Community Newsletter: Q&A: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics
- 1/30/08 12:54 AM
That's not what rbsjrx said.
by Greg Morgan - 1/25/08 8:56 PM In reply to: 30 Meters! Are You Kidding? by alfordwHe said the WORLD, not the people in it, could, and has survived such changes as plus and minus 40 meter sea level changes. In fact, it has survived +/- 20°F or more temperature changes, but it looked far different from the world humans know and live in. Nature will survive the damage that humans do to the world. The overarching question is whether humankind can survive those changes? What does it gain anyone to survey the data and the predictions and chose the most friendly of the conclusions if the most unfriendly predict the end of civilization? In my opinion, the science behind the global climate change hypothesis is very strong. That the predictions it makes are imprecise does not negate the science, but calls for greater study. If the current worst case scenerios are found to be unfounded, then we are now being over cautious for the benefit of future generations. If they are found to be accurate and we do nothing until the proof is destroying us, then we are guilty of the murder of a species: ours!
Here we go again about the enviroment!
by Gonzo0967 - 1/26/08 5:11 AM In reply to: 30 Meters! Are You Kidding? by alfordwHello Rebecca,
Your concern about the enviroment is an honest one that I'm sure that everyone, whether the admit it or not, have some concerns about. To actually answer your question, it is up to the individual to restrain themselves from wasting energy. Not the manufacturers. The companies are designing systems to meet the needs of the consumers. If the consumer asks for more, the company will give more, yet since the U.S. is a free country, I'm sure no one wants the government to control what they do in their own homes. If so, why then even call it the land of the free? The fact of the matter is that everyone has to be responsible for their own actions and make the changes they feel to do to try to preserve the planet. With the understanding that, no matter what you do, global warming will still happen causing humanity to finally become extinct. That is the nature of things. It is funny, just last night, I was watching a show in the History channel about global warming. It has been discovered that the planet is dispursing methane gases on its own anyway. And this is happening naturally, without our help. The gases are impacting global warming tremendously and we can't stop that. My opinion is that the planet is trying to heal itself naturally as it has for millions of years.
Look at it this way, we don't own the planet, we are just renting it. Eventually the landlord will need to clean house and we will get evicted. Will it happen tomorrow or next year of 10 years from now? No! The point is that no one really knows when its going to happen and all we can do is try to enjoy what we have for the time that we have it as best as we can. Of course, by always being responsible and smart about it. There is no need to rush our eviction. Think about it this way, do we really need a 42" plasma tv? Do we really need a V8 SUV? These are the things that ppl are getting just to show off to their freinds and neigbors that they own and their freinds don't. That, is what I call inresponsible. Yet, again, don't put blame on the companies. Simply look in a mirrow and ask yourself, "Do I really need one that big, or do I want one that big? I'm I willing to rush my eviction, or do I need to hold up a bit so my childrens' childrens can alteast enjoy something before its all gone?"
Well, thats my 2 cents worth.
Just try some common sense conservation
by Filmmaker - 1/26/08 5:36 AM In reply to: Here we go again about the enviroment! by Gonzo0967One terrific program, now showing on the History Channel, is "Life After People". It's a fantastic reality check on just how irrelevant we are to this planet, and it's backed up with solid, reproduceable FACTS throughout. In other words, SCIENCE.
I'm always amazed how many people buy into the Envirofundamentalist wacko religion on blind faith, using "science by consensus" (popular vote by scientific theory vs. real, scientific method) and dismissing people who question their religion and provide scientific facts to dispute their claims as "deniers" (heretics).
It's easy to see how the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, and other mass hysterias driven by a religious ferver really COULD quickly brainwash masses of people.
Conservation is excellent, and we should all do our best to conserve energy... but strictly from a financial and energy-independence standpoint.
The planet has endured billions of years of "climate chaos" before we as a species even showed up to the party. Ocean-borne bacteria have been regulating the atmosphere since the earth's beginnings. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but humans have in irrelevant influence on the climate. We only WISH we could affect climate.
This whole global chaos movement is just yet another way that the baby boomer generation needs to feel self-important. They aren't called the "ME" generation for nothing.
Think of it as Evolution in Action
by Zarathustra1 - 1/26/08 2:01 PM In reply to: Just try some common sense conservation by FilmmakerMuch of what you say has credence, but then you ruin it by verbo-bashing your pet hate groups.
Yes, the climate has gone through many stages of change to get to its present permutation, most of them driven by a change in the gasceous composition of the atmosphere, caused by some event: the impact of a meteor or a massive volcanic event for example. The uncontroled proliferation of the human species is just the latest triggering event.
In nature, when a species multiplies beyond the ability of its ecosystem to support it, a natural mechanism kicks in to re-establish the equilibrium. This is commonly refered to as starvation and death. As you point out, most religions enforce the belief that humanity is somehow not a species and therefore this mechanism does not apply. Sorry but it does.
For four hundred years the carbon footprint of humanity has increased in size and effect at a continuously accelerated rate largely caused by technology. Even several decades of austere energy conservation could not reverse this. Technology created the problem and technology must reverse it.
You speak of the invisible hand of the market where the profit motive will create this new technology out of thin air, with new energy sources created that leave only a ripple in the great scheme of things and our profligate appetite for energy can continue to expand. I see little evidence of the necessary investment to develop this technology, and yet vast profits are awaiting. Whole new industries need to be developed.
All I can see at the moment is a lot of fithy rich fat cats sitting around, marveling at their riches, and lighting a fire to burn some more fossil fuel.
Once upon a time The USA was called "the land of opportunity". Now it really does look more like "the land of lost opportunity".
filmaker, get an education
by solarcircle - 2/3/08 4:14 PM In reply to: Just try some common sense conservation by FilmmakerYou say that mankind doesn't influence the environment. What foolishness. You have to ignore all the science and resort to some sort of flat-earth thinking to believe that. Global warming has been shown conclusively to have risen along with greenhouse gas production to levels MUCH GREATER than those known to have existed over the last 100,000 years. Get educated.
gonzo0967
by bradykp - 1/31/08 9:44 AM In reply to: Here we go again about the enviroment! by Gonzo0967you make some good points, that individuals need to take responsibility, but i disagree that it's not on the companies. companies have the knowledge and power to do something about it, and they should. why should consumers need to demand more efficient technology for companies to offer it? i understand if the cost outweighs the benefit, the company won't be driven to do it for nothing, but sometimes, companies need to use their advancements for less energy and not more power. we could possibly do things to make humans last on this planet. maybe we can't, but you don't know that for certain, so we should be trying.
Not kidding
by wbowblis - 2/4/08 6:46 AM In reply to: 30 Meters! Are You Kidding? by alfordwMuch of the Antarctic ice sheet is above sea level and I've read that it contains enough water to raise sea levels 100 feet. I've also read that it may be unstable enough that given the right conditions, it could slide into the ocean. Just what those conditions are, no one can say, but simulations indicate that it is possible. If this happened, not only would sea levels rise that much in a few days, but it would produce a tsunami of biblical proportions. My sources are scientific journals (Scientific American, for example), not a tabloid or the like. It doesn't mean that this will ever happen, but it is possible. We are conducting an uncontrolled experiment on our planet and have no way to know the outcome for certain. Simulations are based on the best knowledge that we have, and may show results that nature never will, but they may also fail to show results that would spell the end of civilization. It simply isn't wise to take the chance, and cutting our pollution has payoffs that are totally unrelated to climate change. Just take oil, for an example. We may find practical energy substitutes, but can we find economical chemical feedstocks that can replace the oil-based materials that you are probably sitting on and wearing, among other uses. Nature will survive anything we do. We can probably survive a catastrophe of the magnitude that wiped out the dinosaurs, but civilization can't. Maybe nothing bad will happen even if we go on with our present course, but I'd suggest that it might be wise to learn to swim and learn some skills like hunting and making stone tools. We just might need them.
thick heads....
by jer1041 - 2/4/08 7:04 AM In reply to: Not kidding by wbowblisSo....I guess man-made global warming did wipe out the dinosaurs. Must have been the SUV's the cavemen were driving aroud in. Wake up!!!! it was really the aliens that did this......
Aliens?
by wbowblis - 2/4/08 8:01 AM In reply to: thick heads.... by jer1041A meteor and it's after effects wiped out the dinosaurs. The aliens, then as now, just hang back and get a good laugh.
reply to Nature may not be frasgile, but human society is
by deltoncbaker - 1/25/08 10:24 PM In reply to: Nature may not be frasgile, but human society is by rbsjrxI was watching TV the other day about how they want to put Kites on the ships that bring to crud oil to the US. They say it will provide 50% of the energy needed for a typical voyage. They also said the the number one polluter on the globe of green house gases was those very same ships. I just find that very ironic.
Perhaps we should quit worrying about the small stuff and concentrate alternative sources of energy so we can stop those ships all together.
Alternative energy sources not a viable alternative!
by mbm30075 - 1/27/08 7:37 AM In reply to: reply to Nature may not be frasgile, but human society is by deltoncbakerTo all of those (like the previous poster) who really, REALLY want the US to get on the "alternative" energy bandwagon, consider this:
The US has been subsidizing alternative energies for about 30 years now. Currently, we taxpayers spend billions of dollars a year to continue trying to make these technologies viable. Anyone know how much these sources (i.e. solar and wind) contributed to our total energy consumption in 2007?
Anyone?
Anyone?
0.3%.
Wow. That's a ton! We only have to increase production THREE HUNDRED TIMES OVER!
Meanwhile, all of humanity is contributing how much of the overall greenhouse gas emissions?
Anyone?
3%.
Wow, that means that the earth is, ON ITS OWN, producing 97% of the GHG emissions world-wide.
Not the numbers you would expect after hearing Al Bore and the global warming hysteria crowd, is it?
Look, we need to take care of the planet. That's why we should spend our time and money eliminating REAL pollutants (and, no, CO2 is NOT a pollutant, unless you think forests, plants and volcanic eruptions, not to mention the oceans are HUGE polluters).
Let's get rid of acid rain and heavy metals in our water supply. Let's stop strip mining and keep as much of the earth as completely natural as possible, but don't try to cripple innovation and the economy by demonizing energy usage.
The BLESSING of having energy to use provides us with the creature commforts that make the industrialized world the best place to live. It's why we can telecommute, perform complex surgeries, have refrigeration, etc...
Let's remind ourselves of the real problem and not try to fix a "straw man" of a problem.
mbm, get the facts
by solarcircle - 2/3/08 4:35 PM In reply to: Alternative energy sources not a viable alternative! by mbm30075You say that alternative energy production can't do much. Here's a fact from Wikipedia:
"Wind power in Denmark provided 18.5 % of the nation's electricity in 2005"
Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark
Denmark is producing much more than that now and that's only one of it's sources of green energy. Did you know that a Greenpeace study showed that we can produce all the power we are forcasted to need by the year 2050 from green sources with technologies we have right now? Where is the leadership from government? Why don't we have electric cars, tidal power, wind and solar power on a massive scale and hydrogen fuel being produced from those sources? The source of the problem is greed and stupidity which in the end will destroy us if we don't get educated and demand change - now.
curious
by wbowblis - 2/4/08 8:12 AM In reply to: Alternative energy sources not a viable alternative! by mbm30075I'm curious as to the source of your figures. I don't know what the U.S. energy contribution for wind and solar, but 0.3% could be correct. Nuclear generates many times that, as does hydroelectric. The 3% total also sounds low, but even if it is accurate, that's 3% that wasn't there a century ago and couldn't take into account the recent rises in countries like China. It has to go somewhere. Maybe those vast forests in much of the world will expand and absorb it. Oops... we've been burning them and paving them over. If we cut our emissions to prehistoric levels, CO2 would still rise because we've reduced the areas that consume it.
Thank you, rbsjrx
by btljooz - 1/26/08 11:56 AM In reply to: Nature may not be frasgile, but human society is by rbsjrxfor putting things into such succint perspective!
Get the facts not the rhetoric
by eler.james - 1/28/08 4:11 AM In reply to: Nature may not be frasgile, but human society is by rbsjrxAt the present rate it will take more than 1000 years for ocean levels to rise more than a foot and you are aware that this rise has been happening for the last 18,000 years
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
