Global Warming

[Scott_Fraser]

Hello friends. I saw an item on the news this week that truly shocked me.
There were these polar bears, and they were stranded on what was left of an ice berg. They were so far from land, that they faced almost certain death.
All this, I think is down to global warming. The Scientists that took part in this study, and there were hundreds of them who worked on this program said that in little over a 100 years many parts of our planet will be under water.
We are all to blame for this, from deforestisation in the Amazon, to polution on a massive scale by China and India, and I'm afraid to say the USA, with there gas guzzling cars and heavy industry. Former Vice President Al Gore is leading this campaign along with Sir Richard Branson, to try and make us see sense before its to late.
The Polar Ice Caps are melting at an alarming rate, some of our low lying countries like Holland, Bangladesh, small Island Nations will all be under water in a few years time.
Remember the movie, "The Day after Tomorrow". Well don't knock it. Can you imagine New York being under water, or London the same. Hurricanes that hit Florida and the Gulf States of the US will be 10 times worse than what they are now. You only have to look at those tornados that hit Florida last week, to know that things are changing, and changing fast. Here in Scotland, between November and New Years Eve, we were hit by continious storms, which we have never had on such a scale before.
Its only now that George Bush, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac and such have cottoned to the fact that we are in deep shit. But, is it to late. I hope for our sake that they have. Do we want our Great Grandchildren to have a world that is shrinking because of polution, where the summer temperatures are more like the Sahara. Last summer in Spain and France and in Southern England, people were dieing because it was to hot for them, especially the old.
Lets all try and do something, for all our sakes.
Scott

[Claire]

Hello Scott, have you seen the film "The Inconvenient Truth". An Al Gore documentary, its out in dvd now, in Blockbuster. Its got a fair few sad truths in it. Its certainly been in our headlines these last few weeks. The thing is its been happening for ages its just flavour of the month at the moment.

I'm trying to cycle more and leave the van at home. Cheaper and I'll be fitter too! Not sure I'm in time to save those polar bears though :dontknow:

[Scott_Fraser]

Hi Claire, yes I know, watching them brought a tear to my eyes. To see magnificent animals like that being given a death sentence should be a warning to us all. Yes cycle to work or walk, because we all know how reliable public transport is. I don't know how bad it is in Canada and the States, but if it is anything like it is here then i don't know what we can do. The Government keeps telling us to use public transport more, but if the public transport system fails us like it does, then god help us.
Cheers
Scott:hello:

[Claire]

yes, public transport is rubbish here. There's too much countryside! I've just found out the trains aren't running all the way to the coast tomorrow so I now need to cycle 9 miles to the nearest train station, get the train and then ride about 7 miles to my destination down south. I'm reasonably fit but its not exactly convenient for most is it! Oh yeah, and the forecast is rain!:rolleyes:

I think everyone is going to have to change their ways massively if anythings going to change. I really cant see this happening until the water is lapping at people's front doors!

[mac]

Good thread Scott,
I agree that Global Warming is a mega dilemma we as a world face.

I remember one officer (a great guy IMO) who was very devoted to Mormon scripture, ask me my opinion on why Hurricane Katrina came about because he felt like it was a sort of a wrath from God. I told him, "No, I think it boils down to Global Warming."

[anthony]

I believe if your going to discuss such topics, maybe a good thing would be to explain to everyone exactly what global warming is, because most people don't really know what it is, and often confuse it with the the ozone layer issues, which global warming itself has nothing to do with. So, here are some facts so people understand what it is, and that ignorance is no longer acceptable:
Carbon dioxide and other gases warm the surface of the planet naturally by trapping solar heat in the atmosphere. This is a good thing because it keeps our planet habitable. However, by burning fossil fuels such as coal, gas, and oil, and clearing forests we have dramatically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere and temperatures are rising. The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening, and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.

We’re already seeing changes. Glaciers are melting, plants and animals are being forced from their habitats, and the number of severe storms and droughts is increasing.
The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.
The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.
At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles.
If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences.
Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years—to 300,000 people a year.
Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.
Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense.
Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.
The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.
More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.Now, why does Al Gore himself push this so far at the USA? The reason why is because the USA is the worlds largest contributor by far of Co2 emissions, to be more precise, more than 1/3 of the worlds contributor actually too the problem. The USA does not have the largest population either, far far from it. China has near 1.3 billion people, the USA around 330 million, and China's Co2 emissions are much less than the USA's. This is why the USA as a country must take a stand, and the population and politicians who are merely being ignorant to the issue, must come to understand that these exact ignorant people will likely be dead very soon as a result of their ignorance. Just look at the quote above, the earth is retaliating against us all. If you haven't watched the documentary that Al Gore has done, "The Inconvenient Truth" then I suggest you get off your ignorant backside, go to your local video store, rent it, and watch it. Learn from it and take in what the problems are. A person who turns around and says afterwards, "Well, me changing nothing isn't going to affect much, so I will just keep being ignorant and doing what I'm doing" is not good enough. The US population seem to be doing exactly this, and instead if the US population got serious with this, many of the issue would cease as the largest contributor to the problem.

If you want my opinion, Al Gore merely confirmed and he even stated in that documentary actually, that it confirmed what all other countries already perceive of the USA as a country looking in at it, totally ignorant and disguisted with it. If the population doesn't change, each and every person putting in their bit, doing their bit, telling their friends and picking them up on ignorance, then it won't change and the catastrophe's in the US are only going to get worse. What are other countries going to do to help? Likely nothing, and leave the US to fend for itself because of ignorance.

It is common day practice in Australia, has been for a long time now, that people recycle just about everything, to keep down the damaging effects of what we do to our country and the earth as a whole. Many other countries are the same, and have been for a very long time now. Some countries just remain ignorant though, and so does their populous.

The KYOTO Treaty

There is one treaty, and representatives of the world met six times to discuss and negotiate terms of the Kyoto Protocol between 1997 and 2006. In 1997, the Kyoto Treaty asked all signatories to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 percent in 10 years. The objective was short-sighted. That objective only dealt with reducing current and future emission levels. It offered no solutions for the gases that are already in the atmosphere
and will continue to be a problem for the next century or so. There are six countries ratified within the treaty, most are signatories of the treaty, meaning they will comply with it. There are very few populated countries that are not signatories of this treaty, and would make little to no real impact on the problem as such.

United States

The treaty called for 55% global reduction of carbon dioxide, based on 1990 levels.
The United States is responsible for more than one-third (36%) of the entire world’s CO2 emissions – far more than any other country.
As one of the original signatories of the Kyoto treaty, the United States agreed to reduce emissions by 6% from its 1990 levels.
In 2001 President George W. Bush refused to ratify the treaty, citing these reasons:
The US economy could suffer an estimated $400 billion in losses as a result of emissions restrictions on industry and transportation, and the US could lose almost 5 million jobs.
Many developing nations that have extremely high emissions are not bound by the emissions limits set in the treaty.
Since pulling out of the treaty, U.S. emissions have increased 15% above 1990 levels—21% above our initial objective.
However, several recent events may foreshadow a change in the US position:
America’s unique political structure gives each of the 50 states the autonomy to legislate Kyoto-like reforms on their own. Environmental leaders in some states are already promoting legislation that supports the objectives of the Kyoto Treaty.
The California Air Resources Board has set tough emissions standards and is well known for its strict emissions regulations.
The Chicago Climate Exchange is a group of North American municipalities, companies and organizations that have agreed to reduce their emissions over the next several years.
Massachusetts, New York, and New Hampshire are creating emission reduction and trading systems.
The recent 2006 elections have placed many in office who are sympathetic to environmental and global warming issues. This may lead to revisions in the US position on Kyoto.European Union
The European Union (EU) became a strong proponent of the treaty and has insisted that every provision be enforced.
Many European countries were offended by the US rejection of the treaty. This may have motivated them to ratify the treaty in spite of its flaws and their own differences.
Although other nations have been willing to make necessary changes and, in some cases, forgive nations that failed to meet standards, the EU has opposed any such compromise.
The EU was initially hesitant about giving credits for maintaining forests which store carbon in what are termed “carbon sinks.”
Despite its strong statements of commitment to the ideals of the treaty, the EU greenhouse gas emissions are only 2.9% lower than 1990 levels.China
In 2004, just two years after ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, China backed up its commitment by announcing plans to generate 10% of its power from renewable sources by 2010.
There are still a number of concerns about China’s dedication to the ideals of the Kyoto Protocol.
China’s status as a developing country even though it has the world’s largest population and a rapidly expanding economy.
Developing country status exempts China from mandatory emission reduction objectives.
The exemption is a problem for China as it is the world’s largest coal producer. Its oil consumption has doubled in 20 years.
China does not show signs of complying with any requests for reductions in GHG emissions.
China is using a combination of CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) and CER (Certified Emissions Reductions) benefits to enlist foreign support for economic development projects, to promote its own contribution to global climate change, and to help reduce of acid rain. Russia
Russia’s support was a critical factor in the acceptance of Kyoto and the targeted 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
However, subsequent developments have raised questions about Russia’s motives.
Some suspect that Russia used its support of Kyoto as leverage to open the door to membership in the WTO.
Since Russia’s industrial output has dropped significantly since 1990, it now could gain billions of dollars through emissions trading.
Emissions trading allows Russia to sell its unused emissions to other signatory countries that emit more than the protocol allows.
Some feel that this practice defeats the purpose of setting GHG limits. Japan
Even though it is a leading member of the Kyoto Protocol, Japan was initially reluctant to ratify the treaty when the United States refused to sign.
Its ratification in June 2002 was important because:
Japan accounts for 8% of global GHG emissions.
Japan promised to reduce emissions by 6% of the published 1990 levels.
Unfortunately, by 2002 Japan’s GHG emissions had actually increased by 11% over its 1990 levels.
This setback has not deterred Japan from advocating clean air technology or from manufacturing cars with hybrid technology.India
India ratified the treaty in 2002 because its representatives recognized the impact that its population (1 billion) has on global warming.
Like China, India gained developing nation status and thus avoided reduction quotas.
India has only submitted one emissions report (in 1994). The data from that year showed a 50% increase in emissions.
India’s prime minister maintains that per-capita emission rates of developing countries are a fraction of those of developed nations.Additional Thoughts
The responses and actions of India and China demonstrate that developing nation status will need to be addressed in the future. Their actions also lend some credence to the US rationale for not signing the treaty.
No matter how dedicated the Kyoto supporters are, there is no quick-fix solution to climate change. Carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere will be there for several generations.
It will take a long-term, global effort and massive changes in energy usage to undo the damage.
The Kyoto Protocol is not the ultimate solution. It is a necessary first step in that process.Conclusion

All countries must be taking this seriously, otherwise none of our children are going to make it far in life, likely killed by what the earth throws back our way for abusing it in the first place. Will that be a bad thing to help balance the earth? Well, if your looking beyond your children, most likely not, because it would merely take out a lot of the worlds population and stop advancement in its tracks, thus allowing the earth to recuperate somewhat and balance its systems back out once again. Maybe, just maybe, after all these events occur, as they have already begun around the world killing thousands and hundreds of thousands at one time, the world might stop doing things and approach the future with more open mindness, not ignorance.

[jade]

When I met with my therapist on Thrusday we talked a little about the changes occurring. Our winter so far has been very mild. I have birds at my feeders that I have never had before. Dr. Cocghlin was telling me about a gentleman that makes predictions for the future. Surprisingly enough Dr. Cocghlin said that his predictions are right on the money. He told me tha man predicted that basically Vermont and Arizona will change climates. Vermont will go to above avg. temps. and no snow and Arizona will get our colder weather and our snow. The funny thing is when I was a child I used to wish that we(VT) would end up with Floridas weather. Guess I wasn't too far off. Its scary.

[cookie]

this is too big a topic for my mind, lol. we teach that the earth belongs to God, made for us, and it is our job to take care of it. a lot of us don't do our job. it is a sad thing.
cathy

[anthony]

I didn't for a long time, without question, but I certainly do now, and have done for around 5 years... every single person must do their part. Save water, use cars less, own more economical and environmentally friendly cars, use less power, etc etc...

[reallydown]

And force all our governements to take action...the way it's being handled here i sjust disgusting...

[mac]

These tactics will help some, but its going to boil down to everyone, to include the wealthiest in our countries, to make such sacrifices. I say FAT CHANCE on that happening though.

Whooo... the ambian is starting to kick in good:smile:

[anthony]

I really like that prize that Branson has put up... 32 million or something like that I believe, for the scientist that can remove a million tonne of Co2 from our atmosphere per year. If I where a scientist, I know what I would be doing at present.... Good to see him putting his money where is mouth is, and helping the world as a whole with his fortune.

[Scott_Fraser]

I don't understand why our American and Australian friends buy those big gas guzzling cars. Would it not be better to buy a car that does 50mpg rather than one that does 5mpg. Here in Europe and the UK, we buy cars like the Ford Focus and Golf, Polo and Fiats. These cars are economical to drive and cheap to insure as well. I saw an advert for the new Dodge Viper, 8.5 ltr engine, 8mpg, nice car but not practical. Some Americans are buying the new Mini Cooper, I think they have their heads screwed on right, at last.
Cheers
Scott:claps:

[anthony]

Yep, the V8's here are a topical issue, that is for sure. I got rid of my HSV about 5 years ago now, merely for the cost to run it. Glad I did now. Insurance is through the roof for anything over a 4 cyclinder, regardless of rating. I would say the majority of cars here are actually 6 cylinders, followed by 4 cylinders, then the last would be the 8 cylinder cars. Six's are definately the majority here though...

I think all v8's should be banned, apart from those who use them to race on a race track, otherwise, not in street registered cars... far too much damage to the environment. I believe the UK and Japan lead the way on the car solutions, especially with the hybrids now out and about. I believe the UK are big on the electric cars also, with points at major centres throughout the CBD to recharge even. Is that correct Scott? If so, bloody good idea... and whilst hybrids are taking off in Australia, electrics have done nothing because the cities simply refuse to do anything about providing recharge points readily accessible at present. I can see state governments having to pull their finger out of their backsides here very soon, because the pollution in Sydney is terrible... I cannot stand going to sydney... yuk. Melbourne is pretty good because the city runs mainly on trams, so all electric there. Brisbane is the best though, but its also much smaller than Sydney or Melbourne.

We have a lot to learn about fixing the car issue though IMHO... Its funny actually, in that finally the laws are changing here, in that I think its age 21 or 23.... that soon anyone under that age will not be aloud to drive a V8 car upon the road, six cylinder or less only. Good to help save some of the young kids dieing from stupidity. Way too much power in new 4 cylinders, let alone six and V8's...

[Scott_Fraser]

Yes we have a some electric cars and vans here, but they are very rare. And you have to charge them at your home. Diesel cars produce less imissions than petrol cars, and a lot of small cars have diesel engines.
Scott

[anthony]

Ah, that would be why diesels are becoming more and more prevalent here then... I would have thought diesel produced more issues for the environment, as it is the much dirtier fuel type than ULP.

[mac]

Hey guys, I know y'all are going to frown on me... but I have a 4-door pick up truck V8/320 hp, that can go about 400 miles on a 25 gallon tank of gas. I also have an 18 foot boat that can travel about 80 miles on 24 gallons of gas. The gas mileage in both these vehicles SUCK! The truck is also a pain in the @ss to park due to its size. As far as clean air goes, its a 2004 model, and it does have a bunch of sensors and catalytic converters that supposedly give it cleaner emissions.

I feel safer in this larger truck and have more peace-of-mind when toting the family. And I can see over most vehicles as well, so that sort of adds to the safety of it. I'll tell you though, if I hadn't been such an avid fisherman most of my life, I would have never bought a boat, which requires a truck to tow it. Hence, I would never have bought a truck. I'd rather operate a truck instead of a car in traffic, but would prefer to own a small car now instead of the truck... cause I don't ever go fishing anymore but a few times a year when my wife says we need fish, and because of its cost on our resources.

[anthony]

Its funny actually you raise that point mac, in that we have the issue here, and have done for some time, where 4x4's and the urban type troop carriers have become much higher in demand, ie. Ford Territory type vehicles, because of the same reasons you mentioned about feeling safer whilst driving in traffic. They splashed all over the place that they are more dangerous in essence, but when I read about the research, they are more dangerous, but not to the driver of them, to the person they hit. So I guess why people buy them is warranted by protecting yourself and your family. They annoy me, because you can't see past them and have clear view of what is going on... but that won't change anytime soon.

Nothing is going to change immediately with the way people do things, and the main reason for that is because of cost. For a person to go out, sell their car and buy a more environmentally friendly one, just isn't going to happen unless the car needs to be replaced, because people don't have endless amounts of money to change immediately.

I look at the issue here in Australia with water, and we are running out very fast because of little rain, where if every household changed their washing machine from top loaders to front loaders, much of the water issue would be solved, however; to do that a family would be out of pocket about $1000, if not more, as the top loader would obviously have no resale value and would only be scrapped for recycling. A top loader washing machine, depending on size obviously, uses 150 - 250 litres of water per wash, where a front loader uses 30 - 50 litres per wash, and is better on the clothes themselves, ie. gentler, which means clothes would actually last longer being washed in that type of machine. Is the Australia going to change that immediately? No. We have made our house water saving friendly, but it cost us a few thousand to do it, and many families just don't have that money to go and do those things, regardless how much they want to do their part, money is the restriction. Damned if we do, damned if we don't...

[Scott_Fraser]

Not exactly Anthony, diesels are now a lot more cleaner than what they used to be, they produce less polution that petrol cars.
There is a car here called the Peugot 206, it has a 1.5ltr diesel engine and it can do nearly 75mpg.
The City of Glasgow used to be filthy with the smell of car fumes, you could actually see the cloud of gas over the city it was that bad.
Now things have improved greatly and the people are enjoying the benefits of it.
Scott

[anthony]

Ah... that is good. Yer, I meant that diesel is the lower grade fuel, which it is, but obviously has a lot less side effects to the atmosphere, which is the main thing here. I see here now that most manufacturers offer diesel alternatives to many makes, Holden, VW, Peugot, Citroen, Ford (I think)... I mean the cars, not the work utility vehicles, which have always been present since my arrival on earth. Its good to learn these newer facts, and where things will go. I guess the problem is what Branson is trying to do, being help rid the already contaminated atmosphere, as the world is slowly becoming smarter and will correct the issue as it goes along, its just the damage that is already done is the problem.

I seen an ad on TV for a diesel car here, 1200kms per tank, a little one, don't remember the make, but impressive to say the least. I am going to buy a new car soon, maybe I might have to broaden my horizons and take a diesel for a test drive to see how they go.

[Scott_Fraser]

The new diesels that are now coming onto the market can give you a great turn of speed. For instance the Ford Fiesta diesel can get you up to 110mph.
The new Ford Transit van is now more economical and more fuel efficient, with less omissions that other vans of the same type. And the new trucks are the same.
Branson has bought the new double-decker Airbus for his airline, this plane produces 60% less omissions than a 747. Branson has bought an entire fleet of the new Airbuses to replace his 747 fleet. And I think that Boeing will soon follow suit.
Scott

[veiled]

Now there ya go, I do my part! LOL I am so agoraphobic I just have to start my van to make sure it keeps running. And y'all thought agoraphobia is bad. Not like anything in this town is not walking distance. You can do town and not be winded LOL.

[anthony]

Yer, I live behind a shopping centre here, and my fuel usage has gone from a tank a fortnight to a tank a month now. I use the car bugger all nowadays...

[veiled]

what is a car bugger? Like a shopping cart?

[anthony]

Car... automobile, vehicle... what do you call them in the US?

[veiled]

All the above, just never heard bugger put behind it though! Confused me a bit.

[anthony]

Oh, bugger meaning "stuff all" "little" "not much"... Australian slang again.

[Claire]

Scott, the picture you paint of the UK must be the 'up north' version. Down here more and more people are driving 'Chelsea tractors' (4x4s) the bigger the better it seems. The are tearing up the country lanes and destroying the countryside, the roads weren't built for such big cars. People again, buy them because they 'feel' safe when in fact the test results show they aren't, we are safer in a salon car and pedestrains, in particular children, are much more likely to survive if hit by a car compared to a 4x4.

Anthony, electric cars are much more common in London. I think its a honda that runs on both petrol and electrictity. They get benefits on car tax and also dont have to pay the congestion charge to get into the city centre.

There was a motorbike on tv last week that only emits hydrogen. Completely non polluting. Only problem is we still need fossel fuels to prduce hydrogen at the moment. A bit of a drawback.

[Scott_Fraser]

Hi Claire, we have the same problems up here with people and there 4x4s. We call them the Kelvinside (posh area of Glasgow) mob. They do the school run, with them.
Scott

[Claire]

:rofl: very funny! Yes, they do the school run with them here too. In fact they're carving up the grass just outside my house as we speak! Seems they dont have a reverse gear! either that or they are so keen to 'off road' they cant wait for the opportunity. Most 'off road' they usually get is up a kerb!:biggrin:

[Scott_Fraser]

Hi Claire, Why don't you go out and put a few tacks on the ground for them to reverse onto, LOL. But seriously these 4x4s are not suitable in urban areas or for the school run. They are practical if you live in the countryside and need to get about, especially when the weather is bad.
But the Belgravia mob and Chelsea Set are just showing off to each other as to who has the biggest 4x4. The people carriers like the Megane Scenic or Citroen Picasso, they are more practical for the school run.
But it would be even better for people to leave their cars behind and cycle to work, or if work is a distance away get the train, as many BR Stations now have bicycle storing facilities. Next time you go to Portsmouth, as they say in the Queen song, "Get on your bikes and ride".LOL:rofl:
It must be a quite scenic route down to Portsmouth, if you go via the backroads.
Scott:hello:

[veiled]

Just curious... How many drive and how many here bike every where and/or use electric cars? How many posting are "Earth friendly"?

Me, I am not Earth friendly as I drive a van (but I toted 4 kids too). But agoraphobic side of PTSD... I drove to Kansas for my move from Texas before Xmas and once 15 miles to another town in Kansas. Again not being environmental in any form, just being me. So y'all here on the forum? How are y'all? Oh and hubs does the deed of driving to work everyday... Dammit for no public transportation from the wheat fields LOL... I believe he would take it for the nap.

[Claire]

Yes, Scott it is, if you dont get flattened by a 4x4 on the way there! :rofl:

[Scott_Fraser]

Nice one Claire, yeah you've got a point there. But then again you could by a 4x4 wear green wellies and one of those wax-green jackets and say "Ooh Yah" old chap all the time, and turn into Hyacinth Bucket, (Keeping Up Appearances) and go for Afternoon Tea in Guildford, Oh Yah! Ladee Daa.
We've got the same up here. There called the Alisdairs and Fionas, the Alisdairs always like to spell their name to you, and the Fiona's carry their smalls in their handbags. LOL.:rofl:
But yes cycling is good for you, although your arse is rather sore after it, but it is great exercise as well.
Scott:thumbs-up

[anthony]

Maybe a good poll for you to create veiled?

[Terry]

I've got a 1971 VW Bugger. Gas not diesel !!!! and a 6 cylinder Jeep 4X4. Gas not diesel !!!!

[becvan]

86 Chevy wrangler.. and damn proud of it!

bec

[becvan]

well, aside from the smart ass...

I was just watching "an inconveinent truth" with/by Al Gore..

it's funny how watching this stuff just depresses me.. completely..

it makes me realize that I have zero faith in people, or humanity as a whole..

Will they do the right thing? do what needs to be done to save our earth and oursleves?

i don't believe so.. I think that the all might dollar will win and keep winning..

I recycle.. I would use solar power if I could.. I watch what water I use.. etc.. I do what I can..

when it comes down to it though.. we are all dead anyways in my mind..

I'm not sure if I've ever had belief or hope in humanity.. I know I don't have one drop of it now.

This is why I don't watch this stuff.. what the hell is the point?

bec

I wanted to add.. that all tv.. news, shows, articles etc.. does this too me.. I see society as a whole, what's happening and what is not.. and this is how I feel, I watch people in shops, in restaurants.. everywhere.. and this is what I see.. a complete degradation of humanity.. and it's not getting better..

and people wonder why I want to stay in my house? add this on top of everything else.. and I just don't want to be human anymore

[Terry]

Bec, join in my fantasy. 3/4 of the world's population suddenly dies off for some strange reason but leaves the rest unharmed and healthy. We start all over. After a few years fossil fuels are exhausted, we begin to use technology from 100 or so years ago such as farm impliments, horses for everything, hunt (except for the UK, royals don't allow it), fish. Work hard all day, no time for BS, fights, worrying about BS. At night read a book, sit down and discuss how tired you are from working and how you will sleep like a rock. Add your own parts. Perfect world ? Probably not but damn close. If anybody writes a book or makes a movie using this I'll sue your butt.

[Scott_Fraser]

Yes I'm very eco friendly. I walk mostly as I can't drive due to all of the medication that I'm on. And I rely on public transport to get me around. I also recycle my newspapers and glass, a council collection vehicle or bin lorry as we call it, comes every 2 weeks and takes away our used newspapers and empty bottles to be recycled.
Scott

[becvan]

Terry:

I often have fantasies of living in some remote cabin somewhere, living off the land and going back about 100 years... close to the same thing.. only problem with 3/4 of the population dying.. I don't want to see that! LOL..

If I had the money or resources, whichever, I would have dropped out of society a LONG time ago... I would love to go back to a simple life...

bec

[mac]

Veiled, I hope you didn't move to an area of Kansas that gets hit by tornado's.:frown:

Bec, I have felt the same way at times... I don't know if it would help though.:think:

[veiled]

LOL, Mac I don't think there is an area in Tornado Alley that doesn't get hit. Funny you should say that... I have noticed how generally still the air here is but it woke me up last night blowing and did a complete freak out trying to tell myself it is just the wind... Quit being such a paranoid idiot. Not working still shaking like a leaf today!

Bec, that was what I was working towards... Had a complete breakdown instead!

[becvan]

LOL sure sure guys.. kill my nice little fantasy!

Spoil sports.. :biggrin:

bec

[Nam]

I have a dream of being completely self sufficient. Grow my own food, have some sort of energy source. Life seems so simple... With all that aside though, I think the root of that is so that I could live without the pressures of society.

The recycling program here is almost non existent. No one comes to pick up anything from our house but trash (costs money!). Instead, we take our recyclables to the transfer station. It's hard to get people motivated to recycle when finding time to take the recyclables to the station is hard when it's only open during business hours. I do wish it was different.

My biggest contribution to the environment has been going to cloth diapers. One child, from birth to the time they are potty trained can accumulate between 1-2 tons of diaper waste. That's a lot of poo! It's cheaper, and enjoyable to make cloth diapers! I hope in the future (very near), fuel cell cars will be available and scientists will find a better, efficient way to use the energy from the sun and wind. The biggest goal for all of us in developed countries is to use less consumables.

[waynes]

We drive a Toyoda corrola 38MPG. and a dodge van for family trips, 20MPG. I have a 4x ford monster mudder truck that only comes out when the weather requires it or I need to haul something. 8MPG. Needless to say we seldom use it. Being a energy systems tech, missing work due to weather is not an option.
We burn wood for heat which has no down side. My five acres is self replinishing, wood is a closed loop process, not using any fossil fuel. It is also great exercise. We recycle alumin, and steel. I use chickens to keep the bugs down in the yard and that way don't have to put down any nasty chemicals. All of this is painless and will save money, but will cause some work to be needed. This old redneck aint never been afraid of hard work. I'm in the process of preparing a huge garden spot so I won't have to rely so much on the store. I am a tightwad at heart and don't like having someone do for me when I can do for myself.
Personally, I think we all need to go to Nuclear power, at least until we can perfect solar or ground source heat extraction. That is a matter of opinion.
We may use too much energy in our life style on a whole but there is alot that individuals can do to lessen that impact if they just will.
All can get down on the US if you want...We are energy hogs. We also have, created alot of great innovations that have made the world a better place, are one of the most giving nations in the world and made a majority of the medical breakthroughs in the last 100 years. We aint all bad, y'all. But, man we do use up some energy!!! If we could just get the big money clowns to get off the fossil fuels! Start developing other sources. Its not how much energy you use, it's about what it does to the environment. The problem is, can we recant the price? With fossil fuels ? NO. Nuclear? If we can keep the ginny in the bottle? You bet!! The tecnoledgy exists to do just that.
Scripture says "And man was given dominion over the earth. But wo to the he that doth spoil." ...... Boy was I up on my soap box. LOL.. I'm off now...

Wayne

[waynes]

I hate it when I do this... The quote at the last of my last post is not scriptural. It is a quote from something obscure I have read in the past.

Sorry...
Wayne

[anthony]

The nuclear discussion is certainly one going on here in Australia, but the problem is that its not so much the political level that is stopping it, its the society level. I just struggle with that one. John Howard endorses nuclear power, and wants to begin moving over to it progressively, looking for idealistic locations in which to place nuclear reactors where if something went wrong, the damage would be minimal to people themselves, and merely damage the environment if fallout occured. Lets be honest though, nuclear power is safer than coal fired stations, less expensive and much more environmentally friendly.

So where does the problem lay then? Well, as I see it, I believe its within the labour unions who cannot focus on the bigger picture of humanity as a whole, instead they are focused on the coal industry, how many jobs will be lost, etc etc. Lets look at things differently then! If coal no longer need be mined, then miners could switch over to mining plutonium instead, where ever that be within the world, but I believe people need to become more open to change, diversity and the bigger picture of what will be left in the world in a 100 years if we don't take these actions now. No doubt the industry owners are creating the most objection, because all they can think about is their bottom line profit and accustomed lifestyle, but couldn't care less about the world as a whole, just that they have their top of the range mercedes parked in the driveway, they have their over-sized mansion which they never use and so forth.

Political arena's must stop looking at the rich simply getting richer, yet the rich will not exist in 100 years, along with most other people, if we do not take action now to save what little could be off our future generations.

My opinion... we definately need to be looking more at the bigger picture, and the world moving to either nuclear power or more money goes into hydro systems, so cleaner energy is coming out. Lets face facts, power is an essential today, and without it we would have all sorts of medical health issues caused by food and hygiene.

[mac]

I found this site somewhat interesting...

http://ww-iii.netfirms.com/

[anthony]

I find this quite disturbingly accurate from that reference mac:
Broadly speaking, the various prophecies indicate that the Third World War will be preceded by an unprecedented increase in large-scale natural calamities all over the world like big earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, famines etc. Localized wars, revolutions, political disturbances and large scale terrorist attacks will increase. Assassinations of high profile leaders will take place and tensions between various countries will rise. The economies of various countries will be severely affected, leading to unemployment or inflation. The actual war would be of a short duration but is said to be several times more destructive in terms of the cost of human lives and property than all the previous world wars taken together.

To summarize what I have analyzed in this site, based on various prophecies, the Third World War would start when Russia suddenly attacks Europe in coalition with certain Middle Eastern countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya and probably China. Prior to the World War III, USA would be severely crippled by terrorist attacks, assassinations, a civil war and an economic collapse.

[anthony]

If one was to look in-depth at that, nuclear bombs to China, Russia, Japan and a couple of US cities, would cause more losses than certainly any prior war. One nuke in China would cause more loses than any previous war, New York city even would do it.