Environmentalists are hypocrites

[Napkiraly]

Which has nothing to do with GMO's. All that can, and has, occurred without GMO's.

1)But it can, and has possibly, occurred with GMOs.
2)Rampant science denialism and fearmongering is 100% not the answer (I say as a possible future representative of that much maligned of industries, the nuclear industry), nor is pretending it's a non-issue.

It's much less of an issue than people think. This is not the same thing.

1) I never denied that. But it's an issue stemming from modern agricultural practices, not GMO's.
2) The major issue stemming from GMO's is the negative public perception and the amount of quackery spewed about, especially considering all the calls to ban their introduction into the food system or even researching them.

[Cyrisnia]

People who follow an ideology are hypocrites at times?
I'm shocked!

[Vladislavija]

I am of the mind that everyone should do a little bit here and there (IE Recycle you goddamn lazy bastards) and thus reduce their carbon footprint a little bit in ways that don't put them out. 7 billion people reducing their carbon footprint by 2% is going to go a lot farther than 10,000 people living completely green.

In fairness, China is being a bit of a problem state when it comes to this.
I'd go so far to say as worse than the US.

But they are working on it.

From wiki: As of September 2014, the People's Republic of China has 21 nuclear power reactors operating on 8 separate sites and 28 under construction.[1][2][3] Additional reactors are planned, providing 58 GWe of capacity by 2020.[1] China's National Development and Reform Commission has indicated the intention to raise the percentage of China's electricity produced by nuclear power from the current 2% to 6% by 2020 (compared to 20% in the USA and 74% in France). ... The new nuclear safety plan states that beyond 2016 only Generation III plants will be started, and until then only a very few Generation II+ plants will be built.

[Imperializt Russia]

In fairness, China is being a bit of a problem state when it comes to this.
I'd go so far to say as worse than the US.

But they are working on it.

From wiki: As of September 2014, the People's Republic of China has 21 nuclear power reactors operating on 8 separate sites and 28 under construction.[1][2][3] Additional reactors are planned, providing 58 GWe of capacity by 2020.[1] China's National Development and Reform Commission has indicated the intention to raise the percentage of China's electricity produced by nuclear power from the current 2% to 6% by 2020 (compared to 20% in the USA and 74% in France). ... The new nuclear safety plan states that beyond 2016 only Generation III plants will be started, and until then only a very few Generation II+ plants will be built.

It doesn't really matter, since China is an enormous consumer of coal. Unless they go full France and install terawatts of reactors, it'll not redeem them.

Interestingly, "Energy Policy of China" has different figures:
In 2012, China had 15 nuclear power units with a total electric capacity of 11 GW and total output of 54.8 billion kWh, accounting for 1.9% country's total electricity output. This rose to 17 reactors in 2013. There are plans to increase nuclear power capacity and nuclear power percentage, bringing the total electricity output to 86 GW and 4% respectively by 2020.[44] Plans are to increase this to 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050. China has 32[45] reactors under construction, the highest number in the world.

[Vladislavija]

But they are working on it.

From wiki: As of September 2014, the People's Republic of China has 21 nuclear power reactors operating on 8 separate sites and 28 under construction.[1][2][3] Additional reactors are planned, providing 58 GWe of capacity by 2020.[1] China's National Development and Reform Commission has indicated the intention to raise the percentage of China's electricity produced by nuclear power from the current 2% to 6% by 2020 (compared to 20% in the USA and 74% in France). ... The new nuclear safety plan states that beyond 2016 only Generation III plants will be started, and until then only a very few Generation II+ plants will be built.

It doesn't really matter, since China is an enormous consumer of coal. Unless they go full France and install terawatts of reactors, it'll not redeem them.

Interestingly, "Energy Policy of China" has different figures:
In 2012, China had 15 nuclear power units with a total electric capacity of 11 GW and total output of 54.8 billion kWh, accounting for 1.9% country's total electricity output. This rose to 17 reactors in 2013. There are plans to increase nuclear power capacity and nuclear power percentage, bringing the total electricity output to 86 GW and 4% respectively by 2020.[44] Plans are to increase this to 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050. China has 32[45] reactors under construction, the highest number in the world.

Also they are importing gas from Russia now, which should burn cleaner than coal. And 20% hydro is nice. I still think they are moving towards clean. It might take them a couple of decades, but still better then USA which is moving away from clean.

[Tule]

It doesn't really matter, since China is an enormous consumer of coal. Unless they go full France and install terawatts of reactors, it'll not redeem them.

Interestingly, "Energy Policy of China" has different figures:
In 2012, China had 15 nuclear power units with a total electric capacity of 11 GW and total output of 54.8 billion kWh, accounting for 1.9% country's total electricity output. This rose to 17 reactors in 2013. There are plans to increase nuclear power capacity and nuclear power percentage, bringing the total electricity output to 86 GW and 4% respectively by 2020.[44] Plans are to increase this to 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050. China has 32[45] reactors under construction, the highest number in the world.

Also they are importing gas from Russia now, which should burn cleaner than coal. And 20% hydro is nice. I still think they are moving towards clean. It might take them a couple of decades, but still better then USA which is moving away from clean.

It's moving in a better direction in the US too.



Not ideal, but better nevertheless.

[Bavaria-Saxony]

Reducing climate change doesn't mean we abolish and ban oil completely.

[Dakini]

Reducing climate change doesn't mean we abolish and ban oil completely.

Depends who you ask.

[Tule]

Reducing climate change doesn't mean we abolish and ban oil completely.

No, but stopping Global warming does mean an almost complete phaseout.

Well, unless we only burn super thick and dirty fuel oil to neutralize the greenhouse gases with clouds of soot and sulphuric acid.

[Sociobiology]

No, a degree in biology.

Oh wait, now for the favourite word of NSG for you: SOURCE!

some of the leading products sought with GMO is lower water usage in plants, and wider climatic ranges both of which drastically reduce environmental impact of agriculture. Cloned meat has the potential to reduce impact of meat and leather production by several orders of magnitude. A main avenue of research is introducing genetic diversity into crops already stripped of genetic diversity by selective breeding. The rise of GMO organism in chemical production has already reduce the wasteful practices used to harvest rare chemicals (such as hormones) form crop plants.
Already herbicide resistant crops have reduced herbicide and pesticide use and carbon footprints of crops.

http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/issues/gmo-crops-benefit-environment-farmers-developing-countries

http://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/gm-crops-good-for-environment-study-finds

http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/2014globalimpactstudyfinalreport.pdf

you see it is one of my favorite word because I make sure to actually have sources.

[Sociobiology]

No, a degree in biology.

Sources would be nice, but the general consensus right now is that we don't know. The USDA has said the GMO crops and the herbicides employed with them could have a "major, as-yet-uncertain impact on the environment."
http://rt.com/usa/usda-gmo-risk-report-537/

IMO, it's not worth the risk. People like to claim that it's being used to feed our growing population, but almost all of our GMO corn isn't for us to eat—it's for feed for slaughterhouse animals, or for use in corn syrup. If you want to talk managing the population issue, we should work to reduce our population, not come up with risky methods of simply allowing ourselves to grow more.

of course they are mostly used for non-human food, the technology is new and human consumption testing takes longer.
if you want sources look just below this post.

but here are a few more

https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/cs/abstracts/42/6/1780

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880900002206

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFL3P89T1Hk

could it have serious impacts, sure, but then so did the invention of hydroelectric and solar power. anything will have serous impact if you do enough of it. if by some miracle we could and did stop farming right now, it would have serous environmental impact.

[Burleson]

Driving a Prius doesn't help the environment. You're just hurting it with coal instead of oil. Just drive a 100% gas car, at least then you won't look like a pansy.

[Dakini]

Driving a Prius doesn't help the environment. You're just hurting it with coal instead of oil. Just drive a 100% gas car, at least then you won't look like a pansy.

Not everywhere has coal powered plants.

And a Prius is a hybrid. It uses gas.

[Tule]

Driving a Prius doesn't help the environment. You're just hurting it with coal instead of oil. Just drive a 100% gas car, at least then you won't look like a pansy.

Not all electricity comes from coal, and electric vehicles are far more energy efficient than Internal Combustion engines. This is why Hybrids are so eco-friendly in the first place, they burn gas to produce electricity to power an electric motor.

Even with the US electric grid there is a net benefit to using electric cars. It also makes air pollution much easier to tackle. Instead of having millions of cars emitting NOx, Soot, VOC's, and all those other nasty chemicals you now only have a few dozen power plants to filter.

[Icamera]

Driving a Prius doesn't help the environment. You're just hurting it with coal instead of oil. Just drive a 100% gas car, at least then you won't look like a pansy.

Not everywhere has coal powered plants.

And a Prius is a hybrid. It uses gas.

Technically, the plug-in hybrid model is essentially an EV for the first 10-15 miles.

I do agree that "extended tailpipe" emissions by EVs are preferable to ICE vehicles, though. A solid 55% of America's electricity comes from energy sources that release less carbon dioxide than oil; plus, it's important to consider that as the United States continues to reduce emissions from electricity production, that breakdown will shift even more away from coal. Besides that, electric motors are significantly more efficient than internal combustion engines (around 85-90% against 20%), which further reduces per-mile emissions.

[Imperializt Russia]

Also they are importing gas from Russia now, which should burn cleaner than coal. And 20% hydro is nice. I still think they are moving towards clean. It might take them a couple of decades, but still better then USA which is moving away from clean.

It's moving in a better direction in the US too.



Not ideal, but better nevertheless.

"Additions"

So what exactly does that chart refer to? The "addition" if 6.9GW of gas power to the grid and >0.2Gw of nuclear in that year?
It is a little confusing.

[Tule]

It's moving in a better direction in the US too.



Not ideal, but better nevertheless.

"Additions"

So what exactly does that chart refer to? The "addition" if 6.9GW of gas power to the grid and >0.2Gw of nuclear in that year?
It is a little confusing.

The chart refers to added capacity, it says so right at the top. In 2013, natural gas powered generators added to the US power grid had a total capacity of 6.9 gigawatts.

Unless I'm missing something?

[Imperializt Russia]

"Additions"

So what exactly does that chart refer to? The "addition" if 6.9GW of gas power to the grid and >0.2Gw of nuclear in that year?
It is a little confusing.

The chart refers to added capacity, it says so right at the top. In 2013, natural gas powered generators added to the US power grid had a total capacity of 6.9 gigawatts.

Unless I'm missing something?

No, that makes plenty of sense.
It failed to occur to me that 7GW is actually a pretty small quantity so I should have realised.

[Sociobiology]

Driving a Prius doesn't help the environment. You're just hurting it with coal instead of oil. Just drive a 100% gas car, at least then you won't look like a pansy.

Not all electricity comes from coal, and electric vehicles are far more energy efficient than Internal Combustion engines. This is why Hybrids are so eco-friendly in the first place, they burn gas to produce electricity to power an electric motor.

Even with the US electric grid there is a net benefit to using electric cars. It also makes air pollution much easier to tackle. Instead of having millions of cars emitting NOx, Soot, VOC's, and all those other nasty chemicals you now only have a few dozen power plants to filter.

steam would be even more efficient, and would have greater range than hybrids. hybrids are actually kinda shit for milage once you get the gasoline motor going.

[Dakini]

Not everywhere has coal powered plants.

And a Prius is a hybrid. It uses gas.

Technically, the plug-in hybrid model is essentially an EV for the first 10-15 miles.

I do agree that "extended tailpipe" emissions by EVs are preferable to ICE vehicles, though. A solid 55% of America's electricity comes from energy sources that release less carbon dioxide than oil; plus, it's important to consider that as the United States continues to reduce emissions from electricity production, that breakdown will shift even more away from coal. Besides that, electric motors are significantly more efficient than internal combustion engines (around 85-90% against 20%), which further reduces per-mile emissions.

Yeah, electric cars generally seem to be the way to go. They're a lot quieter too, which makes streets more pleasant, imo.

[Socialist Tera]

Depends on the issue, I don't see the point in turning the world in a hellhole for profit motives.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Driving a Prius doesn't help the environment. You're just hurting it with coal instead of oil. Just drive a 100% gas car, at least then you won't look like a pansy.

...my country is ~80% renewable, ~90% renewable when in good administration and not passing through a drought.

[Icamera]

Yeah, electric cars generally seem to be the way to go. They're a lot quieter too, which makes streets more pleasant, imo.

Surprisingly enough, that's actually seen as a problem. EVs are too awesome for their own good.

[The Nihilistic view]

Makes me wonder who came up with the word considering the second half is mentalist.

[Socialist Czechia]

Makes me wonder who came up with the word considering the second half is mentalist.

Environmentalism denotes a social movement that seeks to influence the political process by lobbying, activism, and education in order to protect natural resources and ecosystems. The word was first coined in 1922.

probably some French dude