Those packages that contain things in a plastic bubble that is chemically welded to a paper backing are a real nuisance. And then you see these plastic wrapped boxes containing plastic containers of things .....
What to do about global warming
- Thread starter Extrafire
- Start date
MIL used to work for the Hudson's Bay Co. and she remembers someone walking out of the sporting section with a canoe they didn't pay for one time.
My father inlaw liks to tinker so he loves junk.
No word of a lie, he built a small wind turbine with stuff he salvaged from the dump.
He's like that kid from Africa.:lol:
That's rather funny, you re-defining my purpose in starting this thread.
I said something about waste? Refresh my memory.
Yet another purpose, distinct from the above. Got any more?
You're starting to remind me of SJP. Obviously you are unfamilliar with Lomborgs position. What I was refering to was his comments on the efficacy of efforts to achieve Kyoto targets. He said that it's acknowledged by all concerned that achieving all Kyoto reductions (acutally reducing, not just transfering emissions) would have a miniscule effect on global temps, in fact it would only slightly delay the warming, thus providing no benefit for the $trillions expended in the effort, and in fact would cause massive hardship on billions of peoples. And remember, Lomborg is an AGW believer, not a denier. He also suggested that if we really wanted to help the peoples, that money could be better spent and was enough to provid sanitation, clean water and education for everyone in the world.
The thing about Lomborg is that while he's a believer, he's also a realist and acknowleges that current technology would make it extremely difficult to achieve Kyoto, impossible to reduce by 80%. He suggests instead of trying to reach such a reduction, all efforts should be directed into developing new technology that can replace fossil fuels rather than wasting money on windmills or tax initiatives such as cap & trade which will only hurt developed economies.
That is an eminently sensible approach. I differ in that I don't acknowledge that there is a problem in the first place, although I would like to see new tech developed.
No, you're just trying to turn it back on me because even though you and all the other alarmists have been saying we have to do something to save the planet, you know there's nothing that can be done. Just your way of dodging the question.
I already said that we have reduced ours by a large amount. Guess you missed it (or ignored it).
Let's suppose you need to cross a river, it's vital that you do. It's too cold and far to swim and all you have is a grappling hook on a rope that you think if you could throw it to the far side and secure it to this side you could cross on the rope. Problem is, the rope isn't long enough and even if it was you can't throw that far. Would you consider it stupid and myopic to not give it a try? Or would you perhaps consider it stupid to try when you know there's no chance of success? Wouldn't it make more sense to abandon such futile effort and instead go and look for materials to build a catapult to throw the grappling hook or perhaps a boat, that is, better technology?
I had a link to an article on that but all I can find now is this quote which illustrates why people are so eager to set up solar energy companies:
"A distinguished professor from the local university (specialty semi conductor materials), asks question of German dude who just presented some info on his solar panel company. 'My calculations have always shown that the energy to manufacture a solar panel is greater than the expected total output from the finished panel up to their predicted mean time to fail. Has new technology changed this fact?' Answer from German dude. 'The Ontario government pays between 70 - 80 cents per KWhr for power from solar installations supplying the grid. The current rate for all power is 12 cents. This is what matters.'" ;
Here's another example of what happens when governments over-subsidize:
Good on you but if everyone did what you've done would that solve the problem? Not at all.
Like Petros, I'm also in Regina, & I can say that garbage hill was by far the
largest thing on the horizon....back in the '70's, & it hasn't gotten any smaller
in the last 30+ years.
The irony here, when I look at the above comments, is that it's illegal to remove
anything from the Garbage Dump here in Regina. I don't know if that's the same
elsewhere as I've never looked into that. Recycle, Reduce, Re-use, but not from
the Dump in Regina it seems...
Is something wrong with you? Try walking instead of driving the two blocks to the corner store, take the bus more often, car pool, mow the lawn once a week instead of twice a week, convert your vehicle to electric or hybrid, quit idling the car so much, recycle and reuse a lot more, get digital subscriptions instead of hardcopy subscriptions to catalogs and magazines, get used to turning the thermostats down when in bed or away, get LED lamps for lighting your house and turn off unused lighting, cut food waste, reduce stress on power companies by adding a couple solar panels to your roof, solar heat your swimming pool, become healthier so you don't need more oxygen to replace the amount your body wastes, grow your own food, eat local foods, cut your consumption of red meats, use latex paints instead of oil-based ones, make sure your vehicle's are running as efficiently as possible, seal draft leaks in your home, keep your fridge and freezer more full, cut your bathtime and showertime by a couple minutes, drop the water heater to 120 or 130°, insulate hot water pipes, plan shopping trips so you use your vehicle more efficiently, use reusable bags when shopping, pressure your gov't reps to make gov't more efficient in energy usage, same for any companies you have a connection with, etc. etc. etc.
Therein lies the problem. The required world wide ultimate reduction is 80%. Some even go farther.
Redirect Notice
It makes sense if you look at it from an environmentalist perspective. The goal must be unachievable because once your goal is reached your income dries up with your cause. If they can keep the people believing and feeling guilty, they can keep the cash rolling in for themselves. It's all about the money.
Last edited:
Irrelevant. I did not say to try attempting to adapt to Kyoto or the Carbon trading nonsense, etc. I simply said try something. So in your river crossing instance, I would try the most efficient method I could to try crossing the river even if it meant ignoring the rope and hook.
Like I said, hubby and I did not simply go out and buy a complete solar collection system. We aren't rich. We made whatever parts we could. We quit thinking like consumers quite a while ago.
So we should just forget everything and keep screwing up the atmosphere and the planet. I see. We can't think of better ways to live. I see. We can't take a good idea and figure out how to make it work. I see. Nice attitude you have there.
Nice ideas from all of you, but that's just superficial stuff. We're wanting global solutions that would reduce emissions by 80%, and that's just not happening with those proposals.
That's just stupid. Ours promotes recycling, reusing, etc. It gets everyone to separate their refuse so if anyone wants stuff they can just grab it. Like tree limbs and stuff, for instance. People come and take it home to chip it and use the chips in their gardens. ANYTHING that still has a use is put in a small steel building and sold for a small amount like books (75¢ and up to about $1.50), for instance. Appliances all go to one area, lawnmowers and other landscaping/maintenance items top another area, etc.
Nope, didn't miss (or ignore) it. Just haven't seen anything that "can achieve that goal."
How would you know until each of us makes the attempt? Prove your claim.
I gave a pretty good list of stuff people can do earlier, if people actually did those things, they'd save money for themselves and cut a lot of pollution.
Your alternative just sucks.
Like I said, prove your claim. All those little things I mentioned can add up to quite a pile of change and it takes so little effort for the return you can see, it's just stupid why people don't even try.
I believe it's the same everywhere. But really, that garbage is a resource. It can be made into fuel at the cost of $80 per barrel.
YouTube - Thermal Depolymerization
A bit expensive at this point, but if municipalities would pay the same costs to such a process as they currently do for disposal it might just be feasible.
Something similar was proposed here, but it just didn't work out
due to default payment to the city. Interesting concept though.
CBC News - Saskatchewan - Regina to pull out of landfill gas deal
I did watch (well...1/2 watched I guess) a program a while back
where (I think it might have been in Malaysia) they where sinking
pipes into a huge garbage landfill and extracting methane for
sale, with the side benefit of those carbon credits thing that
netted more revenue than the methane itself, if I remember
correctly. The program might have been Daily Planet.
due to default payment to the city. Interesting concept though.
CBC News - Saskatchewan - Regina to pull out of landfill gas deal
I did watch (well...1/2 watched I guess) a program a while back
where (I think it might have been in Malaysia) they where sinking
pipes into a huge garbage landfill and extracting methane for
sale, with the side benefit of those carbon credits thing that
netted more revenue than the methane itself, if I remember
correctly. The program might have been Daily Planet.
That's rather funny, you re-defining my purpose in starting this thread.
I said something about waste? Refresh my memory.
Yet another purpose, distinct from the above. Got any more?
You're starting to remind me of SJP. Obviously you are unfamilliar with Lomborgs position. What I was refering to was his comments on the efficacy of efforts to achieve Kyoto targets. He said that it's acknowledged by all concerned that achieving all Kyoto reductions (acutally reducing, not just transfering emissions) would have a miniscule effect on global temps, in fact it would only slightly delay the warming, thus providing no benefit for the $trillions expended in the effort, and in fact would cause massive hardship on billions of peoples. And remember, Lomborg is an AGW believer, not a denier. He also suggested that if we really wanted to help the peoples, that money could be better spent and was enough to provid sanitation, clean water and education for everyone in the world.
The thing about Lomborg is that while he's a believer, he's also a realist and acknowleges that current technology would make it extremely difficult to achieve Kyoto, impossible to reduce by 80%. He suggests instead of trying to reach such a reduction, all efforts should be directed into developing new technology that can replace fossil fuels rather than wasting money on windmills or tax initiatives such as cap & trade which will only hurt developed economies.
That is an eminently sensible approach. I differ in that I don't acknowledge that there is a problem in the first place, although I would like to see new tech developed.
No, you're just trying to turn it back on me because even though you and all the other alarmists have been saying we have to do something to save the planet, you know there's nothing that can be done. Just your way of dodging the question.
A lot of writing there old chap.
It still dosen't answer the question I asked.
What would you do about AGW?
I will be happy to exchange ideas if that is the purpose of the thread....if not change the title.
Take care.
Cool. Our seizes what you have, & then fines you (not a little fine either).
With about five decades of stuff out there, I'm assuming there's a figurative
goldmine of raw materials and recyclable items out there for many
entrepreneurs. This won't solve the worlds problems, but it isn't going to
hurt it further I'd assume.