Global Warming
- Started
- Last post
- 643 Responses
- eieio0
So the debate is over right? Clearly man is changing the climate through emissions and numerous other forms of pollutants its just that Al Gore is a flaming hypocrit and raf just wants a choice of what light bulb he uses. End thread.
- haha summary: Al Gore is a douche bag, being green is still good.designbot
- raf0
"– why no start a campaign against thermometers?
– why not campaign against people eating fish (as the highest source of ingested mercury) or high-fructose corn syrup?"It is very simple. I am not forced to buy mercury based thermometers. I am forced to buy CFLs due to a global monopolistic market tweak.
I don't even need a thermometer and I can easily buy a non-toxic one if I want.
I have phased those mercury thermometers out from my place long time ago. I live in a boring mild climate now you know, same weather all year long... :)I need light bulbs though. I cannot buy a classic tungsten light bulb anymore, they are banned by the government for bogus reasons. I am forced to use the toxic ones instead.
On top of that home toxicity risk, there is a certainty most used up CFLs will go to thrash dump, being 100% sure to poison ground waters. This is pure madness.
As for weighing the risk.. I consider myself to be quite rational. The toxic light bulb in my house is a real danger (just like the thermometer you mentioned), more so than a can of tuna.
I do care not to eat too much seafood I must say, not easy living in a fishing village.I have to add, like many people – my eyes sometimes hurt from CFL light and I can get dizzy from it.
Connecting CFL use with lower pollution from coal power plants is a big stretch, especially when everyone compensates the bill by buying other power-hungry equipment like home cinema systems and there is no sign of power plants running at lower speeds.
Whatever heat I don't get from tungsten lamp in Winter, I get from an electric or gas heater.People should be encouraged to use alternative energy sources, but that's not what people in power(sic!) really want, is it?
Even people who market CFLs say savings per household are in the region of €42 per year (I bet those are not very conservative numbers). Is this worth polluting ground waters and putting tiny vials with mercury around the house? I say it is not.
Honestly.. I would understand a ban on CFLs, because they are toxic. I would understand a ban on non-rechargeable batteries (not gonna happen). Ban on tungsten light bulbs though is only a sign of corporate lobbying gone too far.
- designbot0
^ Nice. I think you are right about finding things that work for you. And with most of these things the end result (just like you said) is that you are healthier/happier. I planted a pretty big garden (my first) this year and was surprised at how awesome it was to grow my own food. It was all organic and you would be amazed if you saw what it grew on (I''m in Colorado and the soil in the garden almost looks like sand :) Even though it was a ton of work, it didn't really feel like work at all because I enjoyed it. I think the key is indeed finding things that don't feel like work. I wasn't thinking about environment at all, but I know having my own vegetables in the backyard is obviously much more efficient than driving to the grocery store.
- ukit0
I'm definitely not set in stone on this issue (and the reason I don't own a car isn't really because of global warming, although I like to think it helps a little to pollute less).
What annoys me about this is people on the other side don't seem to care about the facts. I totally realize there are a minority of actual, credible scientists who don't think the global warming over the past 100 years is caused by humans.
Just like there are a minority arguing an alternative to pretty much any scientific theory. But no one in this thread has posted any of those arguments.
Instead, you just jump on the first thing you find that agrees with your point of view, no matter how ridiculous it is.
Then basically saying, well, OK, the majority of scientific organizations in the world say it's true, but, on the other hand, some ex-insurance agent turned meterologist in Oregon says it's not, so it must be 50/50.
This is a recipe for stupidity and the ability of powerful interests to deceive people by throwing money at a problem. Because it means that cheering on your side has become more important than actually looking at the facts. And if this isn't true, then someone explain to me why almost every single Republican out there, is a global warming denier.
- well said.joeth
- I think an important point of all this ukit, is just because someone is skeptical or opposed to man made global warming does not mean that they are against protecting the environment.designbot
- does not mean that they are against protecting the environment. So in the end, it seems like a moot point.designbot
- bravoMilan
- No, they just think money is more important.DrBombay
- joeth1
@designbot
I agree that we have to back up our words with actions. Change isn't going to happen from just the top down or the bottom up. It has to come from everywhere.We also need to put things in perspective. Some people recycle and use a reusable bag and think they're doing good, but really aren't doing shit.
The bigger things I'm doing...
-Purchase renewable energy (bills actually went down went I started watching consumption as well)
- Work from home.
- Live in a small place near walkable, bike-able, public tranist-able things. Suburbs are car hell.
- Rarely fly (once or twice a year)
- Only eat meat about every other day. Almost never beef.
- Eat mostly local and organic
- Don't buy anything unless I'm going to get a lot of use out of it for a long time.
- Support environmental policies and volunteer in the community.And a lot of smaller things, some of which can be found on here... http://www.50waystohelp.com/
I wouldn't expect everyone to do all of these things. I'm passionate about this, but there's a lot of shit I wouldn't do either. Find the things that work for you. Often times you'll find that they save you money and make you healthier/happier, which just makes sense.
- scarabin0
*pops in to see what's so goddamned interesting about this thread*
*finds nothing, leaves*
- jimzyk0
that actor guy from that shit programme got mercury poisoning.
entourage,
not sure of his name,
but he was super infected with mercury after eating fish for over 20 years and no red meat,
he will explode soon enough and create a massive hole in the ozone layer shaped like the word entourage.its true i saw it on the wikipedias.
- designbot0
So for all of you folks who think the world is going to end if we don't do something about man made global warming....I am curious what you are all doing to help the situation? You have passion about this subject, obviously...but is that passion actually transitioning into making a difference? You get all uptight when I post Al Gores Carbon footprint information, but the fact is that he is the man who almost single handedly helped bring Global Warming into public awareness. So the fact that he himself does not practice what he preaches says A LOT.
I fear that many of you here on QBN are no different than Gore. You speak big words on an internet forum but in real life you don't do shit. Words are meaningless without action, and even as a contender of man made global warming I am responsible with the way I live and how I impact the environment. Are you? I am honestly curious. If I knew you in real life and you really stood behind the words you spoke with actions, it would impact me even if we disagreed. I would probably find myself inspired by your actions and willing to follow you based on them alone. It would make words seem pretty meaningless. Nobody is for ruining the earth. But for those of you who are so adamant about this issue, your energy would be better invested in making a difference.
- is this you backing up your point?lowimpakt
- yo dbot! when that article came out gore was in the process of installing a number of energy efficient...sigg
- I feel I am making several good points here...the main being to speak with your actions. Especially in regards to things you are passionate about.designbot
- products to the home. solar, appliances, windows... robots.sigg
- Especially in regards to things you are passionate aboutdesignbot
- hey sigg, I don't doubt it. Seems like a moot point though. The way he speaks he should be living in a grass hut.designbot
- I dont have a car, take the bus to work, walk most other places. compost, recycle an pay extra to get energy from green sources versus coal plants.DrBombay
- sources versus coal plants.DrBombay
- If I could afford it I would trick this joint out solar, but can't swing it right now.DrBombay
- the stories of the guys selling power back to the grid fascinate me.DrBombay
- you are making a lot of assumptions to make yourself feel better it seems.spifflink
- eieio0
OMG THE NAZIS ARE PRETENDING TO BE ENVIRONMENTALISTS ! END IS NIGH !
- lowimpakt0
raf - i pointed out that there are products in people's homes that are toxic - most homes have glass thermometers that have massively higher quantities of mercury in them - these can break?
why no start a campaign against thermometers?
why not campaign against people eating fish (as the highest source of ingested mercury) or high-fructose corn syrup?
i find the whole logic of your conspiracy to be flawed and based on ideology rather than fact/logic.
from wiki
Causes
The consumption of fish is by far the most significant source of ingestion-related mercury exposure in humans, although plants and livestock also contain mercury due to bioaccumulation of mercury from soil, water and atmosphere, and due to biomagnification by ingesting other mercury-containing organisms.[4] Exposure to mercury can occur from breathing contaminated air;[5] from eating foods containing mercury residues from processing, such as can occur with high-fructose corn syrup;[6] from exposure to mercury vapor in mercury amalgam dental restorations;[7] and from improper use or disposal of mercury and mercury-containing objects, for example, after spills of elemental mercury or improper disposal of fluorescent lamps.[8]
Human-generated sources such as coal plants emit approximately half of atmospheric mercury, with natural sources such as volcanoes responsible for the remainder. An estimated two-thirds of human-generated mercury comes from stationary combustion, mostly of coal. Other important human-generated sources include gold production, non-ferrous metal production, cement production, waste disposal, human crematoria, caustic soda production, pig iron and steel production, mercury production (mostly for batteries), and biomass burning.[9]
Mercury and many of its chemical compounds, especially organomercury compounds, can also be readily absorbed through direct contact with bare, or in some cases (such as dimethylmercury) insufficiently protected, skin. Mercury and its compounds are commonly used in chemical laboratories, hospitals, dental clinics, and facilities involved in the production of items such as fluorescent light bulbs, batteries, and explosives.[10]
- in short - you're not weighing up the risk rationally.lowimpakt
- raf0
The government gives you instructions what to do in case of biohazard (a broken eco-friendly light bulb):
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spill…
How come the old, un-eco-friendly light bulbs did not require such measures?
- DrBombay0
If it were all profit motivated, wouldn't a lightbulb with a tenth of the lifespan actually be the better deal for the manufacturer? They are all made by GE, right?
- raf0
I wasn't talking about developing world as a market for light bulbs. I was talking about so called 1-st world closing their market for traditional lightbulb makers.
Why do you need a proof for ill-health? CFL contain mercury, incandescent bulbs don't. Both are in many places at home, both break at times, often in presence of children. What's to prove?
Does the fact that "most people have a mini toxic lab under their sink" justify adding more toxicity (under the flag of environmental friendliness)?
Water in many developed countries (including Ireland) is toxic, poisoned with fluoride (which is being gradually banned from toothpaste by EU). Does that justify forcing toxic light bulbs into the market?
- designbot0
And now for a brief intermission, Al Gore's Carbon Footprint:
Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
he average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.”
- Always good for a laughdesignbot
- //Great reason to fight against cleaner technologies.DrBombay
- is this you trying to back up your point?lowimpakt
- I knew you guys would get all uptight..haha. No, this is just pure comedy.designbot
- hey look Gore's a hypocrite big fucking deal. In other news man made climate change is a fact of life, get used to it.eieio
- But I wouldn't be surprised if some of you peeps on QBN were just as big of hypocrites.designbot
- talk alot of shit and do nothing about it.designbot
- peeps http://images.chron.…DrBombay
- "But I wouldn't be surprised if some of you peeps on QBN were just as big of hypocrites."
No shitGeorgesII - Rick isn't a hypocrite. He sits here all day trying very hard to improve his shitty life. :Dmathinc
- So fuck you designbot!mathinc
- how do you reconcile your credulity about religion and hocus pocus god shit, and suddenly you are very skeptical about this?spifflink
- about this issue?spifflink
- version30
chemicals pollutants: bad.
- lowimpakt0
as I said raf - let me know when you have proof of people suffering ill health from cfl's - especially considering that most people have a mini toxic lab under their sink and don't worry to much about that.
i could spend a long time talking about the toxic impacts of formaldehide (in particleboard or chipboard) or the toxic effects of other solvents people regularly use in their home.
have you ever heard of off/out-gassing?
as for CFL's in the developing world - I haven't seen any evidence of market dispacement but I know that in poorer economies people have less money to spend on electricity and will often be living with distributed energy systems so lightbulbs that are cheaper to run and don't waste 90% of their energy as heat are a good thing.
- eieio0
Don't listen to people who are trying to get you to buy more products the real secret to change is in reducing and recycling.
- GeorgesII-1
blast from the near past.
For those who have a short memory of the clinton/GORE era, I didn't see the Gore from the past fight much to save the environment when he was a vice president, actually he didn't do much, not even help sign the kyoto treaty, I find it hard taking advice from someone who is so double face.I won't even paste the some quote from this article, I don't have the courage to discuss this issue anymore. In my little, I find that I do much to help fight pollution, I ride a bike to station, never owned a car, carefully divide all my wastes (plastic, carton, glass, metal, etc), my appartment is really low in energy loss.
but I won't take advices from Al fuckn Gore, just google "al gore house energy consumption" and see for yourself how you're being fooled by the same people who advices to consume late. I'm still waiting for bono to arrive in concert by bike, lol.anyways, just read the damm thing
When Al Gore was Veep (2007)
http://www.counterpunch.org/stcl…
- raf0
You raise a valid question lowimpakt: why are "they" banning a good product which offers light which is relatively similar to natural light and promote one that:
a. is highly toxic, brings biohazard risk to your home and guarantees environmental pollution,
b. produces unhealthy, unnatural type of light,
c. is only more efficient under certain conditions?How do they get away with claims of these being environmentally friendly?
How can you put the safer, incandescent bulb alongside poisonous stuff like "cadmium, lead, hexavalent chromium" is also beyond my understanding.
Who wins due to incandescent bulb ban? Only corporations which invested in CFL technology. They are sure to have removed competition from incandescent light bulb makers from less developed countries. It is a market worth fat billions, everyone owns more than one light bulb.