or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › A cool welcome for President Bush!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A cool welcome for President Bush! - Page 2

post #31 of 55
yeah, we do a lot of recycling. General household recycling consists of paper, a couple different kinds of plastic, glass, cardboard, aluminium and steel. There is also (around here, anyway) seperate pick ups for lawn and yard waste, which they will compost and/or mulch and give away for people to use as fertilizer and mulch.

Or, if you were the previous owner of my house, you just dump everything in the woods behind the house. grrrrrrrr. You wouldn't believe the crap I've pulled out of there. There is even an engine (Chevy small block, I believe), a transmission, a car door, and (I think, because it's pretty much rusted to nothing) an old washing machine IN the creek!!

What kills me, is that the garbage collectors will take all of that stuff with normal pick up. They've taken a washing machine, dishwasher and stove from me, on normal pick up. And this guy (previous owner) threw old light fixtures and things like outlets and light switches in the woods! I even found an old pair of boots and NEW (still in the plastic wrappers) outlet and switch covers.<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by JohnH (edited July 27, 2001).]</FONT>
post #32 of 55
During the US's industrial development through the 1800's we and no one else knew anything about polution. Neither did Great Britain, where the industrial revolution started. We were babes in the woods. We didn't know any better, unfotunately. Asking developing countries to not make the same mistakes we made in industrial development is not an unreasonable request. "Oh but that's not fair!" OK. let these other countries develope as we did, making the smae mistakes as we did, because that fair! Then that adds to the polution problem! You can't have it both ways.
Response to the foreign cars commnet: Having been in the auto business for 27 years as anationally certified mechanic I have seen and followed the importing of foreign cars. Cars made overseas do not have to install so many polution devices. if they are to be exported to the US, they do. If you buy a car overseas to ship to the US, you have to have these polution devices installed the minute it rolls off the ship. I'm sorry but this is fact. (exception is if the car is considered a classic or antique) This was the demise of the VW bug. Its air cooled engine could not meet the increased polution restrictions. One time, Honda had shipped their little civc or town car. I can't remember what it was called. Does anyone remember it? It basically had a motorcycle engine! Hundreds of them rolled off the ship. Right from the parking lot at the docks they were all taken to the yard and crushed for scrape metal.
5% of the people make 25% of the polution. I love dmeaningless stats! This evades who does the other 75% This does not speak of what kind of polution. Propellants in spray cans have been changed in this country so as not to harm the ozone layer. I've read the chemical analysis and I am still not convinced this was affecting the ozone layer, but I felt it was probably safer to do this than to find out later it did have an effect. Other countries did not change propellants in their spray can products! But lets not discuss this. We want to blame the US for everything, right? air conditioning coolants R-12! This is no longer allowed in the US. You can still get it but to recharge your AC just the R-12 will cost you $60 to $80. This, hopefully, makes you change your AC compressor over to the new one which uses the newer coolant. Oh! you won't like this one... you can still get R-12 from Mexico... illegally! I wonder how many people complain about polution while they order the illegal R-12!
No. I am not for poluting our environment. We should do what we can to clean things up. I only ask for more common sense and less knee-jerk reactions. Rarely is anything as bad as predicitons or as good as predictions.
I recently heard some idiot state that there has never been in the history of this planet such mass extinction of species due to the appearance of man. What about the dinosaurs? Fact- 90+% of all species that live or ever lived on this planet are sitll here! Does this belie the fact that mankind in his stupidity has done his part in screwing up many species? Of course not. We are growing up. We are learning. Change is tough and more needs to be done. We are a part of this planet, not an additive factor outside of nature. Let's do our part but with common sense, not sweeping genaralizations like it's all the US's fault or most of it.
My younger daughter is right now living in a tree with others to prevent tree cutting in the Eagle creek area in Oregon here. I disagree with her methods, but I will get a message to her, invoking Voltaire in paraphrase: I disagree with what you are doing, but I defend to the death your right to do it. Gee... maybe fuddy-duddy old dad ain't so bad after all!
My cig butts go in the ash tray, not out the window, or in my pocket when skiing, on in my tackle box when fishing, not on the ground. I have seen some do otherwise while they scream about polution in the US. In the 60's it was sad to see hippies bury a car engine in protest against polution, then drive home in their oil-burning cars with blue smoke billowing out the tail pipe!
I think it is better to monitor oneself first. Also it would be wise to ask our government (gobment) to go after companies which pay a polution permit rather than cleaning up their acts.
Yes the world is warming. This will cause large weather swings. We just now learning more about weather for the last 80 years or so. We are learning that weather goes in varied 'mood swings'. These lay within larger 'mood swings', and these in turn even larger 'mood swings'. i.e. ice ages and mini ice ages which no one can do anything about. Are we so arogant to think we are causing these mood swings? Let's do what we can to clean up our act, but let's not point the finger at the US when we have done more against polution than any other country in the world! Go to many countries and check it out. La Paz, Bolivia is one small example. How about Mexico? Ever look at their rivers?
All I ask for in balance and common sense. Start at home. If I can leave a fishing area without any evidence I had been there, why can't others? If any of you fish I am sure you have seen the same thing. Right? How many have removed polution devices in their vehicles, thinking it will run better (which it won't) but complain about global warming?
i.e. it all begins at home.

Life's a pain... then you nap. Cat philosphy
post #33 of 55
good post, lawn barker.
post #34 of 55
Woof! now, if I can just get to that spot just behind the right ear!

Life's a pain... then you nap. Cat philosphy
post #35 of 55
post #36 of 55
Not true. There is evidence of a much warmer climate closer to the North pole millions of years ago. A fossil or imprint of a magnolia leaf was found in Greenland. A tropical plant! Also, after the wax and wane of El Niño and La Niña weather tneds to get messed up for awhile. Next thing you know some people are going to say that it's humans' fault somehow that Mt Etna is very cranky right now. I just thought of a good one: unnatural shifts in plate techtonics and therefore earthquakes are caused by humans' cities! Too much weight concentrated in one place! Just trying to get silly here! Here's one I've actually heard: eating red meat (therefore ingesting some blood) causes you to be more agressive and violent! But then... we did forget about Hitler! He was vegetarian.
Ah but it all keeps life so interesting! We will whine about this and that, worry ourselves to appolplexy over things we can do little about, and the world just keeps keepin' on!

Life's a pain... then you nap. Cat philosphy
post #37 of 55

I think that the Honda was the S300 and S600 of the 68 to 70 vintage. The one I remember was a knock off of the MG Midget and I think the 300 was even a chain drive.

In a conversation with an environmental technician yesterday, he claimed that the Freon issue actually arose with the Du Pont Company......... he claimed that as their 20 year patent was to expire, they came up with the initial study that purported ozone damage and ........... ta daaaaa ...... they conveniently had a replacement product waiting in the wings....... extending their market monopoly for an additional 20 years.
post #38 of 55
jyarddog- not saying we should let other countries develop as we did. i'm saying that developed countries need to take a lot of the burden for helping developing countries meet pollution goals. it won't happen otherwise. China is unlikely to decide to invest a gazillion dollars of money they don't have into environmentally friendly policies on their own. If the developed world doesn't want poorer countries to pollute like we have, then we have to take a leading role for ourselves AND for them.<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by elouns (edited July 28, 2001).]</FONT>
post #39 of 55
I think part of the problem is that if measures to preserve ANY of our natural resources become illogical, people begin to lose credibility in the entire cause.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I am certainly no expert on this, but, if in an effort to save water, you have a shower that lets out so little of it that you have to stay in it for double the amount of time, are you really conserving anything? And I do NOT want to get into a discussion of low water in other bathroom fixtures.

And as for energy. I am fortunate enough to live in a town that has a relatively low crime rate, along with an excellent police force. But in an effort to save energy, the streets are practically pitch black at night. So women walking their dogs at night, or some of the college girls living in the neighborhood can become easy targets for low lifes from the surrounding area. And unfortunately, in Ma., you cannot carry pepper spray without a gun license, but that's a whole other topic.

Be Braver in your body, or your luck will leave you. DH Lawrence

<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by Lisamarie (edited July 28, 2001).]</FONT>
post #40 of 55
Let's see... we have been here before. The Koyoto agreement will mean less than a 1 % reduction over the next 25-30 years of green house gases.

In Sicily, Mt Etna is blowing her top. I wonder how many tons of ash and associated green house gases are going up in the air ? Enough to wipe out the effects of the Koyoto agreement for the next decade , assumming all the coal based economies follow the agreement as well...oh I forgot...the Peoples Republic of China is currently exempt, the worlds largest population whose industry is based on high sulpher coal... how fair is that !!!

It's BS and everyone knows it, even the "pinko" bleeding heart liberals.Those that don't either have the heads in one of two places, in the dirt or up that opening that lies between the buttocks, or they lack the mental capability to understand anything that is going on.

Is there hope for releif from internal combustion engine emmisions ? Yes there is and it is fuel cell technology which is currently being tested, and will be in some autos as early as the 2004 model year.

Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, possibly Honda and Toyota may have offerings.Light trucks and buses also.

So help is on the way, so don't panic !!!!! We want the world to buy North American technology to clean up the environment, not put world economies in jeopardy becasue of false hopes as presented in the Koyoto accord.
post #41 of 55
All hail the almighty dollar and the spew that masquerades as thought.<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by Roskoski (edited July 28, 2001).]</FONT>
post #42 of 55
The ROOT of all such problems is population - if there are more of us . . . we MUST consume more. Create more pollution, pave more earth. All the other arguments are just side-shows.

History shows that any species that has populated past its available resources - has had radical hits to it population. We may have many smart individuals among us - but collectively we act as idiots.

We deserve whatever is coming to us.
post #43 of 55
So why then do the radical right cling steadfast to their anti abortion dogma, while the radical left, who in SOME {but not all} cases can be "radical environmentalists" cling to the idea of government funding for single mothers with each child they produce.

And in the grand ironic scheme of things , each creates what it deplores the most. The right create what they percieve to be a government funded entitlement group, the left creates a population overgrowth that will eventually destroy our resources.

Until people stop forming opinions, and thus engaging in actions based on their perceptions of themselves as either liberals or conservatives, all that we do for ourselves and for this world will be based on emotional dogmaticm, as opposed to rational realism!

"Ideas cannot be fought except by means of better ideas. The battle consists not of opposing, but of exposing, not of denouncing, but of disproving, not of evading, but of boldly proclaiming a full, consistant and radical alternative".

Ayn Rand.<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by Lisamarie (edited July 28, 2001).]</FONT>
post #44 of 55
This becomes a very interesting subject when reproductive rights are discussed. My wife and I are childless by choice. Our contribution will be this: We will not put another consumer on the planet. Simple.

Check this out. It makes sense to me.

By choosing NOT to have children, I am forced to pay higher taxes. I think tax burden should increase with each child you have. That might clear the air a bit.

<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by ArmchairExtreme (edited July 29, 2001).]</FONT>
post #45 of 55
I like that one, Armchair. Unfortunately, we get into the same problem that we did with emissions--poorer countries. 2.5 kids in the US is one thing, but sub-Saharan Africa is something more like 7. That takes a bit more work.
post #46 of 55
Todd wrote:
History shows that any species that has populated past its available resources - has had radical hits to it population.

Which is why it's a shame, 32 years after first traveling to another planet (the Earth-Moon system is arguably a double-planet system rather than a planet and satellite, based on relative sizes), Humanity has not even made a start at having any other place to live.

Nor done anything to do solar power stations in orbit (yes I remember Heinlein's warnings about microwave-beamed-down power in "Waldo" but there are safeguards, power receivers sited offshore or in remote areas and wired from there). Nor any mining of the Moon or prospecting trips to the asteroids.

All of which would be in range, now in 2001, of where our technology should have been based on where our technology was in the 1960's. And we should have had at least some people living in a permanent base on the moon by now, and about ready to start settling Mars.

Instead, NASA lost its vision, the US lost its foothold in the final frontier, and Earth lost out on a chance to have low-cost, environmentally-clean, renewable till the sun burns out resources.

The knee-jerkers saying "we could feed/write checks/create entitlements for all {fill in favorite "victim" or cause here} with what is wasted on Space Exploration" won.

We instead created an ill-defined-mission low-earth-orbit space truck. And an "International Space Station" that is more of a political statement and arms-control-payoff to the former USSR than it is a real platform for science and exploration.

Not to mention all the jobs that we didn't create by not following through with the dream...

(And with more jobs you need fewer entitlements, so it's a win-win.)<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by MarkXS (edited July 29, 2001).]</FONT>
post #47 of 55
Good comments Lisa.

Ok here it is anadulterated. Assuming you mate for life: having no kids is a great compliment to mankind, having one is still doing good for humanity, having two means at least you are not hurting anymore than helping. Having three or more - a crime against humanity, what makes your genes so special?!

Bet that will spark some thread action AC!
post #48 of 55
Dangerous Brian said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is it easier just to find another planet when this one is spent, or is it better to make the resources on this planet last?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why is this an either/or question? That's the typical left response IMHO to anything that requires "investment", or to anything that requires developing technology.

(Not trying to paint you with a broad brush, DB, but you are presenting the classic left-wing arguements)

Of course we need to conserve our resources here. And live here too, at least 99.999% of us for the foreseeable future.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't also be doing real space exploration and beginning to exploit space resources (note "exploit" is not automatically a bad word) as one means of preserving Earth-based resources.

And of course we should be doing reasonable, cost-benefit-adjusted things that help us preserve our resources now. I didn't give up on having a vehicle, in fact I got a bigger vehicle for use when I do need it. But I essentially never use it for local travel, chores or entertainment trips if I can walk or take public transit. So I have a good truck for ski and camping trips and travel with pets and family, while due to my low usage of it I am contributing much less vehicle-based pollution than the average Western citizen. Almost all the lights in my home are energy-saving fluorescents substitutes for incandescents. In the few areas I need the brighter incandscents I only use them when I need them and turn them off when I'm done. I choose to live in an "urban village" type of community so that I can walk or take transit, while still enjoying the benefits of a quiet, tree-lined street when I want that too.

In our own homes and communities, we can all do these types of things. But we don't have to decide between this and technology-based investment in cleaner and renewable resources. Why can't we put up the solar stations, mine the asteroids, and save resources on earth too?

We need to open our minds and reject the cliched dichotomies that "conventional wisdom" and the entrenched thought leaders on either the right or the left have vested interests in continuing. Let's start thinking outside the box.
post #49 of 55
Eloun- <If the developed world doesn't want poorer countries to pollute like we have, then we have to take a leading role for ourselves AND for them.>

Well said!

Overpopulation- possibly a myth. Industrial revolution- ergo, jobs in the cities- people quit the farms and move to the cities to get jobs. Overpopluation of teh cities. Very much land still availalbe. Why isn't it used? Cost prohibitive to develope much of this land for dwellings or farming. No incentive to do so when money is to be made locally. Sadly, money rules. And so does Malthus as long as our self-imposed environment (cities)continue.

MarkXS- NASA did not lose sight of goals. They lost funding. It's one thing to go to the moon; quite another to live there. The cost is still prohibitive. Oh, perhaps we could, but there are too many whiners who yell teh age old complaint, "We should spend our money on problems here at home before trudging off to the moon! Feed the hungry; cure the sick first." Beautifully idealistic view. Sounds like a form of isolationism! Let's see... what happened last time the US embraced an isolationist policy? But don't they so quickly, or conveniently, forget how much the space program has given us and saved countless lives.
Solar power- not efficient enough and still doesn't provide enough power yet, but promissing.
I love it when people polarized others. Find one thing they don't like about someone and they shove him/her clear down to one end of the value judgement scale. Bush is anti-ecology! So&so is anti-business! The US is terrible and no one else is! The king is a fink! (sorry BC) Hitler was a bad guy! (OK... you got me on that one.)
Ah, but what of that! As long as there are those who are willing to do something sensible about these matters, things will be ok. Life fools ya... it always does. (The Whales of August) And as I always say about life...

Life's a pain... then you nap. Cat philosphy
post #50 of 55
Mathus wasn't arguing about the use of space exactly. He was concerned about the growth of human population versus the ability to feed said population. In his formulation, population grows expodentially (sp? where's a dictionary when you need one), while produce can only multiply arthimetically, thus population growth will outstrip the means to sustain it. Therefore, population must be checked, which he meant negatively, in terms of famines, diseases and the like (AIDS would probably fit into his perspective, with or without Social Darwinian overtones -- that's your call), though it seems people could also check this growth positively (marry later, less kids -- he was pre-birth control, of course).

GM foods, farm implements, etc. may defy his conventions or the former (especially) might prove to collapse the food supply if the geneticists/inventors really muck it all up. Anyway, Thomas Malthus (he was a cleric, believe it or not, despite being a pessimist about humanity) was not a critic of urban space per se, except that it required sustaining from the outlining farm regions (pre refridgeration, naturally). On a global perspective, there is sense to his analysis, with the understanding that food cannot be grown everywhere and anywhere and the damage to the world ecosystem of draining every marshland, etc. to try probably would be self-destructive in the long run.


Dante non ha mai immaginato questo cerchio dell'inferno!
post #51 of 55
Jyardog: I wrote "...on earth, this is the very first time the climat changes so fast ( studies in Antartic on ice layers )."

I was WRONG, sorry, so I correct it : " this is the very first time that the composition of atmosphere changes so fast ".
It doesn't mean that the climat is affected so.

But that's an interresting point : for instance, measurements on ice layers in Antartic give the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere for a long time ago , we may find in Antartic ice some air that is 100,000 years old. Contrary to water vapor, the CO2 has a slow time of recycling (> 10 years), and so on movments of atmosphere are fast enought to mix in an uniform way the CO2 all around the earth. This allows to state that the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere did change from 0.20/1000 to 0.28/1000 during the last 100,000 years (changes during successive glaciar ages). This proportion is very few, comparing to others planets like Mars or Venus, where CO2 is a big part of the atmosphere. This difference is all because of the life appearing on earth, as the creation of organic components does fix the CO2. So the proportion of CO2 did decrease during the Secondary and third ages, then - looking for measures done in Antartic - this proportion became stable during 100,000 years (fourth age) from 0.20 to 0.28, okay, then increased until such values like 0.36/1000 in less than 100 years, means from the beginning of industrial revolution to nowadays.

Let's have a look:
100,000 years = 0.20 --> 0.28
100 years = 0.28 --> 0.36 (!)

And why such a growth ? looks obvious this is because of human activity.

It corresponds to an increase of 3 billions of tons / year. The estimation today is an annual production of 5 to 6 billions / year (coal, oil) + 1 or 2 billions by forests clearing. That means that oceans and continental biosphere take back half of the CO2 that has been rejected in atmosphere. Proportion of CO2 tomorrow will be depending on how those regulators evolve (it's not constant, how the ocean take back the CO2, depending on if this ocean is getting warmer or colder).

Same measure on other gas:
methane (sp?) gas =
100,000 years .4/10e6 --> .8/10e6
last 100 years .8/10e6 --> 1.6/10e6

CFC gas :
that are new gas. they didn't exist before.


All those changes involved by human activity.
After that I don't understand why all that should be bullshit, I don't see why scientists - from diff. countries - could agree all together to let us know false measures, wrong numbers, I mean, it looks pretty simple to understand, at least on that point, I mean the changes of the composition of atmosphere.

From that, it's possible to evaluate the growth of Watt with infrared streams due to the CO2 growth only, 2.5W/m2 (to be compared with 240W/m2 which is the total earth receives from sun), not a lot but enought to let temperature grows a bit on earth ?

etc, etc...
<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by Jackdaw (edited July 31, 2001).]</FONT>
post #52 of 55
how much methane?
somewhere I read that the biggest contributer to the methane build up in the world is Cows passing gas
now that's a lot of BS and stink (literally)
post #53 of 55
mmmh ... that was a proportion,
so : 1.6 / 1,000,000
That's perhaps enought to filter a little bit the infrared in the whole atmosphere, but not to stink significantly I guess. So your nose should keep it safe !

and yes - i read the same, methane is from bullshits and cows...
post #54 of 55
Hey! There's the answer to poplulation control! Let the cows do their thing. We have to hold our breath. We die of axphixiation (can't spell). poplulation drops. problem solved! Now... what do we do with all dem cows?

Bethany- It's not mad cow disease but mad price disease at the resorts. It's not the berger that makes one sick. It's the price of the berger!

JohnH- Horse & buggy? Do you recall what New York City looked and smelled like at the turn of the last century? In many places they were knee deep in horse poop!

Lisakaz- True. many consider, at least in their actions, that the economy is more important that the environment. Yes, we need balance. your comments on Malthus are corrct, but this was before refirgeration. it is also true that we have teh ability and technology to feed the entire world without hurting the environment, but no one including the big farm coops want to spend the money to do it. Their immediate bottom line is more important than the bottom of people's stomachs!

Yes there is a rise to co2 levels in the atmosphere, and still we cannot point the finger at this as being the cause of global warming. The sun also goes in cycles of warming and cooling. This warms us and cools us too. Mt Etna has been blowing its top recently. That's an awful lot of polutants into the air. Nothing we can do about it but get out of the way.

Let's start with common sense. How about companies that dump waistes into the ground or rivers which saturate neighborhoods with carcinogens and then try to say it didn't come from them or that they have a 'permit' from the government to polute?! They are taken to court, and they use legal delaying tacticts to out-spend the plaintifs, hoping to end the tort because this is actually less expensive to them than to clean up their act!? And so it goes!

Life's a pain... then you nap. Cat philosphy
post #55 of 55
yeah, so it goes ... the wrong way !
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › A cool welcome for President Bush!