Global Warming


think
 Share

Recommended Posts

<div class='quotemain'>

I think that pollution is a bad thing regardless of global warming. I am in favor of regulations that will allow us to breathe clean air and keep the rivers, lakes, oceans, etc. clean and habitable for the creatures that live in them. If taking steps like that helps to combat global warming as well, all the better.

Dror

Can't argue with that... ;)

Well, but I do argue with that!

The problem is the "regulations" part. I am completely in favor of individuals taking whatever steps they wish to this end and I am in favor of individual-driven economic pressure to clean up, not pollute, etc. BUT it's like raking my skin with a carpet tack strip to say that government should impose regulations (or even apply economic pressure via incentives or fines).

Individuals must make the choice for themselves and not have it thrust upon them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the new automotive technology that would replace teh internal combustion engine is no where near ready, im assuming you are refering to hydrogen cells. there 2 main problems with it is 1. hydrogen is extreamly explosive, and the first block to get blown up by a car wreck will end hydrogen cell cars.

2. the only way they have to mass produce hydrogen gas actually polutes more and creates worse waste then any internal combustion engine does.

Electric automobiles capable of highway speeds, average gasoline car acceleration times, and 200-300 mile ranges have been ready for over a decade. The technology is being faught at every turn by the automotive and oil industries. For an interesting evening, go rent Who Killed The Electric Car. The movie documents a law that was passed by California that forced every auto manufacturer to build electric cars in the 90s. GM built one that was very special and the movie zeros in on it. In the end, the auto companies backed by the oil companies spent more time and money trying to get the law reversed than building the electric cars that people literally lined up for.

THE TECHNOLOGY IS HERE AND HAS BEEN FOR A WHILE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Plus, the first corn-fuel diesel motor was running when Wilford Woodruff was President of the Church in the late 1800's. A friend of my business partner has a Ford Van that has been converted to run on vegetable oil (the same diesel technology from the 1800's). He can literally pull up to the back door of McDonald's and fill his tank with the oil from their fryer and drive away. Go here to purchase your own conversion kit.

Hydrogen is another distraction to keep us from using the technologies that have already been available for years. Electrical power from photovoltaics sounds the most promising.

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, but I do argue with that!

The problem is the "regulations" part. I am completely in favor of individuals taking whatever steps they wish to this end and I am in favor of individual-driven economic pressure to clean up, not pollute, etc. BUT it's like raking my skin with a carpet tack strip to say that government should impose regulations (or even apply economic pressure via incentives or fines).

Individuals must make the choice for themselves and not have it thrust upon them.

That would be great if everyone cared and would make the choice to take care of our planet. But so many people (and especially corporations) don't care. Why should corporations be able to profit at the expense of our clean water and air? I think there must be regulations to some extent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corporations do care! They care in two ways:

1) They care about making a profit. If the customers want an organic/polutant-free/renewable/made-without-child-labor product, and are willing to pay whatever it costs to produce same, then that's what will be produced.

2)Many companies are headed by individuals who personally care about these issues and lead their industry into enviro-friendly paths.

But to require all to bow to the concern of some is silly. And removing responsibility from individuals insulates them from the decision-making process. The best way to effect such change is through educating consumers and allowing them to exert their own pressure. When an idea is "owned" it is lived much more completely than when it is imposed. This is in part because imposed ideas are not always understood and an individual may (because required to do so) save energy with their left hand while the right hand is running the a/c with the windows open (or whatever). There's also an element of rebellion when an idea is imposed: some will go out of their way to resist authority just for the sake of resistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corporations do not live. They are controlled by people, they are owned by people ultimately. Those people are shareholders, mutual funds, that have shareholders but ultimately by people.

When it comes to elections, just like buying, people vote with their wallets. I read all the time about how people hate Walmart but every one I visit is packed with people.

There will always be a vocal minority that does not like one thing or another. When they become a majority then change happens.

When I was a kid and you would drive in to the Los Angeles basin you could not see the high rise buildings for all the smog. Yes there is still smog but with more people and more cars in the LA basin there is less polution.

Does anyone remember the catch phrase ACID RAIN? In the 70's it was Global Cooling. Now the catch phrase is GLOBAL WARMING. I wonder what it will be in 2020.

Ben Raines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corporations do care! They care in two ways:

1) They care about making a profit. If the customers want an organic/polutant-free/renewable/made-without-child-labor product, and are willing to pay whatever it costs to produce same, then that's what will be produced.

2)Many companies are headed by individuals who personally care about these issues and lead their industry into enviro-friendly paths.

But to require all to bow to the concern of some is silly. And removing responsibility from individuals insulates them from the decision-making process. The best way to effect such change is through educating consumers and allowing them to exert their own pressure. When an idea is "owned" it is lived much more completely than when it is imposed. This is in part because imposed ideas are not always understood and an individual may (because required to do so) save energy with their left hand while the right hand is running the a/c with the windows open (or whatever). There's also an element of rebellion when an idea is imposed: some will go out of their way to resist authority just for the sake of resistance.

You make some good points, MoJ, but I still think there are enough who do not care to ruin the quality of air and water for all of us. And I'm not necessarily talking about global warming now, but quality of life. I think it's the concern of most of us to have clean air and water.

I get what you're saying, that if Acme Paper Cups pollutes the river that runs behind it, the people would care enough to not buy their products and put them out of business. But in our global economy, it doesn't work that way. What if Acme's biggest customer is in China? They will still buy from Acme bc they don't care about the river in the US.

There HAS to be some regulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you look back over time....probally showing my age here.....this has been all the rants.....60's was about bomb shelters and can anyone remember how you were suppose to know where your local fall out shelters were......then it was about pollution late 60's early 70's....from there we moved on to nuclear power and people were all upset about that. Now its global warming......Shan....I am like you.....I don't have a problem with trying to keep the air clean and the water....and I like the idea of recycling......I am still not sold on the whole global warming thing........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corporations do not live. They are controlled by people, they are owned by people ultimately. Those people are shareholders, mutual funds, that have shareholders but ultimately by people.

When it comes to elections, just like buying, people vote with their wallets. I read all the time about how people hate Walmart but every one I visit is packed with people.

There will always be a vocal minority that does not like one thing or another. When they become a majority then change happens.

When I was a kid and you would drive in to the Los Angeles basin you could not see the high rise buildings for all the smog. Yes there is still smog but with more people and more cars in the LA basin there is less polution.

Does anyone remember the catch phrase ACID RAIN? In the 70's it was Global Cooling. Now the catch phrase is GLOBAL WARMING. I wonder what it will be in 2020.

Ben Raines

GLOBAL WARM ACID COOLING RAIN B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global Warming is a joke. It is just another tool used by the Environmental movement to try and hurt America and capitalism.

The fact that they (GW alarmist) try to silence debate on the issue should be a huge red flag to anybody with a lick of common sense.

Heating and Cooling are normal trends of the Earth, man has little impact. However I am all for keeping our environment as clean as possible within realistic means as most people are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share