Simple steps you can take to save the world (and your money!)

[Bugman]

Of course if we all just stop living or revert back to pre industrial times and get a horse and give up electricity then the earth might last a few years longer.........

^ Kurch,if you want to understand what is really going on,please refer to the above.There are many who wish this would indeed come to pass.

 

[tickledgirl]

^ Kurch,if you want to understand what is really going on,please refer to the above.There are many who wish this would indeed come to pass.

Bugman, can we take it as read that there are crazed extremists out there, and move on? Yes, some people believe all forms of technology should be destroyed. And some people want us to use up all earth's resources as soon as possible before the Second Coming. But most of us are sane.

I'll grant that you aren't one of the latter, and not waste time pointing out how misguided such people are if you'll grant that I'm not one of the former, and stop pointing to them as grist for your arguments.

You don't have to be a crazed Luddite to believe that human-caused global warming is happening, and will be a very bad thing. If you disagree, do you have some better argument/evidence than "Some really crazy people disagree with me"?

 

[Bugman]

Bugman, can we take it as read that there are crazed extremists out there, and move on? Yes, some people believe all forms of technology should be destroyed. And some people want us to use up all earth's resources as soon as possible before the Second Coming. But most of us are sane.

I'll grant that you aren't one of the latter, and not waste time pointing out how misguided such people are if you'll grant that I'm not one of the former, and stop pointing to them as grist for your arguments.

You don't have to be a crazed Luddite to believe that human-caused global warming is happening, and will be a very bad thing. If you disagree, do you have some better argument/evidence than "Some really crazy people disagree with me"?

I will gladly grant your point,i only ask the same in return.I seldom recieve that courtsey though.It seems that i am looked upon as the crazy one,because i have doubts about the causes of climate change,which i do not deny are occuring.-

 

[Icycle]

Of course if we all just stop living or revert back to pre industrial times and get a horse and give up electricity then the earth might last a few years longer.........

I think it's rather unfair and inaccurate to try to characterize those of us advocating taking action to prevent global warming as seeking some kind of pre-industrial Luddite utopia. There are perhaps a few folks on the radical fringe who believe that, but most of us seek much more moderate changes, like the ones I suggested at the beginning of this thread.

It is entirely possible for us as a society to avoid the worst climate change scenarios and still maintain a very high standard of living. We can easily achieve energy savings of 10%-50% with almost no impact on our current lifestyles through improved efficiency (e.g. compact fluorescent blubs, hybrid-electric cars, well insulated homes, etc.). Additional savings can be realized through conservation (e.g. turning down the thermostat in winter and up in summer, taking alternative transportation instead of driving). Eventually, additional technology improvements may yield further savings (e.g. carbon fiber car bodies).

 

[tickledgirl]

I will gladly grant your point,i only ask the same in return.I seldom recieve that courtsey though.It seems that i am looked upon as the crazy one,because i have doubts about the causes of climate change,which i do not deny are occuring.-

Done! I'll happily grant that you're not insane. 🙂

But that brings me back to my question: I'm not belaboring you with the science that strongly indicates a link between human actions and climate change because I presume you're familiar with them, and because Kurch has done a decent job of that already. (If I'm wrong and you're not familiar with them, I can dig up some links, or just poke around wikipedia.)

Can you show me reputable science that indicates there is no such link?

 

[Bugman]

Done! I'll happily grant that you're not insane. 🙂

But that brings me back to my question: I'm not belaboring you with the science that strongly indicates a link between human actions and climate change because I presume you're familiar with them, and because Kurch has done a decent job of that already. (If I'm wrong and you're not familiar with them, I can dig up some links, or just poke around wikipedia.)

Can you show me reputable science that indicates there is no such link?

Let me make it clear where i stand on this issue.

I do believe that climate change is occuring, no rational person can deny that.

I do believe that human activity is a contrubiting factor.I do have doubts about how much of a factor it is.

I do believe in energy conservation,and finding alternate sources of energy.

I do believe international cooperation is needed to address this issue,i just want to see the intrests of America protected.

I do believe in science,i do not think it is infallible.

I do not believe those on the pro side of the issue are all extremist.Those people exist on both sides,and i disavow the views of both camps.

After a review of this thread,i can see how some of my comments could be taken as extremist and perhaps as personal attacks on the opinions of others.This was not my intent,and i apologize to any who may have been offended.

That having been said,i will continue to monitor this thread,but i am bowing out of the debate at least for now.I think we all have the same ultimate goal,we just differ on the means needed to obtain the desired results.

 

[kurchatovium]

For those that are interested there is a recent article in Scientific American on how plant decay effects global warming. Its Scientific American, Volume 296, Number 2, "Methane, Plants, and Climate Change", February 2007. The article does not by any means imply that human production of CO2 is not adversely effecting the enviroment. Rather it is stating that scientists are closer in understanding the complete carbon cycle of the Earth and thus close to more accurately predicting temperature variations.

 

[Icycle]

For those that are interested there is a recent article in Scientific American on how plant decay effects global warming. Its Scientific American, Volume 296, Number 2, "Methane, Plants, and Climate Change", February 2007. The article does not by any means imply that human production of CO2 is not adversely effecting the enviroment. Rather it is stating that scientists are closer in understanding the complete carbon cycle of the Earth and thus close to more accurately predicting temperature variations.

Thanks for the pointer Kurch! That was a very interesting article!

A brief summary for those who don't want to go out and get the latest issue of SA: Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, about 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. Scientists already knew how much methane enters the atmosphere from natural sources, but they could only approximate the amount that came from each natural source. Scientists recently discovered that living plants generate a significant amount of methane. This means they have to revise their models of how much methane comes from each natural source, since they previously didn't realize that living plants could generate methane.

This doesn't have very much impact on climate change, since we already knew how much methane was being put in the atmosphere, but it will allow scientists to fine tune their climate models to take into account such details as increasing forests being about 4% less effective in reducing global warming, since part of their carbon dioxide absortion is offset by a small amount of methane release.

 

[kurchatovium]

Thanks Icycle. I should also point out that the article says plants are still very crucial in decreasing Carbon Dioxide by turning it into Oxygen even though they do produce the powerful greenhouse gas methane to some extent. So I think if we all planted a few more plants and trees. That might be another useful way to help ease this problem.

 

[Icycle]

• Use energy-efficient light bulbs. Modern compact-fluorescent light bulbs consume a tiny fraction of the electricity of standard incandescent bulbs and last ten years or longer! They pay for themselves in energy savings in just one to three years.

A California legislator just introduced a bill that would outlaw traditional incandecent light bulbs. I would prefer to use market based incentives to get people to buy compact fluorescent bulbs, but if this bill passes we Californians might be transitioning to CF bulbs much faster than I could have hoped for. 🙂

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/16586529.htm

 

[lespieds]

With the fuel effeicient vehicles -
They use the term "fuel efficient" [and it's synonyms] quite loosely these days. Even for hummers, they are now saying this.

One struggle we do to keep the light bill down - keep on the kid to not leave every light in the house turned on.

Interesting fact about hybrids - given the extra cost of the vehicle, the saved gas will not start paying for itself until after about 150,000 miles.
This would be hybrid VS non-hybrid of the same vehicle. It is hardly worth it unless you find an excellent deal on one.

 

[Icycle]

With the fuel effeicient vehicles -
They use the term "fuel efficient" [and it's synonyms] quite loosely these days. Even for hummers, they are now saying this.

I'm not sure which "they" you are referring to, but you can certainly use "fuel efficient" in either a relative or absolute sense. A Hummer H3, which gets about 17 mpg, is certainly a lot more fuel efficient than a Hummer H2, which gets about 12 mpg. That's about 40% better fuel economy.

But both of these trucks are horribly inefficient when compared with a Toyota Prius at 55 mpg, or a European-only Volkswagen Lupo at 78 mpg.

The point is, when you are buying a new vehicle, if you make fuel efficiency a priority, you can usually find a model in the same class that gets 10%-40% better fuel economy, and if you are willing and able to purchase a smaller car, you can do even better.

One struggle we do to keep the light bill down - keep on the kid to not leave every light in the house turned on.

Thankfully I don't have to deal with that problem yet. Maybe you can try the technique that Arnold Schwartzeneggar uses with his kids. Whenever they leave a light on, he takes out that light bulb, and the kid has to do without. Apparently the learn pretty quick or end up in the dark!

And if you haven't don't so already, you should seriously consider replacing your old incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents, either all at once, or as your old lights burn out. You can save up to 75% of your electricity devoted to lighting, and as side benefit, you can cut down on your air conditioning bills as well, since incandescent light bulbs put out a lot of heat.

Interesting fact about hybrids - given the extra cost of the vehicle, the saved gas will not start paying for itself until after about 150,000 miles.
This would be hybrid VS non-hybrid of the same vehicle. It is hardly worth it unless you find an excellent deal on one.

Currently hybrids are among the most fuel efficient vehicles in any given class. But you are right that at today's gas prices, it would take a long time to make up for the price premium for hybrid technology. However, gas prices are likely to go up in the future, and hybrid technology will become more affordable as economies of scale bring the prices down. It's important to remember though, that you don't have to get a hybrid to have a fuel efficient vehicle. For example, the Volkswagen Lupo I mentioned above is a turbo diesel, and the other Volkswagen TDI models available in the US are also among the most fuel efficient in their classes.

 

[lespieds]

I do need to buy the flourescent bulbs. Right now I use the low watt ones. It does help, and really, we don't need a ton of light. I do not like brightness.

With the vehicle choice, one should consider first - how much they will drive, how many passengers, and what is the usualy climate.
No need to have some huge vehicle for the weather when it seldom snows.

For the amount of driving I do, my car does fine. I spend about $12 a week on a normal week and my car gets 30 mpg highway 19 city.

You would be suprised the excuses people have for buying some SUV that doesn't get mileage for shit. No one ever worries about gas price while buying some oversize vehicle. The novelty is more important at the moment.

 

[Icycle]

I think people would also do well to consider a vehicle that meets 95% of their needs, and then rent or borrow a vehicle in those exceptional cases where one needs extra passenger or cargo capacity or 4WD. You can save a lot of money by buying a small car for commuting, and then renting a mini-van or pick-up the few times per year you need one. And as an added benefit, you always have the right vehicle for the job.

I would also like to point out that despite advertising to the contrary it is not necessary to have a 4WD SUV to drive in snow or in the mountains. A car with chains or all-wheel drive will do just fine in all but the most extreme of conditions.

 

[drew70]

Thanks Icycle. I should also point out that the article says plants are still very crucial in decreasing Carbon Dioxide by turning it into Oxygen even though they do produce the powerful greenhouse gas methane to some extent. So I think if we all planted a few more plants and trees. That might be another useful way to help ease this problem.

I agree. My neighbor and I have enacted a conservation agreement for the trees on our lots. I'm happy to say they are protected.

Once question though. Somebody said methane is a greenhouse gas. Isn't methane also a by-product of human flatulence? Perhaps we could ward off Global Warming by regular doses of Bean-O.

 

[shadow365]

This is kind of an odd point to make. But in reference to the Solar Panels: Solar energy is stored in power cells. You only use a certain amount and then the sun comes up the next day. In many cases, power companies will buy that leftover power from you. Just an FYI.

As far as vehicles go, SUVs are one thing. But some people (I think Drew can back me up on this) based on their line of work or lifestyle need to own a larger truck. Try hauling a ceilings worth of sheet rock or a trailer with two or three horses in a Honda Hybrid.

 

[Icycle]

This is kind of an odd point to make. But in reference to the Solar Panels: Solar energy is stored in power cells. You only use a certain amount and then the sun comes up the next day. In many cases, power companies will buy that leftover power from you. Just an FYI.

To be accurate, photovoltaic solar cells don't actually store any energy. The energy they use must be used immediately. But you can hook your solar power system to the electrical grid, and when the sun is out your meter can actually run backwards if you aren't using much electricity at home. And as you mention, in some jurisdictions, the power companies will actually pay you for the excess power you generate!

As far as vehicles go, SUVs are one thing. But some people (I think Drew can back me up on this) based on their line of work or lifestyle need to own a larger truck. Try hauling a ceilings worth of sheet rock or a trailer with two or three horses in a Honda Hybrid.

I certainly agree that some people do have a legitimate need for a larger vehicle for their day-to-day personal and business needs. But the vast majority of people who drive pickup trucks and SUV could meet there regular needs just as well in a smaller, more fuel efficient car, and probably save money in the process. A station wagon or minivan usually has just as much or more cargo and passenger capacity as a typical SUV, with better fuel economy.

 

[Bugman]

^ I see more and more pickup trucks that rival the Abrams Tank in size and weight,most of the time with one or two people in them,and i do have to wonder why.It's obvious the great majority of these trucks are not used for any work related activities.

I'm not suggesting they be banned,its a free country afterall.It seems to be more of a status thing.A set of tires alone for something like that must be outrageous.I can think of better ways to spend that money myself......

 

[Icycle]

I'm not suggesting they be banned,its a free country afterall.It seems to be more of a status thing.A set of tires alone for something like that must be outrageous.I can think of better ways to spend that money myself......

I think you may have nailed it exactly. For a long time I tryed to understand why people would choose to buy an SUV that costs more, is less safe, and uses more gas than a smaller car that would meet their needs, and I came to the same conclusion. I think consciously or unconsciously, people percieve vehicles as a symbol of their owner's status. Changing those attitudes would be very difficult, as the automobile industry spends millions of dollars every year trying to strengthen the connection in peoples mind between status and automobiles.

 

[Bugman]

I think you may have nailed it exactly. For a long time I tryed to understand why people would choose to buy an SUV that costs more, is less safe, and uses more gas than a smaller car that would meet their needs, and I came to the same conclusion. I think consciously or unconsciously, people percieve vehicles as a symbol of their owner's status. Changing those attitudes would be very difficult, as the automobile industry spends millions of dollars every year trying to strengthen the connection in peoples mind between status and automobiles.

Thanks my friend.I also like your idea about market based incentives when it comes to the lower usage light bulbs,i plan to switch myself.And I love Arnolds method for getting the kids to turn off un-needed lights LOL.I wish my brother and his wife would try that,but my sister-in-law is one of the worst offenders when it comes to that.I have a key to their house,and have gone there when no one was home,and the place is lit up like a Christmas tree sigh.

 

[Redmage]

I'm not suggesting they be banned,its a free country afterall.It seems to be more of a status thing.A set of tires alone for something like that must be outrageous.I can think of better ways to spend that money myself......

Here's a fun SUV fact for you.

Heavy vehicles cause damage to roadways over time. For this reason most cities have ordinances that restrict big vehicles to areas where the pavement is designed to take that sort of traffic. Generally speaking vehicles over 6000 lbs are banned from driving on residential streets.

Guess how much most SUVs weigh?

These laws are almost NEVER enforced with respect to ordinary consumer vehicles. But the fact is that it's illegal to drive those huge cars in most of the places that they are driven. So if you want to take stand against those rolling wastes you might drop a note to your local government and point out the law to them. And get everyone you know to do the same.

 

[Bugman]

Here's a fun SUV fact for you.

Heavy vehicles cause damage to roadways over time. For this reason most cities have ordinances that restrict big vehicles to areas where the pavement is designed to take that sort of traffic. Generally speaking vehicles over 6000 lbs are banned from driving on residential streets.

Guess how much most SUVs weigh?

These laws are almost NEVER enforced with respect to ordinary consumer vehicles. But the fact is that it's illegal to drive those huge cars in most of the places that they are driven. So if you want to take stand against those rolling wastes you might drop a note to your local government and point out the law to them. And get everyone you know to do the same.

The chances of getting a law like that enforced are nil it seems to me.It might have changed,but at one time in Texas you were taxed on the weight of your vehicle,which is not the case here.

That seems like a better idea to me,since as you point out the heavier the vehical the more damage to the roads.

 

[tickledgirl]

The chances of getting a law like that enforced are nil it seems to me.It might have changed,but at one time in Texas you were taxed on the weight of your vehicle,which is not the case here.

That seems like a better idea to me,since as you point out the heavier the vehical the more damage to the roads.

This actually works in reverse right now. If you buy a really big (over 6000 pounds) SUV, it qualifies as a truck and is deductible as a business expense.

The original idea was to allow farmers and others for whom trucks really were necessary business expenses. But it's obviously gotten twisted in ways that were never intended.

So we actually subsidize Hummer and other giant SUVs. Just reversing that would seem like a no-brainer. Maybe with a Democratic congress it'll actually happen.

 

[Tickle Doctor]

Apparently a large number of people still have doubts about the effects of man-made “global warming” practices on the future of our planet and its inhabitants. The day before yesterday I saw former U.S. presidential candidate Al Gore’s remarkable film on the subject. I consider it to be a masterpiece of investigative journalism brought to the movie screen at a time when few issues deserve more attention from the human race.

I enjoyed the film on many levels and I highly recommend anyone who has not yet seen this important movie to do so at his or her first opportunity. It’s painful to think of how a man like Al Gore did not win the presidency when he ran for office against the ridiculous clown that has done everything in his power to make America, and the rest of the world, a more violent and dangerous place to live.

Fortunately, as this film points out, we still have the power and means to get back on a course, and even take the lead in moving our planet and its people towards a sustainable future. Unfortunately, as the film also points out, many people are still in denial about the gravity of the crisis we all face. Irreversible damage can occur not only in the next 100 or 50 years, but in as little as 10 years from now. We need to act now, and I urge everyone to see the film “An Inconvenient Truth”, and afterwards tell me that the message isn’t clear enough.

Thanks, Icycle, for calling attention to one of the most important challenges of our times - and of all times!

 

[Redmage]

The chances of getting a law like that enforced are nil it seems to me.

You're probably right, at the moment. The only way that'll change is if people ask that it change. Personally I think it's pretty offensive that a government would deliberately ignore its own laws and still enforce petty ordinances about something trivial like marijuana possession.

Once upon a time it hard to get anyone to enact a ban on smoking in public places. I think that if people become aware of the many ways these huge cars affect their wallets and their health, it might become easier. At the very least it might get lawmakers to remove the subsidies for SUVs and tax them appropriately - if only as an alternative to banning them from residential streets altogether.