not that perfect in Italy, sure it's not as bad as in poor countries, but pretty bad for one of the most developed countries.

Florence is in a valley so it's supposed to be terribly hot, but I've been there only once in summer so I don't know. Rome I'm told is sooo hot but not humid as far as I know. Southern than that I've only been to the seaside which is of course less oppressive even when hot. I have a friend from Madrid, Spain, where they have 40-45 degrees in summer but it's dry, and she said she was feeling much worse in our city because of the humidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Po_Valley#Climate


Yeah, I'm not sure who loves their cars more, Americans or Italians. It's pretty close. What about me that's Italian-American? :D

:sick:

[Madhuri]

I agree with what Virgil says.


Oh get off your socialism. The standard of living is improving and spreading across the population, everyone. Ask the people of India what they would prefer.

Yes, exactly.



No giving them my money without changing their economy just makes us both poor. Look how much money has been thrown down a rat hole in Africa. They are quite capable of earning their own living and having the self respect of not taking charity. Your paternalism is stunning.

I agree on this, and

Lote, you donation is very noble. But, it will have no effect, it will make people only dependent or complacent. You are an educated person, and if at all you wanted to help you could have made them aware of the numerous policies, facilities and subsidies that the government provides to the farmers. The government does a LOT for the farmers. That will eventually help them. I am not saying that is all, we definitely need improvement, infrastructure development, so many farmers are still dependent on rain water harvesting, traditional ways of cultivation. The key is awareness. There is a need for education, awarness, of all that they can do. The govt provides them loans and subsidies in buying seeds, tractors and other means of modern cultivation. Do you know that in the recent budget the govt. has waived off $600 million loan that the farmers had taken? Is that not a burden less for the farmers? Although, this will be compensated by the other sections of the society.

From your posts, I get this feeling, I may be wrong though, that most of the Indians are starved skeletons looking for charity always. We are not! I agree to what Virgil says in his post in bold above.




No are you for real? Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. They are free to choose whatever their free wills desire. If they want frozen meals they don't need to get permission from the Raj of superiror morality.

Yes.


I guess you've been reading Candide. It is not a shock to look at the demographics of population and see that from the beginning of the 19th century when industrialization first came that people have been racing away from farming. Farming is one of the hardest lives you can possibly lead, and you have no guarentee that you'll be able to eat that year. You want to condemn people to a farming life? I bet you don't even garden. I garden, but if I had to live off the garden I would be in real trouble. In fact this proves you are monk. Live by candle light, pray to mother earth, wait for the apocalypse, live off your garden, and the extent of your travels is the next monestary. :D

There is no harm in being a farmer, but having a city life gives a person quick money in short time, which in farming is not possible.



I don't know how many times I've read in the paper how the population decrease in Europe is a major problem. You Europeans are a dying breed because you don't populate. Population increase is not a problem. We continually increase the efficiency of food production. We throw away more food in the US than is imaginable. Population decrease is a major problem.

Population increase is a problem as well, as it definitely puts a strain on the available resources.

In a country like India there are sufficient resources, but the capability to make maximum use of those resources is still lacking.



That is why they are poor! Your outlook is so stunningly bizzare!

What are you saying?


No. Poverty is caused by lack of resources. Not enough rersources for everyone.

Indians have the same air and water and other resources as any other developed nation. The only thing that is lacking is the optimal use of the resources. Which the developed nations have mastered and the developing nations are still acquiring the capability.


All the talk of poverty, population etc. is so unrelated to global warming. Are you saying that Sundarbans are in water because there is global warming and because people are poor?

Well, I do not get the connection between global warming, poverty and population.

[Virgil]

For the record, Maddie, some of those qotes above were from Lote and some were from me. They are kind of intertwined and a reader will have to go back to unravel it to see who said what.


Well, I do not get the connection between global warming, poverty and population.

Lote actually has said goodbye to the forum in another thread. So he may not be able to answer. If you'll allow me to put the connections together. Population increase, Lote and the environmentalists claim, causes more use of resources, such as carbon burning products, that lead to global warming. But I claim by restricting people's use of carbon burning fuels (and the generation of electrical pwer requires such fuels) is in effect keeping poorer nations from modernizing and therefore keeping them poor.

[ben.!]

Well, you have to recharge that battery. What exacty did you accomplish?


I wasn't using wall-power. Thus, not using up electricity caused by fossil fuels, and not ruining the planet. :D

I accomplished a successful Earth Hour.

[TheFifthElement]

I wasn't using wall-power. Thus, not using up electricity caused by fossil fuels, and not ruining the planet. :D

I accomplished a successful Earth Hour.

Ben, I think you've neatly summed up the flaw of Earth Hour, for an hour you ran your laptop on battery, and then, when the hour was up, you plugged it back in again and recharged it, with an hours worth of fossil fuelled energy. Earth Hour glosses over a much bigger subject, and is the kind of 'stunt' (as Petrarch termed it) that stops people from taking environmental issues seriously.

[Virgil]

I wasn't using wall-power. Thus, not using up electricity caused by fossil fuels, and not ruining the planet. :D

I accomplished a successful Earth Hour.

:lol: :lol: Oh Ben, that was successful.

[ben.!]

:lol: :lol: Oh Ben, that was successful.

Haha! I detect sarcasm in your statement, Virgil! :p


Ben, I think you've neatly summed up the flaw of Earth Hour, for an hour you ran your laptop on battery, and then, when the hour was up, you plugged it back in again and recharged it, with an hours worth of fossil fuelled energy. Earth Hour glosses over a much bigger subject, and is the kind of 'stunt' (as Petrarch termed it) that stops people from taking environmental issues seriously.

TheFifthElement, I did have to recharge my laptop, otherwise it would run out of batteries and I wouldn't be on here no more. Fossil Fuels, at least until we change primary power sources to make electricity, MUST be burnt at some stage to retain technology and power.

I wish it didn't have to be that way but it is... :(

I applaud you for your flaw-picking skills however! :D

[Niamh]

Ha!!! Look at the following:


U.N. Forecasters: Global Temperatures to Decrease
Friday, April 04, 2008

Average global temperatures in 2008 are forecast to be lower than in previous years, thanks to the cooling effect of the ocean current in the Pacific, U.N. meteorologists say.

The World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, said it was likely that La Nina, an abnormal cooling of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, would continue into the summer.

If the forecast holds true, global temperatures will not have risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
You can read the rest here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346310,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/naturalscience



Well geologists and meteorologists always say it gets warmer before it gets colder, and they have been predicting another ice age for a good while. (only they think it will happen a lot quicker than the last one and wont last as long.

[Virgil]

Well geologists and meteorologists always say it gets warmer before it gets colder, and they have been predicting another ice age for a good while. (only they think it will happen a lot quicker than the last one and wont last as long.

So why are we worried about global warming if it's only going to go to an ice age? :confused: The whole thing is a farce.

[papayahed]

This is a pretty good site (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html)

As is this one (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/science.html#10)

[Niamh]

the worrying aspect is the fact that it is happening at a quicker pace than it should be, and the causes of this is mainly the pollution and our use of fossil fuels that can no be renewed. Hence why it is impotant for us to find newer greener ways to produce electricity and reduce co2 emissions. Our use of oil and gas is having a major effect on no only our air but the structure of the planet. We are not truely sure as to what their role in the crust is, even though we know they are good for burning to heat our houses and light our streets and run our cars. Its possible that they could be a nessesary source within our planet to keep it balanced. By removing it, we could be causing more harm; increasing natural desasters caused by the earth tremoring more frequantly.
We need oxygen to live, but if we keep chopping down forests, and pumping carbons into our envoirnment, then we are doing serious damage not only to our planet but to ourselves. if there were more trees in cities and towns, less cutting down of woods and forests to make way for agriculture and motorways, we would have better air to breath.
It usually takes thousands upon thousands of years for an ice age to come about and go, but if we keep harming our planet and speeding up natures course, then it could be a few thousand years if not a few hundred years before it really freezes fast. all it takes for Ireland, britain and northern Europe to be frozen over is the gulf streem to be cut off.

[papayahed]

Facts:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/science.html#10

Since pre-industrial times, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) have climbed by over 36 percent, 148 percent, and 18 percent, respectively (see the Recent Atmospheric Change page on EPA’s Climate Change site for more details). Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have varied historically as a result of many natural processes (e.g., volcanic activity, changes in temperature, etc). However, since the Industrial Revolution, humans have added a significant amount of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere primarily by burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests, and other activities. Scientists have confirmed that the recent increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations is primarily due to human activity.

[Nightshade]

FIrst off I didnt do the earth hour thing. However:


Heck, it could even be a financial pointed finger! If you switch off all those standby appliances and turn off the lights when you leave a room, you're saving yourself on the electricity bill.
I don't see why so many find this a dissagreeable idea?
yupp this is one of my favourite arguments for energy conservation energy bills souring and frankly I for one cant afford them and if Im home alone at the very most I need 2 lights on so why have the whole house lit up like christmas tree...



I'm appalled. If they are like that I bet their families are too? And how many more people I've never met are like that too? I find waste to be disgusting. I don't want to refrain from my shameful privileges for being born on the lucky side of the planet, but I hate the idea of abusing them. Talks of global warming aside, it's just disrespectful, how many useful things could have been done with the energy used to keep a light on all night when no one is in the room? Maybe even simple useful things like being in that room and needing that light, or watching that TV instead of leaving it babbling to itself out loud for hours... (on a couple of occasions I got home and NO ONE was in, but the TV was on).

Wow, love to rant.

Yepp thats it Ill be the first to say that a handful of people in the developed world being energy concious, heck even if the whole devloped world were extremly enrgy concious isnt really going to change much for the living conditions of the developing world anywhere in the immidate future. But waste is just disgustin g there are people in the world that are STARVING and while you cant personally make a big differance at least appreciate the things you have and not take them for granted.






Certainly in UK (can't really speak for anywhere else) if the Government were truly serious about reducing carbon footprints then they would plough some of the significant tax income they get from fuel into 'green' energy initiatives, specifically by helping the average guy get the best energy efficiency from their home. Without a viable alternative to petrol powered transport the savings aren't going to be made by reducing car journeys (again, because there's not much of a viable alternative to that either), but considering that currently the price of petrol in UK is roughly £1.10 per litre, 72% of the price of which is tax, there's a significant pot of money there which at least some of which could go towards developing more cost effective solutions.
Like making public transport a lot better for instance, and more people using more widly spread public transport would mean more people walking which in turn would mean more excersise an attack on the obesity epidemic and thus save a pocket on the NHS which could be plowed back into other health intiatives.

It makes me laugh that the first points for modernity in Virgil's mind are two things I loathe and wish never existed: cars and air conditioning.

Of course we need transport but public transport is fine. Air conditioning is for sissies. It's getting common now in Italy so that the past 2-3 summers there have been power black-outs. I detest the heat but air cond is so innatural that it makes me feel bad anyway, and I've been fine without it for a good 18-20 years or more, don't remember when my parents got it.
And I've heard that Africa is hotter than Italy but I doubt a/c is popular...
We're just spoilt. Electricity is needed and no one can question that, but we're taking it too far with our comforts in my opinion (such as I was mentioning the morons not bothering switching lights off etc)

Humm I personally love a/cs mostly because we had one when I was little and they work like lullabyes on my sisters and I, switch an a/c on and we are almost instantly asleep until you turn the thing off.... its what we do the first 24 hrs in any hotel we go to just enjoy the a/c. but at the same time when we moved to egypt we all ended up -by the end of August- camped out on the floor in my mums room which was the only one with an A/c and the computer lived in there as well because by the time you got to 43-47 C the computer just dies on you. So I suppose we were conserving in a way...

You don't have over 35C degree and 90% humidity days in Italy or probably Europe in general.
Having said what Ive said above Egypt easily hits 48 quite regurally and more than 80% of the population dont have acs they are a luxary... a very nice one but excersiseing a little sense is much more lilky to help you than an ac, Ive had heat/sun stroke 3 or 4 times and the best way to avoide it is avoide junk food and dont forget to drink water...then again western clothes are not very heat friendly..( and Im not talking about style but rather the stuff they are made of, and the way they are woven)--also did you know that the more of your body you cover up the more water you conserve thus lowering risk of heat stroke?


So why are we worried about global warming if it's only going to go to an ice age? :confused: The whole thing is a farce.

because gobal warming is the gimmicky name for climate change and thats what we are really talking about and also think on this when the ice age hits -- and can we all say snow april?! :eek: It doesnt even snow this much in this town in the height of winter!-- and weve used all our fuel and havbent thought up a good alternative we will die out. Or rather the devlopped technology reliant energy guzzling parts of the world will die out a la John Whyndom. Actually as it stands the devloped countries are quickly spelling out their own doom because people in countries that routinly go hours, days and even weeks without electric or running water wont have as much trouble adapting to the 'new world' as it were... of course thats unlikly to happen any time soon still it is a valid thing to worry about. and as for that 80% of fuel remaining untapped... are you going to evict thousands and millions of people from their homes in order to dig up the ground and thus cause more enviromental problems? Thats cutting off your nose to spite your face.
:D

[Niamh]

yeah we had a freak blizzard of snow on sunday morning. weird.

[accountansiyot]

ah, i found this article in the net from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080410/ap_on_sc/indonesia_lungless_frog just check it our and then post a comment in this thread.

what i am trying to say is if global warming/climate change is a natural phenomena then it's is inevitable isn't it. nature especially animals will adapt to that change like the example in the article i've mentioned earlier. evolution is then a correct thing wouldn't it? well, then Charles Darwin would be correct in his theory wouldn't it? and then, we would be lungless sooner or later if global warming/climate is true. ah, i also found another article that talked about the good effect of climate change/global warming to coral reefs. i'll search for it and if anyone knows about the coral reef thing, just attach it here. thanks.

from your paper and ink advocate. :)

[AimusSage]

Accountansiyot, You'll be interested to know that there already is a thread that deals with this subject: Earth hour (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33774) in general chat. I'm going to merge your post with this thread so you can continue the discussion there.

[sprinks]

I loved the irony of one of my friends msn names during earth hour, it was a complaint about how she was sitting in complete darkness because a friend of ours wanted her to take a stand, yet she was obviously on the computer, meaning 2 things, she WASN'T in complete darkness and she really wasn't taking much of a stand :p

[samercury]

Ha!!! Look at the following:


You can read the rest here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346310,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/naturalscience

But forget the rest, the key statement is that "global temperatures will not have risen since 1998." That's with all the industrialzation going on in China and India. They have been industrializing exponentially in the last ten years and the earth has actually cooled. Got that? Cooled. That tells you that whatever man has been contributing is a lower order effect. It's peanuts. The real driver, if the temperature measurements can be believed at all, is natural phenomena. This one degree increase is in the tolerance band of natural flutuaction. It's natural. Do you get it?
Fox News isn't a reliable source of information :p.

I know I'm kind of late on this, but the whole Earth Hour thing wasn't really effective anyways. I mean, what's the point of closing off lights (most of the people I know who participated only did that part of it :rolleyes: ) for one hour of one day if, for every day of the year besides that, you leave your lights/tv/computer/laptop/everything else on all day and night? It really doesn't do any good. And 2) If the point of the project was to get people to talk about it, um isn't that what science classes are for? And even if they don't, they hear enough about the dramatization of it enough as it is.
Sure GW may be happening, but what can we realistically do about it? Seriously? The way you hear it, it sounds like if people stop using fossil fuels , everything is going to go back to normal and humans will have prevented it from happening ever again. And that's just wrong- most we can do is slow it down...

[ben.!]

I know I'm kind of late on this, but the whole Earth Hour thing wasn't really effective anyways. I mean, what's the point of closing off lights (most of the people I know who participated only did that part of it :rolleyes: ) for one hour of one day if, for every day of the year besides that, you leave your lights/tv/computer/laptop/everything else on all day and night? It really doesn't do any good.

We do the Earth Hour because it gives a false sense of security and solace when it comes to saving the world.