by Rhodmhire » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:24 pm
by Yootopia » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:28 pm
Rhodmhire wrote:What do you think about it?
by Rhodmhire » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:31 pm
Yootopia wrote:Rhodmhire wrote:What do you think about it?
Climate change is a bit much, although it's not just happening on Earth - we observed it snowing at the north pole of Mars not that long ago. We probably have a little bit of an effect on it, but the kind of people who reckon it's entirely the fault of humanity are too blinded by hubris to notice that climate change was happening before we ever got here.
by Ledarre » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:33 pm
Yootopia wrote:Rhodmhire wrote:What do you think about it?
Climate change is a bit much, although it's not just happening on Earth - we observed it snowing at the north pole of Mars not that long ago. We probably have a little bit of an effect on it, but the kind of people who reckon it's entirely the fault of humanity are too blinded by hubris to notice that climate change was happening before we ever got here.
The Murtunian Tribes wrote:Ledarre wrote:I'm struggling to see the problem here. Just look at my nation, looks like a politically free nation, right? WRONG! The democratically elected parliament requires a unanimous vote to actually pass legalisation and with proportional representation and the number of extremists in parliament this is near impossible.
So the monarchy effectively rules by decree. I have achieved this through answering issues in a certain way... Unfortunately I can’t remember what those issues were. That plus a little bit of RP. Anyway my point is it’s easy to have moderate to high political freedoms and still have absolute power, you just have to be creative.
Huh. That's a rather unique and, I must say, deliciously evil approach. *golfclap*
by The Romulan Republic » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:38 pm
Rhodmhire wrote:What do you think about it?
Is it real and destroying our planet?
Is it a pattern of historical climate alterations?
Is it just plain fallacious?
Is it tearing apart what true environmentalism really is?
All I'll say about my views on it for the moment, are that I DO support alternative resources...just not like in the next few years.
I believe we're dependant on non-renewable resources for now, and we have to stick to them.
A majority (over 75% I believe) of America's energy is dependant on non-reneweable sources; such as coal (23%) and petroleum (40%). Less than 10% I believe, is composed of reneweable sources, such as wind (.3-2%) solar (.007-.1%) and ethanol/biomass (3.3-4%). Therefore, to perform a rapid switch in technologies/resources now would mean disaster for the energy industry. It would raise the cost of living through the roof. We don't have enough money, or alternative resource technologies to begin with--to switch as soon as most people want to.
We need a bridge of time between now and then, and along the way, we need to slowly switch. We can't bankrupt the coal/petroleum/current energy industries and just settle for the flawed alternatives we have now. We need to slowly transition--like during the Industrial Revolution. It was a slow and steady transition from man-power, to water and steam power, then from water and steam, to modern resources.
I believe utilizing reserves of the energy we are dependant on now will bridge the time from now until the time when we're mostly transitioned into alternative energy as a whole in America. We'll cut dependance on foreign oil [and we won't destroy our own energy industry along the way], we'll stabilize the economy, lower gas prices, get people the energy they need so we can develop alternatives more. And no matter how long that bridge period is--any more time is better than the current time people want to transition.
Whether it's 5 years or 50 years--it's 5-50 years we can't afford not to use.
by Metallic Slumber » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:39 pm
by The Romulan Republic » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:39 pm
Metallic Slumber wrote:wellllll to be perfectly blunt. i think that very slowly we will be screwed in the next couple years
by Yootopia » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:40 pm
Rhodmhire wrote:spending tax dollars on technologies nobody can afford to improve the Earth for no rational reason isn't helping the environment at all in my opinion.
by Robarya » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:41 pm
by Lunatic Goofballs » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:42 pm
Rhodmhire wrote:And spending tax dollars on technologies nobody can afford to improve the Earth for no rational reason isn't helping the environment at all in my opinion.
by The Romulan Republic » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:43 pm
Yootopia wrote:Rhodmhire wrote:spending tax dollars on technologies nobody can afford to improve the Earth for no rational reason isn't helping the environment at all in my opinion.
At the same time, nobody can afford to have the earth completely fucked. To be honest, though, I don't really see how CO2-absorbing concrete and the like are going to resolve all that much, and we'd probably be better using our resources to start properly setting ourselves up for space travel.
by Feazanthia » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:54 pm
by Metallic Slumber » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:57 pm
by Feazanthia » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:59 pm
Robarya wrote:I lean to think that the dangers of global warming are greatly exaggerated for leftist politicians to gain their votes.
by Rhodmhire » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:05 pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:Why would it be?
Environmentalism based on fear-mongering tactics by the media isn't environmentalism based on rational self decisions and love of the Earth. In my opinion.Rather than set arbitrary timetables, why not just say "as soon as possible," and get working on it?
Because we aren't going to get anywhere. It'll raise the cost of living through the roof, since our economy is practically based off of these non-reneweable resources--well you know where that's going, and I'm not saying we can't work on it, but we'd better be working on a safety-net alternative (drilling for our own oil perhaps) in case something happens--like we actually run out of non-reneweable resources before we can begin collecting more of our own here in America--and we only have enough technology to replace around 30%-40% maximum of our energy in total, making it incredibly expensive if it's perfected, and incredibly inefficient if it's cheap.No reason we can't work to improve things even if that's true.
Of course, some things will always be dependent on non-renewable resources, but the key is to a) gain more resources, and b) limit use of non-renewable resources by as much as possible. Both involve developing technology to exploit new sources of resources, increase efficiency, and increase recycling.
We can work to improve things, we'd just better have a bridge of time where we're stablizing the colossal amout of technology that runs off of non-reneweable energy, and slowly switching to alternatives as they improve. That bridge will arch into a time where we're almost totally running off of alternative energy. I'd say from 75-80%+ of our energy consumption.We might consider nuclear as a short term fix. Its highly efficient, and as far as safety is concerned the only really major disaster has been Chernobyl, which as I recall was a result of gross human errors.
In any case, with nuclear you're at worst trading the lots of continual little disasters (diseases caused by air pollution, fires and explosions at plants, coal mine collapses, etc) for occasional big ones.
Nuclear energy is great, it's just the waste produced from it needs 10,000 years of storage after it's produced. Once it adds up in quantity, it could be a worse problem than pollution from other resources.
Now if we could perfect fusion, that would probably be better, and nuclear energy is a good bridge as well. But again, nuclear energy only accounts for about 22% of our energy. We'd still need to exert a rather large amount of focus on petroleum and coal. Then we'd have to worry about developing alternative resources AND work towards more highly developed nuclear fission/working more with nuclear fusion.And if we don't have time?
No one expects it to happen instantaneously that I'm aware of. There is nothing unreasonable with wanting to start the transition immediately, though. All the more so because it will take time.
And yes, it will require active effort. We can't just sit back and wait for it to happen "naturally," because it may happen far too slowly. Companies still profit a lot off of oil and coal. Why would they nessissarily make the switch as long as much oil or coal remains?
by Dragontide » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:11 pm
by Rhodmhire » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:14 pm
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:Rhodmhire wrote:And spending tax dollars on technologies nobody can afford to improve the Earth for no rational reason isn't helping the environment at all in my opinion.
Really? You honestly can't think of any other rational reason to reduce or replace our reliance on fossil fuels besides Global Warming? You can't think of any other benefits?
Wow.
by Yootopia » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:15 pm
Dragontide wrote:Let's sue the oil companies and settle out of court for 95% of every damm thing they got!
by Emperor Matthuis » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:16 pm
by Yootopia » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:18 pm
Emperor Matthuis wrote:I think if climate change is going to happen, it's going happen and painting our roofs white, or walking to school is not going to anything towards the environment. We might as well enjoy polluting it while we can.
by Lunatic Goofballs » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:20 pm
Rhodmhire wrote:Lunatic Goofballs wrote:Rhodmhire wrote:And spending tax dollars on technologies nobody can afford to improve the Earth for no rational reason isn't helping the environment at all in my opinion.
Really? You honestly can't think of any other rational reason to reduce or replace our reliance on fossil fuels besides Global Warming? You can't think of any other benefits?
Wow.
I'm referring to people who think it helps the environment.
I don't support alternative resources because they help the environment.
I do see the other benefits of them, the constant period of availability, the economic benefits, job creation, and so on.
by Feazanthia » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:20 pm
by Ifreann » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:23 pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:Rhodmhire wrote:All I'll say about my views on it for the moment, are that I DO support alternative resources...just not like in the next few years.
Rather than set arbitrary timetables, why not just say "as soon as possible," and get working on it?
by Dragontide » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:31 pm
Yootopia wrote:Dragontide wrote:Let's sue the oil companies and settle out of court for 95% of every damm thing they got!
Err why?
Oil runs our world. We'd be pretty fucked if they hiked up prices as a retaliatory measure.
by Yootopia » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:35 pm
Dragontide wrote:The "BIG SWITCH" from oil to whatever will cost a lot of money. They should be the ones to foot the bill.
Climate change kills 300,000 people each year.
And until we get the needed clutch around their throats, they are going to raise the prices no matter what happens. (watch out when the recession ends and/or a hurricane even looks cross-eyed at an offshore oil rig)
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Ancientania, Andsed, Daphomir, Dazchan, Europa Undivided, Google [Bot], Kostane, Maximum Imperium Rex, Neo-Hermitius, New Temecula, Northwesteros, Ors Might, Sarduri, Sarolandia, Shrillland, Statesburg, The Astral Mandate, The Xenopolis Confederation
Advertisement