Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
From my perspective, Ethanol has always been a dumb proposition. Yeah...lets sacrifice food to make fuel.

What needs to be done, is utilize currently non-productive fields, that are not used for food, to make fuel oriented products. Switchgrass comes to mind (I am not an expert of this...but I speak regardless)
 
Using corn for ethanol is also stupid. The return rate of the corn system is ridiculously low. Ethanol is a good idea and very practical in places like Brazil where they use sugar cane to produce ethanol at a higher rate. We need to fund research to further study ethanol here as a viable option but the corn crap needs to stop.

Farmers switching over to ethanol production has dramatically driven up the cost of food. You might think that well, only corn has gone up in price! Wrong. Cattle and chicken, the two biggest used livestock animals in the US, eat a lot of corn. When their feed prices sky rocket, our meat, dairy, eggs, etc...all therefore also sky rocket so that they can stay in business. A gallon of milk today is ridiculously high and you can thank Mr. Corn Ethanol for that.
 
Food for fuel is a mistake. When you use one to offset the other, you aren't solving any problems. In fact, you may be creating more. Some small companies have been developing fuel from what is left over from a harvest, such as corn husks (and other non edible products). This fuel is actually cleaner than ethanol, and they estimate would cost less than $2 a gallon. That is one technology, that should definitely be looked into further
 
From my perspective, Ethanol has always been a dumb proposition. Yeah...lets sacrifice food to make fuel.

What needs to be done, is utilize currently non-productive fields, that are not used for food, to make fuel oriented products. Switchgrass comes to mind (I am not an expert of this...but I speak regardless)
Ethanol production doesn't have to sacrifice food anymore, though.
 
Really gives me hope...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-epa-enforcementaug23,0,2006600.story

Illinois pollution enforcement hampered by politics
Did state play politics with environment and make Illinois a ...
Polluters Paradise?

In Schiller Park

The front entrance to Anchor Metal Finishing in Schiller Park, where barrels of toxic sludge remained leaking for over a year after EPA inspectors discovered them. (Michael Tercha, Chicago Tribune / August 21, 2009)


By Michael Hawthorne Tribune reporter

August 23, 2009


Toxic sludge oozed out of rusty barrels, soaked through cardboard boxes and spilled over frothy vats inside a west suburban warehouse raided by state inspectors in January 2008.

Even though the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency had plenty of evidence to file charges against the owner and operator of Anchor Metal Finishing, top agency officials sat on the case for more than a year. Meanwhile, carcinogenic solvents and caustic acids kept leaching from barrels packed haphazardly into a ramshackle building, two blocks away from a Schiller Park subdivision.

What appeared to be an obvious violation of state environmental laws became entangled in one of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's political feuds, delaying action for months. Dozens of other cases against polluters languished as well, largely because Blagojevich and his top aides refused to refer them to his archnemesis, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan, a Tribune investigation found.

The bitter dispute still reverberates through state government today, eight months after Blagojevich was arrested on federal corruption charges and then impeached and removed from office. Nearly 19 months after it was discovered, the Schiller Park site still hasn't been cleaned up, and several other older cases are moving through an enforcement system that Gov. Pat Quinn and Madigan only recently have begun to repair.

Blagojevich and Madigan started out on amicable terms after they were elected in 2002. But EPA referrals of civil and criminal violations to the attorney general began to drop sharply in 2005, and fell to a record low of 114 in 2007, according to state records.

The agency hasn't sent a criminal case to the attorney general in two years, records show.

By contrast, previous administrations on average referred about 300 environmental cases during most years since the mid-1980s. The EPA forwarded nearly 30 criminal violations to the attorney general in 2003, before the relationship soured between two of the state's top Democrats.

Polluters didn't suddenly wise up and start following the law. Instead, top EPA officials now acknowledge, the agency avoided sending cases to Madigan, whose office handles most of the legal work for state government.

"There were some issues between us and the attorney general, and that skewed those numbers," said EPA Director Doug Scott, who was appointed by Blagojevich in 2005 and kept on by Quinn.

As the conflict roiled, federal officials stepped in on some of the biggest environmental cases in the Chicago area.

For instance, the U.S. EPA is conducting a high-profile criminal investigation into Crestwood's secret use of a community well contaminated with cancer-causing chemicals, a case the Illinois EPA tried to quietly handle informally while Blagojevich was still governor.

Federal regulators also cited Midwest Generation, the owner of six coal-fired power plants that records show are some of the biggest contributors to dirty air in the Chicago area. Madigan's staff documented thousands of pollution violations at the plants, but the state EPA repeatedly refused to take action against the company, which was represented for years by one of Blagojevich's top campaign aides.

Scott, a former state lawmaker and Rockford mayor, defended his agency's record. He argued that many environmental violations have been addressed without formal enforcement action involving the attorney general's office.

In many cases, Scott said, the agency is required by law to conduct informal negotiations with polluters. Business lobbyists persuaded lawmakers in 2002 to require a less-confrontational approach that doesn't involve the attorney general's office unless there is an imminent threat to the environment; lawsuits still can be filled if an agreement can't be brokered.

Although the state EPA declined to cite Midwest Generation -- the agency agreed with the company that frequent bursts of soot from its coal plants weren't harmful -- Scott noted the Blagojevich administration negotiated a deal that will force the aging generators to clean up or shut down by the end of the next decade. Environmental groups are seeking to impose tighter deadlines.

Midwest Generation officials have said their agreement shows the company is committed to environmental improvements.

"It's not like we haven't done anything," Scott said. "It's not like these guys are completely thumbing their noses at us."

The Blagojevich years were marked by ongoing squabbles between the governor, statewide officials and lawmakers. Fueled by rivalries for attention and power, the disputes were always political and often personal.

From interviews with current and former officials who worked for Blagojevich and Madigan, it becomes clear that the lag in environmental enforcement dates to January 2005, when the attorney general launched an investigation into allegations that the former governor traded government jobs for campaign funds.

The probe was prompted by accusations leveled by Blagojevich's father-in-law, Ald. Richard Mell (33rd), who was incensed that the then-governor had personally intervened and ordered the EPA to shut down a landfill run by a relative of Mell's wife.
 
'Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change'

Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says.

The report, Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.

If these basic family planning needs were met, 34 gigatons (billion tonnes) of CO2 would be saved – equivalent to nearly 6 times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total.

Roger Martin, chairman of the Optimum Population Trust at the LSE, said: “It’s always been obviously that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions – the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down as we want, while the population keeps shooting up.”

UN data suggests that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 per cent, reducing projected world population in 2050 by half a billion to 8.64 million.

The research is published on the day that the Government’s climate change advisers, the Climate Change Committee, warned households and industry that a planned 80 per cent reduction in emissions are likely to prove insufficient.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...on-cheapest-way-to-combat-climate-change.html

...
 
Makes perfect sense. Actually, it's painfully obvious.

Just another reason I dislike Catholicism. Go figure.
 
Nobody in this thread has made that claim. :huh:

Maybe I should've just put I disagree with the human aspect of it but I typed really fast and didn't double check.

I was also typing in generally towards people that believe it's all our fault. Not necessarily mocking anyone in the thread.
 
Last edited:
Artic summer ice is going to vanish? That's not good...not good at all.
 
I watched the video. Most of these scientists are full of ****. I remember one video from awhile back where this one scientist had predicted parts of Antarctica were going to melt off and fall into the ocean within a year. Needless to say, they hadn't.

Remember, these are the same people who can't even predict the correct weather more than 24 hours in advance.
 
So when do we all start growing gills like Kevin Costner in Waterworld?
 
crap, I've already got webbed feet!!
It's already started
 
Artic summer ice is going to vanish? That's not good...not good at all.

:awesome:you sure grounded that one into the ground.

I watched the video. Most of these scientists are full of ****. I remember one video from awhile back where this one scientist had predicted parts of Antarctica were going to melt off and fall into the ocean within a year. Needless to say, they hadn't.

Remember, these are the same people who can't even predict the correct weather more than 24 hours in advance.

These guys make sense.

Also, whoever said the planet is fine. You are right, it's just everything alive on it...on land...
 
Maybe I should've just put I disagree with the human aspect of it but I typed really fast and didn't double check.

I was also typing in generally towards people that believe it's all our fault. Not necessarily mocking anyone in the thread.

It is mostly our fault.

From the US Geological Survey:

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php




I watched the video. Most of these scientists are full of ****.

Do you have anything to base this claim on at all?

I remember one video from awhile back where this one scientist had predicted parts of Antarctica were going to melt off and fall into the ocean within a year. Needless to say, they hadn't.

First of all, one scientist does not speak for all of them.

Secondly, without knowing what his expertise was we cannot evaluate the claim properly.

Third, you haven't stated which year he made the claim - which means we can't fact-check this without wading through pages of articles.

Remember, these are the same people who can't even predict the correct weather more than 24 hours in advance.

:facepalm

Meterologists (those who study weather) are not the same as climatologists (those who study the climate).

____________


Anyone who wants to educate themselves on the real science surrounding climate change as well as all the bad science that gets thrown around, this is a great video series:






 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,317
Messages
22,084,595
Members
45,883
Latest member
marvel2099fan89
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"