BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Reducing Pollution
Page 1 2 3 4 

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Reducing Pollution
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted
quote:
posted by SUB:

Mass Transit-
Buses are noisy, take a lot of room on the roads and everyone should have cars anyway.

Bicycles-
They're slow, take a lot of effort. Risk of getting fit, wet, and hit by cars.

Localized food production-
Chickens are loud and they stink.

Democratized renewable energy-
What the heck is that?

Reduced consumption-
Bad for the economy.


Posted by Ryan P.:

Mass Transit-
I'm not convinced of their true environmental savings in all areas. I've seen a lot of buses driving their routes all day around Madison or Janesville with next to nobody on them. The savings is only there when you can divide the INCREASED fuel use verses a car by a large number of people. If you aren't at the breakeven for passenger number, a bus is wasting fuel vs. a car.

Bicycles-
Range limited by rider ability, time, and support roads.

Localized food production-
Fine, if all you ever eat is local food. I have a more varied palate than that: I happen to like a lot of things I can't grow myself due to the shorter WI growing season.

Democratized renewable energy-
What the heck is that? Ditto.

Reduced consumption-
REAL, VOLUNTARY reduced consumption is good. A few things that I think masquerade as reduced consumption aren't so good. The forced CFL switch coming in 2014, I think it is, is nothing but bad IMHO.


Mass transit could be more effective if the taxes collected from fuel sales were used to make public transit free during peak traffic hours. Cities with pollution problems should implement congestion taxes based on the vehicles fuel type and MPG. Not suggesting banning vehicles from urban cores, but rather if you want to drive your pollution spewing gas guzzler into the city core you will need an additional license to enjoy that privilege.

Only eco-fanatics would suggest eating ONLY local foods. However when we can get a majority of foods from closer sources we will likely be getting better quality food and keeping our neighbors employed, as well as burning less fuel to put food on the table. Food from other countries outside the US and Canada will very likely have more chemicals and pollution included, even if they claim to be 'organic'. For example it's wise to eat NOTHING from China, since about 90% of their water is polluted by N.American standards, and the air pollution is going to affect anything grown there. The lax standards and rampant corruption in Mexico makes any food from there suspect as well. You are what you eat.

The CFL issue is a political game, divorced from reality. Making CFLs produces more pollution than incandescent bulbs, and they should be disposed as hazardous waste. It should be an individual choice like the vehicle one chooses to use, not government mandated.

Reduced consumption is another personal choice. N.Americans are uber-consumers of disposable junk. Education and incentives are preferable to regulations and penalties.

quote:
Democratized renewable energy-
What the heck is that?
Beats me what that is. Perhaps the person who posted it can describe what they meant.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Transit-
Someone did a study suggesting transit should be free- hmmmmm.

My last trip to Vancouver, I saved a pile of money ($170) not taking vehicle on ferry, riding buses all the way. Fuel savings and vehicle headaches outweighed transit costs. Went very smoothly, kids loved the accordion bus and was fun. Buses were often standing room only and never had less than 10 people.
Where I live, transit is not an option.
Certainly in urban centers it can be a great thing- many buses/trains packed.

Bicycles-
Good adjunct to car for short trips; can now be carried on some transit modes; more people using them religiously. Fun and healthy also. Important to promote their use with bike lanes and other infrastructure. Bion-x electric retrofit to existing bikes is amazing! Drastically expands do-able range/

Local Foods-
Courtenay just amended bylaw to allow chickens. It's a great thing to take your leftover rice, burnt toast etc. to the chooks- Your garbage into better eggs than you'll likely get at the kwiky mart. No room/time, trade your slops for a dozen now and then
The chooks will rid your garden of most nasty bugs in the spring before you plant, and the kids love them.
No, I don't have them here yet, part of the near term plan.
I am addicted to coffee and I don't have the gasogen powered growshow going yet, but anything locally produced has multiple benefits-
Farmers Markets are popping up and are a great place to shop- Ask the grower how it was produced!
The local economy benefits directly- small scale farmers tend to be eco conscious, and transport was minimal.
In the event of a fuel disruption, local food production and supplies would be very handy-

Democratized Renewable Energy-
Exactly what we the people are trying to do/doing with biofuels, wind, solar, and others.
Power to the people from the people, not Petro Canada, BP et al.
From firewood to farmgrown biodiesel,and beyond/ seems a good thing that we have a handle on it.
It also means decentralization, with accompanying benefits to local economies, reduced transport emissions and greater security.

Reduced Consumption-
An acquaintance came into some money- He wanted a tractor, his wife wanted an alternative power system. They each got theirs- Her system, costing as much as an SUV, produces so much the meter rolls backwards, I think always- payback. Solar hot water, woodstove naturally: they love it!- and the power never fails; common and lengthy in the outskirts.
Build the system big enough to run your little electric car and kiss the gas station goodbye forever.
If that were to become a status symbol, we'd be miles ahead- and with smart meters on the way it might come to pass.
The ever increasing dimensions of monster houses need ever more stuff to build and put into them, energy included.
Could it be advertising?

It's about moving in the right direction with government policy and cultural awareness-
Paradigm Shift
Canada is heading for a federal election and at least one leader promises to eliminate the 1 Billion dollar subsidy to the now profitable tar sands and put it directly into greenthings.
Good Idea.
Cheers All!
SUB

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SUB,
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
ooops- vas posted in wrong thread

Turning the greentax/carbon tax thing around- Who doesn't approve of channeling direct and hidden subsidies to fossil and nuke energy to those developing and using 'green' energy?
Canada still directly subsidizes Tar Sands more than a Billion/year while the EU is working on a Tar Sand boycott.
-Some propoganda: http://tarsandswatch.org/

and some more:

Stephen Harper is handing billions to oil companies developing Canada's dirtiest energy sources, like the tarsands," Layton said. "As prime minister, I'll cancel his dirty fuels subsidy and put that money into clean energy solutions instead."

The NDP leader said the subsidies for the oilsands amount to a "$75 gift from every Canadian to big polluters."

The NDP estimates the oilsands industry receives roughly $2 billion worth of subsidies annually. And Layton said producers have seen their operating revenue jump to $211 billion from $117 billion since 2004.
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Either no subsidies or subsidies applied equally across the board.

Keep in mind however that the oil & gas industry is a MAJOR contributor to Canada's tax revenue and employment. Drastically cutting their subsidies could be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

I'd like to see the O&G industry financially encouraged to invest some of their profits in alternatives.

Just to keep things in perspective, the coal industry is just as polluting if not more so than the O&G industry. CO2 is NOT toxic pollution.

Toxic Pollution tax, yes. Carbon tax, no.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
"It's mostly overlooked that carbon dioxide has other consequences other than changing climate," Zeebe said in an interview.

Recent studies show ocean acidity is a second major impact, he said, pointing out the tremendous amount of carbon dioxide taken up by the oceans is changing their chemistry.

"If we continue with business as usual and don't cut carbon dioxide emissions, carbonate reefs will ultimately start to dissolve." he said. "This is basic chemistry. We need to reduce emissions and put funding into research and development of alternative energy sources. If we can do this and reduce carbon dioxide in the next decade or so, prospects are better."

But the United States is lagging behind Europe, which began taking measures 10 to 15 years ago to reduce emissions," he said.

While our understanding of
how the web of sea life will
respond to ocean acidification
is still in its early stages, initial
findings from studying ocean
chemistry show cause for
great concern. The message
is clear: excessive carbon
dioxide poses a threat to the
health of our oceans.
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
Either no subsidies or subsidies applied equally across the board.

Keep in mind however that the oil & gas industry is a MAJOR contributor to Canada's tax revenue and employment. Drastically cutting their subsidies could be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

I'd like to see the O&G industry financially encouraged to invest some of their profits in alternatives.

Just to keep things in perspective, the coal industry is just as polluting if not more so than the O&G industry. CO2 is NOT toxic pollution.

Toxic Pollution tax, yes. Carbon tax, no.


Enough anthropocentric venting, john- CO2 is toxic (at above normal concentrations)- suspected accomplice in the great extinction to boot! - see AGW thread-

"Carbon dioxide (CO2) is actively toxic at above-normal concentrations, as it reduces the ability of respiratory pigments to oxygenate tissues, and makes body fluids more acidic, thereby hampering the production of carbonate hard parts like shells."

And there's other anthropotoxic O&G pollution, like depleted uranium-

Give oil barons enough rope and what will they hang?

I don't want to subsidize business as usual or be a suspected accomplice in a possible mass extinction event;

Besides, the alternatives are more funner, and I save lots of money.

SUB -Top Rocket Scientist

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SUB,
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Can Carbon Dioxide Be A Good Thing?
Physicist Explains Benefits Of Carbon Dioxide

A physicist from Colorado State University and his colleagues from the North American Carbon Program (NACP) have discerned and confirmed the unforeseen advantages of rising carbon dioxide levels. Through the processes of photosynthesis and respiration, scientists have been able to elucidate why plants are growing more rapidly than they are dying.

Too much carbon dioxide can be a bad thing, but sometimes it can have a positive effect on plants and trees. The more carbon emissions we dump into the air, the faster forests and plants grow.

http://www.nacarbon.org/nacp/

The faster forests and plants grow, the more oxygen they produce.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Democratized, decentralized production, transit, carpooling etc. may have benefit more than just the environment and your wallet; they could promote stronger communities and more happiness-

"If you're not smiling, you are amongst a minority of Canadians.

That's because a well-being survey conducted by Gallup finds Canada to be the second-happiest country in the world. (See entire list)

"This is no great surprise," says University of British Columbia professor of economics John Helliwell who specializes in well-being. "Canada tends to have more of the things that make life better ... some way of getting educated and staying healthy."

He says having someone to rely on in a time of trouble is also important because it means one has a bigger circle of friends. In Canada, 95 per cent of people have at least one person who can help, whereas that number is below 50 per cent in countries lower on the list.

"We'll never beat Denmark, they are just a little smarter at running things," says Helliwell, who notes the likelihood of having a lost wallet returned is higher there. "How free you are to make life decisions is higher in Denmark and high in Canada as well."

If people gave lower numbers, they were considered to be "struggling" or "suffering." Respondents who were "suffering" rated their current life situation, and expectations for the next five years, as four and below. These respondents were more likely to lack food, shelter and access to health care. The survey was based on the Cantril Scale.

Helliwell even separates Canada into regions, saying that despite having higher unemployment Atlantic Canada is actually pulling up their numbers. He says this is because those in the Maritimes have stronger feelings of community and interact more with neighbours.

Given the correlation between well-being and GDP, it's no surprise the top of the list is dominated by developed, wealthy nations.

Despite being the richest country in the world, the United States finished 12th on the list, with 59 per cent of respondents "thriving." Chad finished at the bottom with only one per cent "thriving."
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Not the Rosselsong I was after- but "Bringing The News From Nowhere" isn't on youtube yet-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54CKjoaragE
"The World's Police" is a dandy, too-
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
I'm an earth scientist and an engineer. I've been working in the field of energy conservation and alternative energy for 40 years. My 'eco-footprint' is far far less than the N.American average. My low energy house is heated by renewable energy, and the electricity is renewable source as well. My vehicle fuel is about 50% renewable. I use biodiesel to reduce pollution.


What fields of science and engineering are you in?
Perhaps your long service in energy conservation and alternative energy could contribute greatly to this thread...
Curious about your renewable electricity source-
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
It's small scale hydroelectric. My education specifics aren't relevant to the discussion.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
-SS Hydro- Drool Cool- a creek runs through here, but being salmon bearing makes legal use tricky, and the widely variable water level. Thinking of a paddle wheel mounted on pontoons tied off to trees on both banks to be stashed in spawning season-
The bulk of my domestic energy needs are met in winter by woodstove -space/water heat and cooking: convenient outdoor refrigeration. Summer I use more propane for most cooking, tho I love roasting things on open flame outdoors: still haven't connected on demand propane water heater- Jump in swimming hole works well, and won't fire up full size propane fridge that uses 10 lbs/week-
Canadian Tire has 30 watt panels on sale for $125, will get three more and maybe can superinsulate a small electric fridge:
Eventually want to brew and store methane (natural gas) and with a beefy solar/wind array could crack water.
Outdoor woodfired bathtubs are a treat too-
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
Either no subsidies or subsidies applied equally across the board.

Keep in mind however that the oil & gas industry is a MAJOR contributor to Canada's tax revenue and employment. Drastically cutting their subsidies could be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

I'd like to see the O&G industry financially encouraged to invest some of their profits in alternatives.

Just to keep things in perspective, the coal industry is just as polluting if not more so than the O&G industry. CO2 is NOT toxic pollution.

Toxic Pollution tax, yes. Carbon tax, no.


The environmental impacts of Reagonomic "Trickle Down" can rightly be debated here;

however,

the Socio-Economic fallout will go to Bio-Diesel Politics.

See you there!
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
"Has the green movement been a miserable flop?"

"What the hell went wrong? For months now, environmentalists have been asking themselves that question, and it’s easy to see why. After Barack Obama vaulted into the White House in 2008, it really did look like the United States was, at long last, going to do something about global warming. Scientists were united on the causes and perils of climate change. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth had stoked public concern. Green groups in D.C. had rallied around a consensus solution—a cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions—and had garnered support from a few major companies like BP and Duke Energy. Both Obama and his opponent, John McCain, were on board. And, so, environmental advocates prepared a frontal assault on Congress. May as well order the victory confetti, right?

Instead, the climate push was … a total flop. By late 2010, the main cap-and-trade bill had fizzled out in the Senate; not a single Republican would agree to vote for it. Greens ended up winning zilch from Congress, not even minor legislation to boost renewable electricity or energy efficiency. Worse, after the 2010 midterms, the House GOP became overrun with climate deniers, while voters turned apathetic about global warming. All those flashy eco-ads and all that tireless eco-lobbying only got us even further from solving climate change than we were in 2008.

So now greens are in the post-mortem stage, and, not shockingly, it’s a sensitive subject. On Tuesday, Matthew Nisbet, a communications professor at American University, released a hefty 84-page report trying to figure out why climate activism flopped so miserably in the past few years. Nisbet’s report is already causing controversy: Among other things, he argues that, contrary to popular belief, greens weren’t badly outspent by industry groups and that media coverage of climate science wasn’t really a problem. And he raises questions about whether greens have been backing the wrong policy measures all along. Is he right? Have environmentalists been fundamentally misguided all this while? Or were they just unlucky?

Just about everyone in the green movement has a theory for why the climate fight sputtered out. Some activists blame their all-too-powerful foes. The oil and coal industries, as well as groups like the National Association of Manufacturers, all vehemently opposed cap-and-trade and shelled out millions lobbying Congress. The cranks who deny that global warming is manmade were way too effective at spreading their disinformation. And gullible reporters were too willing to give these skeptics airtime. Call this the “we were outgunned” theory. Bill McKibben, for one, has argued that enviros need to spend more time targeting the “the guys with the money who pull the strings,” like the Chamber of Commerce and the Koch brothers. Some climate scientists, meanwhile, have argued that they need to get better at swatting down gibberish from the skeptics. Shortly after the midterms, some 40 climatologists around the world banded together to form a “rapid response unit” on key climate-science questions. (It’s still too early to judge the end result.)

Then there are the lefty greens—groups like MoveOn.org and Friends of the Earth—who have long argued that the inside-the-Beltway strategy of 2009 and 2010 was inherently self-defeating. The mainstream green groups, these lefties argue, spent way too much time compromising with fossil-fuel interests in order to craft a byzantine cap-and-trade proposal that could placate enough swing voters in Congress. The end result was too loophole-ridden and too complicated to excite the base. Call this the “no one likes a sellout” theory—it’s the idea that a simpler, stronger policy (say, a flat carbon tax), combined with fervent grassroots pressure, might have stood a better chance.

Plenty of other observers, meanwhile, have suggested that greens miscast the problem from the start. Mike Hulme, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, has argued that greens mistakenly treated global warming as a run-of-the-mill environmental problem similar to, say, acid rain. But, with acid rain, feasible solutions were already available—namely, scrubbers and low-sulfur coal—that made it relatively straightforward to cap sulfur-dioxide emissions. Climate change, Hulme argues, is a much trickier, more complicated problem that will require a flurry of different policy responses and society-wide changes, not just one big bill. Alternatively, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute have argued—in TNR and elsewhere—that a policy like cap-and-trade, which works by making dirty energy expensive, will never gain broad political support. Instead, environmental groups should have focused on pain-free policies to boost innovation and make clean energy cheaper—by, say, funding R&D on a Manhattan Project-esque scale."

http://www.tnr.com/article/pol...ement-al-gore-nesbit

Of course if they had simply focused on reducing toxic pollution, picked some obvious low-hanging-fruit like reducing diesel particulates with universal B5, and steadily built-up some credibility...

Just another case of insurmountable opportunities and trying to do too many things at once badly.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The fundamental issue is uber-consumerism and the waste and pollution it spawns. It's people buying throw-away stuff they don't need, with money they don't have, getting deeper into debt they have no hope of getting out of. Hypocrites like Al Gore and James Cameron with their "Do what we say, not what we do" elitist attitudes have become the icons of the AGW movement. The average person may not understand the scientific debate, but they can clearly see BS, and that's why the majority have rejected AGW.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
CO2 emissions are a reasonably good indicator of toxic pollution as well



So who is the real problem ? The people producing the pollution or the people consuming the products which cause the pollution?

http://www.economist.com/node/18618451



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The increase in pollution is a major question for a world. We need to reduce pollution. For this we have to use a bicycle for shorter journey instead of bike. Also we need to prevent water pollution by recycling a waste water. It will help to reduce a pollution.
 
Location: 7 Devellis Dr, Trumbull, CT 06611 | Registered: May 10, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by YaekoCubr1501:
The increase in pollution is a major question for a world. We need to reduce pollution. For this we have to use a bicycle for shorter journey instead of bike. Also we need to prevent water pollution by recycling a waste water. It will help to reduce a pollution.


Well put!! I concur-
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Rising gas prices prompting Canadians to change habits
http://www.canada.com/business...s/4806506/story.html
By Misty Harris, Postmedia News May 19, 2011

Thanks to rising fuel prices, Canadians are paying almost as much for fuel as they are for food.

According to results of a nationwide Nielsen Co., survey released Thursday, the average household's monthly gas expenditure is now three-quarters what it spends on groceries. As a result, 86 per cent of Canadians report that the price at the pumps is affecting both their driving and shopping habits — up dramatically from 55 per cent last year.

The bright side? The highways won't be nearly as congested


Now that's the way to reduce pollution, just make it expensive. Bring it on!!!



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4  
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Reducing Pollution

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014