so green energy/going green in general. for or against?

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]cant it be both? surrealnumber5

I suppose.

I don't know how to respond to you, though, since it really didn't seem like a serious post. At least the second part didn't. I'll try anyway.

I think that's the problem with the green movement, they don't consider anybody else. That's why it's doomed for failure. People aren't going to do something just because the President or Harry Reid says it has to be done. They're certainly not going to support legislation that raises cost of living across the board. I kind of wish they would have gone for it, would have guaranteed Republicans taking back the house.

Unfortunately most of the loudest arguments against that bill had little to nothing to do with what actually was in the bill.

or is it? I'm not gonna debate that, but saying we don't care about people is dumb.smc91352

So where's my caring? I want some hugs NOW!

In all seriousness, and I could be wrong, but every single liberal I've ever heard talking about cap and trade and the green movement has come off heavy-handed and compassionless. That's the exact same feeling I get whenever I listen to Obama. It's elitism.

There is nothing dumb about what I said. You can't care about people when you want to raise their costs of living during some pretty horrible economic times.

You can't care about people when you want to raise their costs of living during some pretty horrible economic times.airshocker

there are things more important than money, like lives. so yeah, we can care. don't say we don't consider others, I at least acknowledge that you do, too.smc91352

Nothing is more important than money when said money is what's putting food on the table, gas in the tank, and paid bills in the mailbox.

I'm sorry, but from where I stand, liberals seem to care more about saving the Earth(It's not going anywhere, I promise) rather than helping out their fellow countrymen. And no, I'm not talking about unemployment benefits.

To be fair, I doubt you're going to find a lot of folks AGAINST being more economically friendly Serraph. Rather, I think you'll see folks arguing about the cost involved in being green friendly.nocoolnamejim

Nothing is more important than money when said money is what's putting food on the table, gas in the tank, and paid bills in the mailbox.airshocker

I'm sorry, but from where I stand, liberals seem to care more about saving the (It's not going anywhere, I promise) rather than helping out their fellow countrymen. And no, I'm not talking about unemployment benefits.airshocker

their lives are more important than the money that buys their food. :|I know you think nothing bad 's gonna happen. but some that do, think the dangers shouldn't be ignored. we can care. btw, some, like me, do want the lower tax brackets to be cut while supporting the green movement.smc91352

Can't live without food. Can't buy food without money.

If you want to support the green movement that is your business. You have that right. Don't ask me to pay for it, though.

Can't live without food. Can't buy food without money.airshocker

Don't ask me to pay for it, though.airshocker

what happened to hunters? :P jk

never did. I'll ask you to not say we don't care. honestly don't even care if you do, anymore. lolsmc91352

Meh, hunting is all right every once and awhile(when my Dad forces me to go with him), but I would much rather buy my beef from the store.

Saying you don't care was harsh, I apologize. I just don't see why there can't be a compromise on all of these issues. Killing our reliance on oil is a good thing, but killing jobs in the process isn't. There has to be a different way.

For. I believe the only real reason to be against are selfish reasons such as "it'd increase my taxes/harm my money! MY MOOOONEEEEEEEEY!" and blind support of mega trilliondollar corporations that would stand to lose profit if the world didn't use them solely anymore.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

I suppose.

I don't know how to respond to you, though, since it really didn't seem like a serious post. At least the second part didn't. I'll try anyway.

I think that's the problem with the green movement, they don't consider anybody else. That's why it's doomed for failure. People aren't going to do something just because the President or Harry Reid says it has to be done. They're certainly not going to support legislation that raises cost of living across the board. I kind of wish they would have gone for it, would have guaranteed Republicans taking back the house.

chessmaster1989

Meh, the healthcare bill was popular on a component-by-component basis. It only wasn't popular when referred to as "Obama's healthcare bill." Not to mention constant lies about socialized medicine and death panels didn't help.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]The concept of going green is a great concept. However, the actual implementation of that concept has failed in many ways. worlock77

True. I've tried buying energy saving bulbs but they cost triple the price an average light bulb costs.

But they last much longer and use less electricity, thus saving money in the long run.

I don't pay for electricity and water where I live or I should say, I pay for them along with the rent so it doesn't make that much of a difference money wise but I'll buy some next time I go shopping.

I do what I can to make the place more eco friendly. I take my waste to places where they can recycle them and always buy from companies that use recyclabale products.

I'm all for affordable green energy.

I'm all for affordable green energy.

sonicare

Absolutely for. Sure there will be some short term pain and the inevitable bull**** of some shady and/or misguided people trying to take advantage of the situation, but the long-term benefits are so great and many of the solutions so relatively simple that 'going green' is more than worth the risk.

For. I believe the only real reason to be against are selfish reasons such as "it'd increase my taxes/harm my money! MY MOOOONEEEEEEEEY!" and blind support of mega trilliondollar corporations that would stand to lose profit if the world didn't use them solely anymore.

Pixel-Pirate

There's nothing selfish about keeping the pay you earn.

I'm for going green.

A question for the Anthropogenic Global Warming 'skeptics': Why are you against the idea that man could possibly be causing the environment to change via an increase of greenhouse gases? Do you think it's a huge conspiracy to make certain people rich? Denial of anthropogenic climate change, to me anyways, is similar to denial of evolution. That being there is scientific evidence out there that fully backs it but there are groups that still deny it is occurring. Al Gore, as was mentioned in this thread, did not come up with the theory of global warming. In roughly 1824 Joseph Fourier discovered the greenhouse effect and in 1896 Svante Arrhenius was the first to calculate that absorption properties of CO2 and water vapour would increase the heat content of the atmosphere. It all comes down to an increased trapping of infrared radiation near the surface of the planet and a heightened greenhouse effect.

Let me explain how this works. Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation states that any object of non-zero temperature, or 0 kelvin, will emit radiation while Planck's Radiation Law states that that emitted radiation will vary in wavelength dependent on the temperature of the emitting object. Solar energy that strikes the Earth originating directly from the Sun is therefor in a shorter wavelength. These wavelengths include much of the ultraviolet, visible and infrared spectrums. This energy strikes the surface of the planet if it isn't first absorbed or deflected via a process known as global dimming, caused by atmospheric aerosols such as sulfur dioxide, or surfaces with high albedo, such as snow. When this solar energy strikes the surface of the planet it is absorbed by that surface and released as heat radiation in the infrared in a longer bandwidth than the output from the Sun due to the differences in temperature. This infrared radiation travels back up through the atmosphere on it's way into space, however there are properties in certain gases, collectively known as greenhouse gases, that can absorb specific wavelength of radiation and re-emit that radiation in all directions, 50% of it upward and 50% of it downward. You often hear skeptics state something like "CO2 is already saturated". It doesn't matter if it's saturated at lower levels because there is still that 50% of the original 100% that was re-emitted by that first greenhouse gas molecule that can still be reabsorbed by another similar molecule and the process continues until that energy eventually does reach space. The 50% that is released downward back towards the surface of the Earth, if it isn't again absorbed by another similar molecule, will be reabsorbed by the surface of the planet and increase it's heat content in addition to the direct solar energy being absorbed from the Sun.

As you increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere you also increase the amount of infrared radiation being trapped in the troposphere, as explained above. Atmospheric greenhouse gases have risen within the past few centuries. The main human emitted ones are CO2, which has risen from roughly 280 parts per million to over 390 parts per million in the last two centuries, and methane (CH4) which has risen approximately 130% in the past century. CO2 is released when fossil fuels are burned and oxidized while methane is released through ruminant beltching and flatulence due to feed type. The total annual emissions of anthropogenic CO2 amount to about 30gt. As fossil fuel use has increased the rate of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased as well. In 2009 alone there was approximately a 2 part per million increase in CO2 concentration. 1 part per million is roughly equal to 7.5gt of CO2. Simple math shows that the total increase of atmospheric CO2 amounts to 15gt, half of what the total anthropogenic emissions are. The other half of that CO2 that is not in the atmosphere is being taken up by carbon sinks, mainly the ocean which is the largest carbon sink in the world. As you increase the amount of CO2 in the ocean you also increase it's acidity. The pH value of the ocean is currently falling as the rate of CO2 uptake has increased making it more acidic as opposed to more alkaline. You often here skeptics attribute the growing temperatures, roughly 0.7C in the last 2 centuries, to the Sun. The Sun's output has actually declined for the last 40 or 50 years. If it was specifically due to the Sun we would be cooling now, which we are not.

You often hear skeptics reasoning for not acknowledging anthropogenic climate change or global warming because the climate has changed in the past. They say things like there were ice ages in the past or it has been warmer in the past. However it is known that there are more forcings than greenhouse gases, which historically work as a feedback and not a forcing, such as albedo, lapse rate, atmospheric aerosols, variations in ocean circulation, Milankovitch Cycles, and so on. Temperature fluctutions of the past are mainly attributable to Milankovitch Cycles, or orbital eccentricity and changes in axial tilt, of the planet. You also hear them state things like "Other planets in the solar system are warming" as the reason for disbelief. However, each planet has it's own seasons, Milankovitch Cycles and atmosphere. Out of the over 150 bodies in the solar system only 8 of them are known to be warming and actually several, such as Uranus, are cooling. The reasons for the warming of most of the planets and moons, save for Pluto, are known, such as the dust storms on Mars, the changing seasons on Neptune or the gravitational effect Jupiter has on Io. This is another attempt at attributing the warming to the Sun using bad science.

Evidences for anthropogenic global warming abound. You can click on the links below to see some of these evidences, as provided by peer reviewed literature.

Outbound infrared radiation is decreasing at greenhouse gas wavelengths

Downward infrared radiation is increasing at those same wavelengths

The stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming - http://acd.ucar.edu/~randel/SPARC_revised.pdf - (Note that as you increase in altitude through the troposphere, the mesosphere and the thermosphere the decrease in temperatures becomes stronger indicating it can not be due to the Sun but has to be an internal forcing)

The tropopause is increasing in altitude and the troposphere is getting larger - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;301/5632/479

If you forgo what I stated before concerning the amount of annual atmospheric CO2 increase compared to the total human annual emissions you could still explain this as "Well it's getting warmer" because as temperature increase so does CO2 outgassing via the oceans. There are human fingerprints in the carbon itself that form the carbon dioxide to show that, indeed, it is due to the burning of fossil fuels. Thereare numerous different types of carbon in existence, each with a different number of neutrons. Cacrbon-12 is the most abundant and makes up to 98% or 99% of the atmosphere, carbon-13 is the second most abundant and makes approximately 1% of the atmosphere while carbon-14, which many of you will know is unstable and used for carbon dating, is a trace gas. Plants, from which fossil fuels are made, have the ability to differentiate between these different forms of carbon based on their molecular weight. Plants contain a 2% different ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13. Therefor if the increase in CO2 is due to the burning of fossil fuels we should see the fingerprint in the carbon isotopes that make up the CO2. And this is exactly what we see. Over the last 150 years the ratio of atmospheric C12 to C13 has increased by about 0.15%.

Atmospheric C12 to C13 ratio change between 1978 and 2000 - http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2005/EcolStudKeeling/2005EcolStudKeeling.pdf

Well, I support green energy, but I don't support government regulations that force going green. We are eventually going to run out of oil, and I support renewable fuels but not until they are economically feasible. I don't believe that CO2 is causing the globe to warm. Just a graph to prove my point:

Well, I support green energy, but I don't support government regulations that force going green. We are eventually going to run out of oil, and I support renewable fuels but not until they are economically feasible. I don't believe that CO2 is causing the globe to warm. Just a graph to prove my point:

Jacobistheman

For this graph to be saying something about CO2, you'd need centuries pictured, not a decade.

To be fair, I doubt you're going to find a lot of folks AGAINST being more economically friendly Serraph. Rather, I think you'll see folks arguing about the cost involved in being green friendly. You'll see arguments that forcing companies to use eco-friendly energy sources or be more environmentally conscious will make them more expensive and/or less competitive in the global marketplace. I personally would love to see the U.S. push the edge of the envelope on this. Like a lot of things, there will be some investment cost up front, but I think there would be some long term benefits. The issue is in selling the long-term benefits vs. the short term investments/costs.nocoolnamejim

I somewhat agree with this. The only thing is, is that I don't think these technologies should be forced through production and distribution. Technology is changing all the time, and it takes a while to sift through the ones that work well and the ones that don't. You have to use the market to come up with the system that works the best, is most efficient, and economical.

For this graph to be saying something about CO2, you'd need centuries pictured, not a decade.

medic36

Look at the last 10000 years or so, CO2 is going up but temp isn't.

Also, I get the impression that CO2 is following temp (becuase there are some of those spikes where CO2 lags behind)

Just another temperature graph.

[QUOTE="medic36"]

For this graph to be saying something about CO2, you'd need centuries pictured, not a decade.

Jacobistheman

Look at the last 10000 years or so, CO2 is going up but temp isn't.

Also, I get the impression that CO2 is following temp (becuase there are some of those spikes where CO2 lags behind)

Now that's more like it.

Well, I support green energy, but I don't support government regulations that force going green. We are eventually going to run out of oil, and I support renewable fuels but not until they are economically feasible. I don't believe that CO2 is causing the globe to warm. Just a graph to prove my point:

Jacobistheman

And here is the RAW CO2 data at Mauna Loa http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/flask_co2_and_isotopic/monthly_co2/monthly_mlf.csv

Note that the base for determining a trend is usually 30 years with regard to climate changes to weed out the noise. The noise being things like the extremly strong 1998 Al Nino, which had an MEI measurement above 3.0, compared to 2010's El Nino, which was just above 1.5. I think it would also be better if you got a graph that actually went up to 2010 as 2010 is widely known to have set records worldwide with regards to atmospheric heat content.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

For. I believe the only real reason to be against are selfish reasons such as "it'd increase my taxes/harm my money! MY MOOOONEEEEEEEEY!" and blind support of mega trilliondollar corporations that would stand to lose profit if the world didn't use them solely anymore.

airshocker

There's nothing selfish about keeping the pay you earn.

I'd say if it's at the cost of ones childrens future as well as the future of the human race and the planet, then yeah it's abit selfish.

I don't think thereis much of a choice. Either kill the planet with all the global warming or try to save whatever is left of it.

Where exactly did you get this graph?BumFluff122

Now that's more like it.

medic36

2010, which is not in the graph, has set many records regarding heat content, is way in front of even 1998 or even 2005. I suspect that this is in all data sets. It's mainl;y due to the El Nino. However, with El Nino passing and La Nina most likely coming on it may not set the record for the entire year. It will definitely be one of the warmest though.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Where exactly did you get this graph?smc91352

I'd say if it's at the cost of ones childrens future as well as the future of the human race and the planet, then yeah it's abit selfish.

Pixel-Pirate

I'm not responsible for other people. You can be. You can give your entire pay check to others, if you want. You have no right to ask the same of me, however. Being selfish is in the eye of the beholder, and we're never going to see eye to eye on it because our values are different.

The fate of the planet and the human race is debatable. The only thing I see happening, for sure, is some real bad times when we run out of fossil fuels without finding an alternative we can produce ourselves.

[QUOTE="medic36"]

Now that's more like it.

BumFluff122

2010, which is not in the graph, has set many records regarding heat content, is way in front of even 1998 or even 2005. I suspect that this is in all data sets. It's mainl;y due to the El Nino. However, with El Nino passing and La Nina most likely coming on it may not set the record for the entire year. It will definitely be one of the warmest though.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="medic36"]

Now that's more like it.

medic36

2010, which is not in the graph, has set many records regarding heat content, is way in front of even 1998 or even 2005. I suspect that this is in all data sets. It's mainl;y due to the El Nino. However, with El Nino passing and La Nina most likely coming on it may not set the record for the entire year. It will definitely be one of the warmest though.

Where exactly did you get this graph? Here is a graph from the real HadCRUT site: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

And here is the RAW CO2 data at Mauna Loa http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/flask_co2_and_isotopic/monthly_co2/monthly_mlf.csv

Note that the base for determining a trend is usually 30 years with regard to climate changes to weed out the noise. The noise being things like the extremly strong 1998 Al Nino, which had an MEI measurement above 3.0, compared to 2010's El Nino, which was just above 1.5. I think it would also be better if you got a graph that actually went up to 2010 as 2010 is widely known to have set records worldwide with regards to atmospheric heat content.

BumFluff122

[QUOTE="medic36"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]To deny that carbon dioxide can not trap radiation oir has no effect on infrared radiation is to deny quantum physics. At the end of page 12 I wrote an indepth post concernign the reality behind climate change as a result of increwasing greenhouse gases. To deny this is to deny the entire greenhouse effect. It appears, from several of his previous posts, that he is claiming that the planet is actually cooling, based on the HadCRUT data alone. However HadCRUT does not take into account all areas of the planet, specifically the arctic regions where the warming has been the strongest. To get a measure of the entire planet you'll need to use GISTemp. You can find the GIStemp main page here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ and the graph here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

2010, which is not in the graph, has set many records regarding heat content, is way in front of even 1998 or even 2005. I suspect that this is in all data sets. It's mainl;y due to the El Nino. However, with El Nino passing and La Nina most likely coming on it may not set the record for the entire year. It will definitely be one of the warmest though.

BumFluff122

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

Where exactly did you get this graph? Here is a graph from the real HadCRUT site: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

And here is the RAW CO2 data at Mauna Loa http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/flask_co2_and_isotopic/monthly_co2/monthly_mlf.csv

Note that the base for determining a trend is usually 30 years with regard to climate changes to weed out the noise. The noise being things like the extremly strong 1998 Al Nino, which had an MEI measurement above 3.0, compared to 2010's El Nino, which was just above 1.5. I think it would also be better if you got a graph that actually went up to 2010 as 2010 is widely known to have set records worldwide with regards to atmospheric heat content.

Jacobistheman

CO2 is the second most concentrated greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, water vapour being the first. However water vapour can not be a forcing because the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is dependent on temperature. As an air parcel increases in temperature it can hold a greater amount of water vapour. As it decreaees in temperature that water vapour condenses, forms clouds, and rains out. The next most concentrated greenhouse gas after CO2 is methane which, as I'm sure you are aware of, has a much more potent effect than CO2. However the amount of methane to CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule. Currently the amount of CO2 stands at 390 parts per million while methane stands at roughly 1.5 parts per million if memory serves. As the amount of CO2 has increased from 280ppm preindustrial to 392ppm today, the effect that CO2 has in the atmosphere is increasing which can be seen in the decreasing outbound infrared radiation and increasing downward infrared radiation at CO2 absorption wavelength as was stated and linked on page 12.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="medic36"] I never denied the effects of carbon dioxide. Are you ok man?medic36

I am for it provided that it can stand on its own as a marketable alternative. I don't support efforts to subsidize green energy though.

[QUOTE="smc91352"]:lol: okay.airshocker

Trying to ram legislation down, or rather supporting the ramming of said legislation, down my throat isn't very considerate.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="smc91352"]:lol: okay.Serraph105

Trying to ram legislation down, or rather supporting the ramming of said legislation, down my throat isn't very considerate.

Depends upon whether the harm to the environment is directly harmful to humans, and if so, to what extent as opposed the cost of forgoing the harmful source of energy.

I guess the question I have is are you okay with legislation that takes away the option of companies selling you products that are harmful to the environment? Serraph105

Not if it will raise prices in the short-term.

I will buy a hybrid. As soon as they come out with a truck that I like for the same price as a gas-guzzler. Until then, there's absolutely no point in doing things that will only hurt my wallet.

I fail to see how any could possible say going green sooner than later is a bad thing. IMO, Go Green.

Against. Keith Lockitch explains why.

But in fact, the goal of environmentalism is not any alleged benefit to mankind; its goal is to preserve nature untouched--to prevent nature from being altered for human purposes. Observe that whenever there is a conflict between the goals of "preserving nature" and pursuing some actual human value, environmentalists always side with nature against man. If tapping Arctic oil reserves to supply our energy needs might affect the caribou, environmentalists demand that we leave vast tracts of Arctic tundra completely untouched. If a new freeway bypass will ease traffic congestion but might disturb the dwarf wedge mussel, environmentalists side with the mollusk against man. If a "wetland" is a breeding ground for disease-carrying insects, environmentalists fight to prevent it being drained no matter the toll of human suffering.

It is simply not true that environmentalism values human well being. It demands sacrifices, not for the sake of any human good, but for the sake of leaving nature untouched. It calls for sacrifice as an end in itself.

I just want to see more trees.

Against. Keith Lockitch explains why.

But in fact, the goal of environmentalism is not any alleged benefit to mankind; its goal is to preserve nature untouched--to prevent nature from being altered for human purposes. Observe that whenever there is a conflict between the goals of "preserving nature" and pursuing some actual human value, environmentalists always side with nature against man. If tapping Arctic oil reserves to supply our energy needs might affect the caribou, environmentalists demand that we leave vast tracts of Arctic tundra completely untouched. If a new freeway bypass will ease traffic congestion but might disturb the dwarf wedge mussel, environmentalists side with the mollusk against man. If a "wetland" is a breeding ground for disease-carrying insects, environmentalists fight to prevent it being drained no matter the toll of human suffering.

It is simply not true that environmentalism values human well being. It demands sacrifices, not for the sake of any human good, but for the sake of leaving nature untouched. It calls for sacrifice as an end in itself.

Genetic_Code

Also I find it to be a very compelling reason to go green with the first priority being nature and not the well-being of man.

Why?

Because nature is beautiful and should be preserved and because some of mans needs are irrational or could be pleased with alternatives.

Against. Keith Lockitch explains why.

But in fact, the goal of environmentalism is not any alleged benefit to mankind; its goal is to preserve nature untouched--to prevent nature from being altered for human purposes. Observe that whenever there is a conflict between the goals of "preserving nature" and pursuing some actual human value, environmentalists always side with nature against man. If tapping Arctic oil reserves to supply our energy needs might affect the caribou, environmentalists demand that we leave vast tracts of Arctic tundra completely untouched. If a new freeway bypass will ease traffic congestion but might disturb the dwarf wedge mussel, environmentalists side with the mollusk against man. If a "wetland" is a breeding ground for disease-carrying insects, environmentalists fight to prevent it being drained no matter the toll of human suffering.

It is simply not true that environmentalism values human well being. It demands sacrifices, not for the sake of any human good, but for the sake of leaving nature untouched. It calls for sacrifice as an end in itself.

Genetic_Code

That is an unfair criticism. Certainly some environmentalists take it to the extreme described here, but to ascribe that to all environmentalism (or to "going green/green technology") is absurd.