The Planet is Toast

[Pat]

well clearly it does. are you unable to see this?



nothing at all wrong with clean up australia day. My concerns are based around the ever growing number of school children being force-fed greeny propaganda much of which is not supported in any way by proven scientific fact.


im not against recycling at all however i challenge the simplistic view that all recycling = good.



then apparenty the greenies have a dilemma on their hands because according to their view, excess energy consumption = bad. what about the dreaded co2 (read: plant food)??

Your Views --B-- are very pessimistic. This should not be a political debate. What are kids being "force fed" that is not scientific fact? And what negative impact does this have?
I agree the less energy we consume the better. However we are developing ways to make energy more efficient. So the "costs" to our pockets and to the environment should decrease in time. If everything goes to plan she'll be right. Just give it the time it needs.
Please tell me what mades some aspects of recycling = bad?

 

[--B--]

Your Views --B-- are very pessimistic.

i simply do not get caught up in the greeny hype that is so prevalent today.

This should not be a political debate. What are kids being "force fed" that is not scientific fact? And what negative impact does this have?

the entire GW debate is exactly that - a debate. AGW is far from being proven scientific fact however school children believe wholeheartedly that humans have "ruined" our environment. in my opinion, that in itself is a negative impact.

no doubting anything that humans do to conserve our environment is a good thing - however i believe this should be based on fact.

Please tell me what mades some aspects of recycling = bad?

ive never said recycling = bad. simply that i challenge the simplistic view (obviously taught to school children) that recycling = good.

a good article is: http://downloads.heartland.org/2377bl.pdf

 

[stockGURU]

a good article is: http://downloads.heartland.org/2377bl.pdf

That article is 10 years old and isn't from a scientific journal but a consumer magazine. Hardly authoritative or cutting edge stuff.

Sounds like you are rejecting one lot of propaganda and simply embracing another because you don't like 'greenies' and it fits with your political views.

 

[--B--]

That article is 10 years old and isn't from a scientific journal but a consumer magazine.

Sounds like you are rejecting one lot of propaganda and simply embracing another because you don't like 'greenies'.

sure the article is not from a scientific journal and ive never claimed it was. I simply challenge the blanket idea that all recycling = good and clearly the article raises valid points in that regard.

i also dont think the article i provided was propaganda in the slightest. It simply raises questions and concludes with a "Yes and no" type answer which is exactly my thoughts on the issue.

 

[stockGURU]

sure the article is not from a scientific journal and ive never claimed it was. I simply challenge the blanket idea that all recycling = good and clearly the article raises valid points in that regard.

So some real, up to date scientific evidence of this would be appreciated.

i also dont think the article i provided was propaganda in the slightest. It simply raises questions and concludes with a "Yes and no" type answer which is exactly my thoughts on the issue.

Nobody ever thinks anything they agree with is propaganda now do they?

 

[Pat]

i simply do not get caught up in the greeny hype that is so prevalent today.



the entire GW debate is exactly that - a debate. AGW is far from being proven scientific fact however school children believe wholeheartedly that humans have "ruined" our environment. in my opinion, that in itself is a negative impact.

no doubting anything that humans do to conserve our environment is a good thing - however i believe this should be based on fact.



ive never said recycling = bad. simply that i challenge the simplistic view (obviously taught to school children) that recycling = good.

a good article is: http://downloads.heartland.org/2377bl.pdf

I understand what you mean about the "hype". I'm saying that is hype will lead the way for the future. The way I see it, more emphasis will be put on the environment due to this hype. Not bad thing if our goal is to conserve.

Children aren't taught that we have ruined our environment, well I wasn't. I was taught that humans have some ruined parts of the environment, and that this can be fixed, with everyone chipping in. Every little bit helps. I believe it is important to know what is happening to our planet. Amazon disapearing, extinction of native animals, the effect of burning coal and hydrocarbons on the quality of air.

Your article makes some good points. I understand how it can be un-economic, and seem somewhat pointless in some instances. However the effect of recycling what we can today, will only make recycling what we have to in the future easier/possible. The best way to learn is from experiance.

Our new found awareness is just the begining. As smurf has pointed out we fix one thing and another problem arises. Learning curves... We will one day have the knowledge and tools to co-exist with the rest of the planet without destroying it.

 

[--B--]

So some real, up to date scientific evidence of this would be appreciated.

im not trying to argue any point here stockGURU. i simply presented my view and provided that article in support.

there are many articles on the web which raise similar questions however these dont come from a peer-reviewed scientific journal and as such are justifiably open to scrutiny.

Nobody ever thinks anything they agree with is propaganda now do they?

i dont consider raising questions as propaganda however perhaps, by definition, it could be.

 

[Kimosabi]

Kimosabi, we should nip this one in the bud before it get's a life. If you have a closer look at this weirdo's website you will see the section where he's indicating spaceships are also being sent from the sun to invade the earth.
Interesting theory, but a complete nutter in this case

Mate, after some of the stuff I have learnt in the last few months, I'm not prepared to dismiss anything outright anymore.

 

[Smurf1976]

The real issue I have with many in the Green movement is that they are very good at shutting down the debate when anyone starts to question the basis of their claims. The intention may well be good but the scientific methodology most certainly isn't robust.

Anyone with an interest in environmental politics and the Green movement overall would do well to research the history of Tasmania over the past 40 years. You'll find that both sides have swapped positions so many times it just isn't funny.

There was a time when the Greens advocated burning the forests, using coal for power and opposed any form of subsidy for renewable energy.

Likewise there was a time when the pro-development lobby was against burning wood, against coal and in favour of subsidising renewable energy.

And both sides have swapped back and forth so many times that it's hard to take anything too seriously. The pro-development side is driven by economics. The Greens simply take the opposing view. Hence the constant changing of position.

Science? Nobody's worried about that...

 

[--B--]

Very well said Smurf...

 

[Pat]

The real issue I have with many in the Green movement is that they are very good at shutting down the debate when anyone starts to question the basis of their claims. The intention may well be good but the scientific methodology most certainly isn't robust.

Anyone with an interest in environmental politics and the Green movement overall would do well to research the history of Tasmania over the past 40 years. You'll find that both sides have swapped positions so many times it just isn't funny.

There was a time when the Greens advocated burning the forests, using coal for power and opposed any form of subsidy for renewable energy.

Likewise there was a time when the pro-development lobby was against burning wood, against coal and in favour of subsidising renewable energy.

And both sides have swapped back and forth so many times that it's hard to take anything too seriously. The pro-development side is driven by economics. The Greens simply take the opposing view. Hence the constant changing of position.

Science? Nobody's worried about that...

That said, what are your views on the environment? Politics aside.
I don't need a politician or a scientist to tell me that things we do and have done will ruin the environment, I can see for myself.

 

[--B--]

I don't need a politician or a scientist to tell me that things we do and have done will ruin the environment, I can see for myself.

see for yourself? what do you base your firm belief on then if not scientific fact?

 

[barnz2k]

simply looking round for a start..

mostly I wanted to say that the first photo in beijing i remember well - of course pollution is a big part of it, but everyone there blames the Gobi Desert for the air! not just pollution.

 

[Pat]

see for yourself? what do you base your firm belief on then if not scientific fact?

Did not say I did not belive in scientfic fact. In fact, scientific fact is all we have. I mean't I don't need a third party to tell me the clearing of the bushland near my house has had a negative impact on the animal population. No more roos around here anymore, no more possums, galahs, trees! The rate of development on the Central Coast in the past 2 decades is crazy, much like everywhere else. Just one tiny example.

 

[Smurf1976]

That said, what are your views on the environment? Politics aside.
I don't need a politician or a scientist to tell me that things we do and have done will ruin the environment, I can see for myself.

My own personal view is simply that sustainability is the objective and that everything else is very much a secondary consideration.

From a sustainability perspective, forests and dams are a long way down the list of concerns since the efffects are, largely, ultimately reversible. Might take a few decades but the damage can be largely restored (a point that even some high profile environmentalists have come to acknowledge).

Top of the list are those things where we can NOT reverse the damage in a reasonable time frame. For example (listed in no particular order):

Agricultural land degradation.
Oil depletion.
Gas depletion.
Persistant chemical pollutants.
Species extinction.
Climate change.
Contamination of fresh water.
Acidification of the oceans.
Accumulation of anything hazardous requiring ongoing care that can not be safely destroyed.

And the total non-issue? Aesthetics. The great excuse for doing nothing about real problems such as the ones above.

 

[Pat]

Good words Smurf. I'd say deforestation is a main cause of extinction for animal species... loss of habitat. Not everything is reversable.

 

[Smurf1976]

I'd say deforestation is a main cause of extinction for animal species... loss of habitat. Not everything is reversable.

Agreed there.

I was thinking in terms of the very public debate about forestry. Given that there have been instances of previously logged forest being nominated (by environmentalists) as an area of high conservation value now that it has regenerated, the regeneration can't be that bad. Not perfect maybe, and I certainly don't claim that replacing a natural forest with a monoculture plantation is legitimate "regeneration", but it's possible to replant mixed species and put back something that, whilst different, doesn't really constitute the environment having been "wrecked".

Agreed about animals. The studies that I have seen found that firewood collection is a far bigger problem on a per tonne of wood taken basis than the contentious clearfelling for woodchips since firewood targets the dry, hollow logs thus maximising habitat loss. I don't recall the exact figure, but the impact on habitat loss was an order of magnitude difference per tonne of wood taken.

Overall, I'd put it this way. If a forest was logged in 1950 and then properly regenerated then what we have today is likely to be a reasonable forest. Perhaps not perfect, but it's a forest with mixed species, animals and so on. Done properly, we could keep taking some wood from that forest every so often and nothing drastic is likely to happen. A change in the environment certainly, but the underlying activity is reasonably sustainable if done properly (doing it properly being the key point).

Contrast that with an oil field put on production in 1950. With the exception of the very large fields such as Ghawar, Burgan etc (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait respectively) which actually do date back that far, odds are it's all but dried up now. The oil's gone, in practice, forever. And the carbon is in the air for longer than it's worth calculating. We can't undo the damage. And no matter how it's done the end result is the same - the oil's gone and the carbon's in the air. Extracting a non-renewable resource, or one that renews incredibly slowly, just isn't sustainable when done on an industrial scale no matter what technology is used and how carefully the operation is done. Sooner or later it's all gone.

Dams are much like forests in terms of ability to restore the landscape. Studies in Tasmania have found no real problem with restoration of even large (240km²) man-made water storage sites. That said, I'm absolutely opposed to actually doing such a restoration right now (as is essentially everyone involved with the issue) as I see the value of renewable hydro power as vastly exceeding any benefit in restoration at the present time. We need to do something about fossil fuel energy with a degree of urgency given the depletion, pollution and climate issues. In contrast, restoration of a water storage is likely to be no more difficult (that is, quite doable) in 20 or 100 years time than it is today. Sustainability versus conservation (or in this case restoration) of an untouched natural environment.

In contrast to water storages and forests, a future generation has absolutely no chance of getting back the oil and gas we're burning at such an incredible rate. And they've got close to zero chance of doing anything about the carbon we're putting in the air, the nuclear waste we're piling up or the persistent pollutants we've added to the land and oceans. Hence I'm not too worried about dams or a properly managed forestry operation with proper regeneration.

Note that there's a big difference between proper forest management as a long term source of wood (fairly uncommon) and simply clearing land or putting in plantations (all too common). Forestry's one area where I think we did a lot better environmentally 50 years ago than we do today. The trouble now is the pursuit of efficiency - a concept that doesn't fit well with the natural environment.

 

[Dukey]

plus - Barrier Reef = Toast !!! Almost too late.

Just saw something that made me sit up and take notice - Some scary sh!te this - an aspect of climate change I hadn't heard of before.

Like most, I have heard that coral reefs may be 'toast' due to global warming - I had understood it to be linked to rising ocean temperatures.

Now we have.... OCEAN ACIDIFICATION ... - recently identified by scientists and caused by atmospheric CO2 being absorbed by the ocean to form carbonic acid.

Watch this short clip from ABC Catalyst program (or Real Video).

According to the scientists studying this phenomenon ocean acidification is already affecting the shell density / strength of planktons - which are the all important base of the ocean food chains. The exact effects of this are yet to be mapped out - but rest assured it's not looking good people .

Add to that the fact that all corals are made from calcium carbonate - which is weakened by acid. Coral scientists are predicting that unless we reverse our CO2 emissions significantly and very quickly - before 2030 - corals will be unable to grow and will be starting to die out by 2050.

These guys think it could be the most devastating aspect of man-made climate change - potentially demolishing our ocean food resource; reefs; and fish right through the food chain....
......
... oh dear ....
...
...
better go turn off those - big plasma tv's (up to 350+watts!!).
- superfluous light bulbs
- air cons and heaters
- pool filter/chlorinators (can double your power bill!!)
- 2nd fridge
- stand-by appliances leaking power
- blah blah.

We'd better all buy some solar panels and ride our push-bikes to work tomorrow too...
and every day...
forever...

(sorry - somewhat depressed by this news... what have we done????)

 

[Pat]

Re: plus - Barrier Reef = Toast !!! Almost too late.

Now we have.... OCEAN ACIDIFICATION ... - recently identified by scientists and caused by atmospheric CO2 being absorbed by the ocean to form carbonic acid.

I think I noticed this on that Al Gore DVD. What an eye opener. Makes you wonder how many terrible, hidden secrets their's out there (dunno, one for the spelling and grammar thread...teach me!). But, nature will always win, we are but mere mortals... as my Dad would say

Anyone see that doco on Chernobyl and the way nature without human influence seems to thrive? Apparently, the life span of most, some???, animals does not give the effects of radiation time to make a difference. Also, the mutant animals that arose from the disaster, almost died out completely due to natural reasons, like not being able to reproduce (like attract a mate, live long enough to reproduce etc.) Interesting, hope it wasn't propaganda.

 

[Dukey]

Re: plus - Barrier Reef = Toast !!! Almost too late.

I think I noticed this on that Al Gore DVD. What an eye opener. Makes you wonder how many terrible, hidden secrets their's out there (dunno, one for the spelling and grammar thread...teach me!). But, nature will always win, we are but mere mortals... as my Dad would say

Anyone see that doco on Chernobyl and the way nature without human influence seems to thrive? Apparently, the life span of most, some???, animals does not give the effects of radiation time to make a difference. Also, the mutant animals that arose from the disaster, almost died out completely due to natural reasons, like not being able to reproduce (like attract a mate, live long enough to reproduce etc.) Interesting, hope it wasn't propaganda.

Yep - nature will indeed win in the end - but it will take a long long time - we're talking 'geological time' - to recover from our excesses of comfort and greed.
The guys in the clip I think said the ocean acidification would take many thousands or hundreds of thousands of years to fix itself. And if there is any coral left by then - it will take yonks (??geo-yonks!?!) to recover to a similar population as we have today.

Imagine - by the time many of us at ASF are ready to .... croak ... the oceans maybe toast - nothing much left for the kiddies to play in, enjoy or eat!!!!!!!!!!

Of course we might have humongous de-acidification plants all around the world - probably pumping more CO2 and heat into the atmosphere.

---------------
Interesting about natures quick fix around Chernobyl - I'd believe it. The power of natural systems to right themselves is phenomenal... so maybe 'mother nature' could find a quick fix for the oceans too - maybe the best solution would probably involve a 100% fatal, human specific disease like airborne ebola!!!!!!
------------------
... thats a stupid joke of course (just to avoid anyone taking offense) - but sometimes I wonder about our place here on Earth...