Energy saving

JohnD · 18 Feb 2013

Whitespirit66 said:
However, they're the experts, so we must believe them. Even though some backtracked recently and said that climate change had been overstated.

That's a bit woolly.

Are you complaining that research is continuing, refining the numbers, and arguments continue over the rate of change?

Obviously that doesn't alter the fact that no serious climatologist or research institute can find evidence to support the climate-change deniers.

RonnyRaygun · 19 Feb 2013

JBR said:
What I am worried about, however, is that we are going to over-populate the Earth pretty soon. That also, could easily be prevented with sufficient political will.

I think we did that a long time ago. Political will, education, and less religious dogma would at least stand a chance of reducing population growth, but that's not going to reduce the human population to manageable levels.

AronSearle · 19 Feb 2013

RonnyRaygun said:
I think it's pretty clear the effect the human race is having on the climate.

Really?

We are so far talking of 1 degree of warming over a +140 year period, and it is proven beyond a doubt that at least some of the measuring stations have not accounted for urban heat island effects or other temperature causing anomalies like the ones planted next to airports (this is because the weather stations existed first). There is also evidence to suggest we had a mini cooling period 1400-1800, so you would expect temperatures to rise after that?

Global cyclone activity is actually at an historic low http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg.

There are reasons why sceptics argue a lot of this stuff is junk science or bad reporting, now I buy the theory to some degree, but I like to keep an open mind and don't see that it's a cut and dry argument.

wobs · 19 Feb 2013

Population growth isn't really a problem. The one thing that usually makes a difference is urbanisation. When you get that, you tend to get more birth control/ education anyway. World average fertility rate is 2.47. While there are countries with high birth rate, there are also many that are below replacement levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate

Energy efficiency is often a self defeating excercise owing to Jevons Paradox. The more effeicient we become as a society, the more we consume. And much of that conumption of course comes from China.

One of the best ways to consume less is to watch less adverts. About 50% of adverts are effective, resulting in us buying C*** we don't really need. We all like to think we aren't effected by adverts, but advertisers aren't stupid, and they have a way of making them pay. There is a good youtube vid on this, but I can never find it.

Turn off the TV, read a book, go for a walk in some woods, or something, but don't waste you money on rubbish.

But this is another paradox. Countries with some of the lowest birthrates also consume the most. Eg. Hong Kong is a consumerist paradise, with one of the lowest birthrates in the world.

RonnyRaygun · 19 Feb 2013

Of course, fertility rate doesn't really tell the whole story, as nations with the higher fertility rates also tend to have much higher infant mortality, due to lack of medicine, food, and clean water.
But, life expectancy is increasing fast in Africa, which is accounting for a high proportion of their population growth, along with better access to medicine and clean water reducing infant mortality rate.

I've no doubt the planet could sustain a doubling of the human population, at least, but it will be at the expense of many more animal and floral species.

RonnyRaygun · 19 Feb 2013

AronSearle said:
RonnyRaygun said:

I think it's pretty clear the effect the human race is having on the climate.

Click to expand...

Really?

My point was that there is room for debate regarding our role in global warming, even if we accept that it is happening.

However, there can be no doubt that our actions (regardless of CO2 emissions) are leading to mass extinctions not seen since the days of the dinosaurs.

tony1851 · 19 Feb 2013

RonnyRaygun said:
it will be at the expense of many more animal and floral species.

Would that really be so bad? It's in the nature of things that species come and go.

RonnyRaygun · 19 Feb 2013

tony1851 said:
RonnyRaygun said:

it will be at the expense of many more animal and floral species.

Click to expand...

Would that really be so bad? It's in the nature of things that species come and go.

Doesn't appeal to me to be living in a world where many species survive only in zoos.

It is survival of the fittest though and at the moment the human species is much "fitter" than any other large species.

No other species has ever been done so much damage to the planet, but no species has ever had the intelligence to try to reverse that damage either.

tony1851 · 19 Feb 2013

RonnyRaygun said:
No other species has ever been done so much damage to the planet,

But how would you define 'damage to the planet'?

tony1851 · 19 Feb 2013

RonnyRaygun said:
Doesn't appeal to me to be living in a world where many species survive only in zoos.

See one elephant and you've seen them all.

Mikefromlondon · 19 Feb 2013

Well actually, to hell with saving our planet, because of global warming, or whatever else man made cause, the fact remains we recently had a narrow escape of that space rock passing us merely by about 17,000miles away, so it is going to be such like things that will kill all life on this earth, not global warming, or Chinese opening 50 million power stations a year,

I wished we invited Chinese to set up 10 Billion new power stations in Britain at two pence a piece so that we can all begin to enjoy new energy at a cost of less than a penny a kilowatt!

I am far too sick and tired of having to pay arm and leg for my energy costs, to heat and live in winter days.

Solar power and energy saving bulbs thus make enormous sense as they reduce the power consumption which we are all being taken for a ride, the ever so escalating cost of petrol, diesel, electricity, and gas.

So bring on new technology, at whatever cost, as long as I can buy the energy saving bulbs at less than 10p per bulb, which I did as some retailer was selling them at 10p a piece, so i bought 100s, and they are pretty good and you will soon realise how good they are, they obviously start a bit slow, but sooner or later their light output matches that of incandescent bulbs give or take 4 to 5 minutes.

RonnyRaygun · 19 Feb 2013

tony1851 said:
RonnyRaygun said:

No other species has ever been done so much damage to the planet,

Click to expand...

But how would you define 'damage to the planet'?

Well that's the semantics of the argument isn't it?

If one believes that what we're doing is not "natural" then global warming and extinctions are definitely damage.

If on the other hand, one believes that we are part of nature and, therefore, everything must still be in its natural state, then there is no damage, just natural progression or regression, as has happened since the first slime came into being.

Whichever it is, I don't want to leave a legacy of a parched, barren planet.

Mikefromlondon · 19 Feb 2013

I am pretty sure if we did try to upset the balance of the planet in any way, the correction would be applied by nature and the earth would return to its norm, weather that means the men will certainly die and stop using fuel for thousands of years to come then the planet would return to its norm and life would start all over again, self correcting course naturally!

we all know what happens when you take things to extreme, the same principle applies to nature,

tony1851 · 19 Feb 2013

RonnyRaygun";p="2682396 said:
tony1851 said:

RonnyRaygun said:

No other species has ever been done so much damage to the planet,

Click to expand...

If one believes that what we're doing is not "natural" then global warming and extinctions are definitely damage.

Whichever it is, I don't want to leave a legacy of a parched, barren planet.

Click to expand...

With that argument, you could say that anything other than growing our own food, making our own clothes and building our own shelters is not 'natural'. Do we really want to live like that?

As regards the possibility of the parched and barren planet, why bother about the future? Why should we put ourselves out for future generations, when we don't even know what their priorities would be?

RonnyRaygun · 19 Feb 2013

We'll have to agree to disagree Tony.

I think the human race currently has a very selfish view of things, and there is so much we could do to help other species without significant detriment to our own lifestyles.

Problem is sustainability doesn't sit well with economic growth.

Energy saving

Similar threads