Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[Franklin Richards]

[YT]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/p7psh4uhs7o&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/p7psh4uhs7o&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YT]

 

[Carcharodon]

Interestingly, one issue I've changed my stance on is off-shore drilling. It's surprisingly safe, and there are viable arguments that the rigs actually create habitat (yes, you read correctly).

Pollution is minimal to the immediate environment. In fact, since a major spill in 1969 off the coast of California, revisions and updates have been made to make the drilling and transport of the oil incredibly safe. 1,000 barrels of oil leak naturally into the ocean off the coast of California per week. Since 1969, a grand total of 800 - 900 barrels of oil have leaked due to the transport of the oil, and that was due to a default.

So, off the coast of California, we've had:

NATURALLY: 2,080,000 barrels leaked since 1969.
DRILLING: < 1000 barrels leaked since 1969.


Is it just me, or is that pretty intense?

 

[Hobgoblin]

Interestingly, one issue I've changed my stance on is off-shore drilling. It's surprisingly safe, and there are viable arguments that the rigs actually create habitat (yes, you read correctly).

Pollution is minimal to the immediate environment. In fact, since a major spill in 1969 off the coast of California, revisions and updates have been made to make the drilling and transport of the oil incredibly safe. 1,000 barrels of oil leak naturally into the ocean off the coast of California per week. Since 1969, a grand total of 800 - 900 barrels of oil have leaked due to the transport of the oil, and that was due to a default.

So, off the coast of California, we've had:

NATURALLY: 2,080,000 barrels leaked since 1969.
DRILLING: < 1000 barrels leaked since 1969.


Is it just me, or is that pretty intense?

Wow and this coming from a marine biologist!

Also, I am a strong supporter of single-child households. I believe that those who are able to reproduce should consider having one child. While impossible to enforce on a global scale, I do believe that the re-emergence of single-child households would help add to a negative population trend and, as a result, would limit our ecological footprints.

Additionally, I consider myself a fairly "green" person. I buy recycled paper, barely purchase bottled water/ soda, and have converted my lighting to florescent lighting. I also refuse to buy what I do not need (I do not have an iPod or any MP3 player, I do not have any video game consoles, I do not own a car, a stereo, or any CDs, and I buy very few books). I take five minute showers and use public transportation. And if I ever adopt a child, I will only have one.

I gotta say, I was surprised at my own carbon footprint. I consider myself pretty green, but we would need 4 planets to live the way I do. It was an eye opener. The one child option is a good thought but will be pretty hard to enforce. Even I would like to have several kids. Funny how we want things to change until we have to change too.

 

[Carcharodon]

Wow and this coming from a marine biologist!

I don't pretend to be an expert on the drilling issue, and it certainly doesn't mean that there aren't concerns. I was forced to do research on it for a project a little while ago, however, and was really surprised at what I found. I'd expected to find much more ANTI-drilling information and support, but found quite a lot of information that really eased many of my concerns.

The biggest issue is that it can't be rushed. The construction of an offshore rig and a transport system requires lots of planning to reduce the chance of a leak or, more importantly, a blowout. The matter becomes more complicated by the use of so-called "drilling mud," which greatly reduces the risk of blowout during the drilling process, but itself is considered toxic (but not poisonous). That distinction confuses me a bit, but it seems that the overall effect is relatively small compared to the benefit of blowout-prevention.

To clarify: I think drilling in natural reserve areas is wrong; that's what Palin advocates. Offshore drilling, however, is certainly something to at least look at openly.

 

[jaguarr]

I think Americans are among the most wasteful countries on Earth, and I'd include myself in that statement. Our harmful footprint on the ecosystem is ridiculously large.

jag

 

[jaguarr]

I think Americans are among the most wasteful countries on Earth, and I'd include myself in that statement. Our harmful footprint on the ecosystem is ridiculously large.

jag

 

[Carcharodon]

I think Americans are among the most wasteful countries on Earth, and I'd include myself in that statement. Our harmful footprint on the ecosystem is ridiculously large.

jag

Agreed. Interestingly, I'm fairly certain that China, for all its pollution, has a much smaller footprint than we do. Their resource use on a per capita basis is tiny. Of course this has to do with poor living conditions throughout much of the country, but the statistic itself is pretty staggering, especially in comparison with our own country.

 

[jaguarr]

Agreed. Interestingly, I'm fairly certain that China, for all its pollution, has a much smaller footprint than we do. Their resource use on a per capita basis is tiny. Of course this has to do with poor living conditions throughout much of the country, but the statistic itself is pretty staggering, especially in comparison with our own country.

I don't know about that. Supposedly China's carbon-emission pollution levels from fossil fuel consumption absolutely eclipse our own.

jag

 

[The Senator]

Agreed. Interestingly, I'm fairly certain that China, for all its pollution, has a much smaller footprint than we do. Their resource use on a per capita basis is tiny. Of course this has to do with poor living conditions throughout much of the country, but the statistic itself is pretty staggering, especially in comparison with our own country.

You are correct about that. China pollutes more than the United States, make no mistake about that-- but their demography, per capita, is not even close to us, even though they have over a billion people living in that country. Their middle class is very small, albeit growing, while we have one the largest middle class in the world right now (based on percentage and global income standards). Additionally, many businesses from the United States have operations in China. So we contribute to pollution in that country because pollution laws are less strict there than they are here.

The United States has the second-largest per-capita ecological footprint. The United Arab Emirates recently surpassed us, with China taking eighth place.

 

[Carcharodon]

I don't know about that. Supposedly China's carbon-emission pollution levels from fossil fuel consumption absolutely eclipse our own.

jag

You're missing the point. That's probably because "footprint" is a buzzword that most people don't understand, unless you're specifically referring to carbon footprint.

The more general ecological footprint boils down to this: if China comprised the entire world, it would be sustainable with respect to per capita resource use.

One common way this is broken down is how many acres-worth of resources each person uses on average. You take that figure and you can then look at it this way: if every person lived like the average person of a given country, how many earths (yes, EARTHS) would it take to sustain the global population?

China is at about one. The USA is at about four or five, if memory serves.

When you're talking about "footprint," it's important to make that distinction between carbon footprint and ecological footprint, though both certainly have bearing on the overall health of the planet.

 

[Carcharodon]

The United States has the second-largest per-capita ecological footprint. The United Arab Emirates recently surpassed us, with China taking third place.

China's THIRD now? They used to rank really low. Dayum!

 

[The Senator]

China's THIRD now? They used to rank really low. Dayum!

Um, yeah... scratch that. I totally misspoke.

UAE, United States, Canada, Norway and France make up the top five. China is eighth.

 

[jaguarr]

You're missing the point. That's probably because "footprint" is a buzzword that most people don't understand, unless you're specifically referring to carbon footprint.

The more general ecological footprint boils down to this: if China comprised the entire world, it would be sustainable with respect to per capita resource use.

One common way this is broken down is how many acres-worth of resources each person uses on average. You take that figure and you can then look at it this way: if every person lived like the average person of a given country, how many earths (yes, EARTHS) would it take to sustain the global population?

China is at about one. The USA is at about four or five, if memory serves.

When you're talking about "footprint," it's important to make that distinction between carbon footprint and ecological footprint, though both certainly have bearing on the overall health of the planet.

China makes a sh1tload of smoke. Is that any better?

jag

 

[Carcharodon]

China makes a sh1tload of smoke. Is that any better?

jag

Yeah, they do. It is certainly a problem.

Oh, here's a cool little program to try out that will calculate your personal ecological footprint. It's actually kinda fun, if you have the time:

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=calculator

 

[tzarinna]

I think I may have made a break through with a co-worker to actually give a damn about the environment. He's thoughts to me aloud were "**** the environment" in response to my views on drilling in Alaska. I brought up China and their ****ty environment and taking care of the planet due to the fact it's like taking care your home. Much like caring for your house and wouldn't he want his son and grand kids to have a kick ass home to live in.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I think I may have made a break through with a co-worker to actually give a damn about the environment. He's thoughts to me aloud were "**** the environment" in response to my views on drilling in Alaska. I brought up China and their ****ty environment and taking care of the planet due to the fact it's like taking care your home. Much like caring for your house and wouldn't he want his son and grand kids to have a kick ass home to live in.

Its amazing isnt it? People really put zero thought into the consequences of their actions. "There isnt a problem now, so there isnt a problem." They dont look at the science. My aunt once said that she didnt understand what the big deal is about global warming. It was hot that day but she remembered hotter days as a kid. I didnt bother explaining greenhouse gases, polar ice melting, etc.

 

[Marx]

POLAR BEARS RESORT TO CANNIBALISM AS ARTIC ICE SHRINKS
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/09/23/arctic.ice/index.html

 

[Hobgoblin]

POLAR BEARS RESORT TO CANNIBALISM AS ARTIC ICE SHRINKS
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/09/23/arctic.ice/index.html

And Palin wants to take them off the endangered species list. Ditto for wolves so they can be shot. I will try to find the website, but it said Obama has a 60% animal friendliness rating while McCain has a 40% rating. Oh and Palin also wants war vets to go hunting in Alaska.

www.ontheissues.org

Actually I think you were the one that told me about the site.

 

[Marx]

And Palin wants to take them off the endangered species list. Ditto for wolves so they can be shot. I will try to find the website, but it said Obama has a 60% animal friendliness rating while McCain has a 40% rating. Oh and Palin also wants war vets to go hunting in Alaska.

www.ontheissues.org

Now remember Demo, Palin believes global warming is just 'God huggin' us closer!'

 

[Hobgoblin]

Now remember Demo, Palin believes global warming is just 'God huggin' us closer!'

Someone shoot me, please. First one to do so becomes a mod!

 

[jaguarr]

Someone shoot me, please. First one to do so becomes a mod!

I'd be very careful about putting a "succession by assassination" policy in place.

jag

 

[Marx]

Someone shoot me, please. First one to do so becomes a mod!

 

[Hobgoblin]

I'd be very careful about putting a "succession by assassination" policy in place.

jag

Just ask Dew how many times a day she wishes someone would shoot her. I'm just sayin.

Also, I think there is a lot of apathy/despair out there about the environment. My brother doesnt bother recycling anything and my co-worker thinks we're already screwed so he he doesnt bother recycling either.

 

[The Senator]

So here's an interesting short film about consumerism some of our environmentalists may be interested in.

The Story of Stuff

 

[Hobgoblin]

So here's an interesting short film about consumerism some of our environmentalists may be interested in.

The Story of Stuff

Thats a fantastic film but I just dont have hope of people changing. They want their stuff and they want it cheap. We're addicted and every aspect of our lives contributes to the problem. Hell, I'm contributing right now by using this computer.