|
You may have read my other thread I'm Just Glad I'm Alive or may be you haven't. But the point of this thread, my fellow gamers, is discussing ways and means of combating the problem of climate change on a scale that will put a dent on the problem. Sure, each and every one of us have some idea on how do it. But if only a marginal percentage of the human population actually does something about it then there will be no noticeable impact.
What I believe is needed is an organized effort.
I have started letter writing efforts directed at various persons of influence to ask for their active support for a reforestation program I have in mind.
To Congress (Senators and Representative) - to declare the denuded mountain areas surrounding our metropolitan area as a watershed;
To Big Corporations - seedlings, fertilizer, equipment, transportation, food and water
To Schools - to encourage tree planting field trips
Any further suggestions?
Radavel, you've got a good foundation there. But I must add one unfortunately dour note to this.
Planting trees isn't going to be enough on its own.
It's a good plan, but you'll need to keep an eye on those trees and make sure they grow in order to get the benefits I imagine you're looking for. That takes more than just fertilizer, seeds, and rain. It also means people have to take the time to look after them. Some seeds will not sprout; some seedlings won't become saplings; some saplings won't become adult trees. For a little while (number of years dependent on how fast your seeds grow) you'll need to make sure your forest is re-establishing itself by regularly checking on it, looking for places where the trees aren't doing well and figuring out why the trees aren't doing well, and taking corrective steps. If it's a pest or pathogen, that means treating the trees or removing them or whatnot. If it's a nutrient deficiency (always possible, especially if the topsoil has eroded away), then innoculations of supplemental nutrients might be needed (though not so much that you have excess nitrogen or phosphorus leeching away, that stuff can cause problems later). And so on. In your letters and whatnot, you also need to suggest something like a collaboration where the businesses might get a tax cut by donating a certain amount of money to the schools for programs that will involve using the area for teaching-and get students to help tend the forest. This also helps build a community-based understanding of the problems and how to deal with them.
All that said, best of luck with this!
|
|
Yes, I agree, planting trees is not enough. But you have to start with something easy to encourage those who help that they can do it. A few easy successes should give them the inspiration and conviction for the long haul.
This is a war for the hearts and minds of people; to win them a way from apathy and despair. Maybe later once it has been established that things can indeed be done then we may have the moral persuasive power to encourage more radical change.
EDIT: Very much aware that maintaining the forest will be a primary concern for the next few years, hence, my idea of using fruit trees, so that the forest will yield produce that can be used for its upkeep.
Also, there will be the nay-sayers along the way. We call it the "crab mentality".
...To Schools - to encourage tree planting field trips
Any further suggestions?
Are there any local conservation organizations that could tailor a program to promote environmentally responsible living in kids? Are you in a position to help put together or assist such a program?
Getting the next generation of kids to be true stewards of the Earth is probably one of the best ways to improve things.
Yes, I agree, planting trees is not enough. But you have to start with something easy to encourage those who help that they can do it. A few easy successes should give them the inspiration and conviction for the long haul.
This is a war for the hearts and minds of people; to win them a way from apathy and despair. Maybe later once it has been established that things can indeed be done then we may have the moral persuasive power to encourage more radical change.
Well said, Radavel. That's why I suggest that you work on making this a community-based project. If you can get the people to understand the true value of this work, it makes a difference. I would assume you're looking at this to deal with the problems of an open, ugly mountainside and/or stormwater runoff, so you might look into some of the studies done on communities working to replant the mangrove forests over in Bangladesh (think it was Bangladesh). They've decimated their saltwater mangrove forests and are working to replant them and it's an effort that involves getting the community to understand their value.
Again, best of luck! I'm a Plant Science student, 3 weeks from a thesis defense, but I'll try to keep track of this thread. I'm not an ecosystem engineer, but I understand some of the basics. Where are you planning on doing this exactly?
|
|
...To Schools - to encourage tree planting field trips
Any further suggestions?
Are there any local conservation organizations that could tailor a program to promote environmentally responsible living in kids? Are you in a position to help put together or assist such a program?
Getting the next generation of kids to be true stewards of the Earth is probably one of the best ways to improve things.
My brother is with an NGO and he can probably make that program.
|
|
Yes, I agree, planting trees is not enough. But you have to start with something easy to encourage those who help that they can do it. A few easy successes should give them the inspiration and conviction for the long haul.
This is a war for the hearts and minds of people; to win them a way from apathy and despair. Maybe later once it has been established that things can indeed be done then we may have the moral persuasive power to encourage more radical change.
Well said, Radavel. That's why I suggest that you work on making this a community-based project. If you can get the people to understand the true value of this work, it makes a difference. I would assume you're looking at this to deal with the problems of an open, ugly mountainside and/or stormwater runoff, so you might look into some of the studies done on communities working to replant the mangrove forests over in Bangladesh (think it was Bangladesh). They've decimated their saltwater mangrove forests and are working to replant them and it's an effort that involves getting the community to understand their value.
Again, best of luck! I'm a Plant Science student, 3 weeks from a thesis defense, but I'll try to keep track of this thread. I'm not an ecosystem engineer, but I understand some of the basics. Where are you planning on doing this exactly?
Yes, making this into a community inspired thing is what I am aiming for. God knows I can't handle it all myself and it will drain all my resources and then some just to make it happen.
The project will cover the mountains around Metro Manila; we had massive, as in once in a century, flooding. So I hope people will be eager to help.
Never Again I Say.
Have you guys have seen Six Degrees that Could Change the World?
Not I, no. Let me guess: it's either A) six simple changes to the lifestyles of human beings that could prevent anthropogenic climate change, or B) what the anticipated effects of a 6-degree change to climate would be on life as we know it?
Edit: I was right with option B. Is it any good?
Some seeds will not sprout; some seedlings won't become saplings; some saplings won't become adult trees.
If I remember right, the rate was "one in four" regarding sapplings to adult-trees.
Some seeds will not sprout; some seedlings won't become saplings; some saplings won't become adult trees.If I remember right, the rate was "one in four" regarding sapplings to adult-trees.
Varies; that's a good rule-of-thumb. You need good life-history tables for this kind of thing, as well as mortality studies. Mountainsides can be variable based on aspect, soil formation, and other annoyances, but the influence of foreign pathogens might be reduced. And different trees will have different life-history strategies; mast years and various forms of vegetative propagation also matter (e.g. stolons, runners, adventitious roots in general, etc.).
I realize that veganism isn't for everyone (sigh!), but if everyone would commit to just one or two vegetarian meals a week (no animal products) it would make a huge difference. We only have one planet to live on-please be gentle with it, even if you don't care about animals.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html
|
I realize that veganism isn't for everyone (sigh!), but if everyone would commit to just one or two vegetarian meals a week (no animal products) it would make a huge difference. We only have one planet to live on-please be gentle with it, even if you don't care about animals.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html
The two links showed me a 'page not found' message. I've heard this before, but I don't understand--how does vegetarianism help the environment?
|
|
Have you guys have seen Six Degrees that Could Change the World?Not I, no. Let me guess: it's either A) six simple changes to the lifestyles of human beings that could prevent anthropogenic climate change, or B) what the anticipated effects of a 6-degree change to climate would be on life as we know it?
Edit: I was right with option B. Is it any good?
Letter Bee
Just to play Devil's Advocate here.....
Suppose we do actually "clean up" the environment (although I do have some doubts re: cause). Doesn't the whole thing become moot once a giant asteroid slams into the planet, causing more environmental damage (at a faster rate, at that!) than humankind could ever hope to achieve?
Again, not a sermon, just a thought......resume good vibes......
More devil's advocate:
Cows produce methane gas, trees produce oxygen. If you ask me which of the two I'd preserve, I'd rather preserve plants and eat the animal. >=P
Earth First!
|
In all seriousness, any talk of real actions to try and ensure our planetary environment remains capable of sustaining human life is moot if other countries don't agree to help. I'm not saying that means we should do nothing, but we must also be reasonable about what we do. I don't litter, do recycle, try not to waste electricity or water, and the wife and I ride to work together as often as possible. Those are my small contributions, and I'm happy to make them.
Also, we have to ask ourselves - is there, ultimately, anything we can really do that will have any impact. There are things that are out of our control - natural aging of the planet/sun/etc, asteroids, and who knows what else.
|
|
Giving in to despair though is not an option. As I said above, we must win the hearts and minds of others. Be Positive.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm positive. I have faith that humanity will one day successfully leave this cradle called Earth and start its journey among the stars. How long that takes....who knows.
In the mean time, we have to be realistic about what we can and can't do, and about what could happen in spite of everything we do. The more scenarios we take into account, the better we might be able to handle some of them when they do happen.
I'm positive too!
|
|
The thing about solar is, much like wind, it has problems.
1. The amount you get varies by region. (Fakey you live in Delaware? I wouldn't bother if I were you)
2. It can be intermittent, which is bad for our electrical grid.
3. Cost of upkeep vs. what you get out of it. There can be huge disparities, although technological advances have made it better.
All in all, I'd say this is better overall for individual use than on a mass scale. If you do mass scale, best to set it up in a desert environment that gets plenty of sunshine.
Let's just use giant magnifying glasses! That way, when we aren't getting power from them, we can use them to fry people like ants.
|
The thing about solar is, much like wind, it has problems.
1. The amount you get varies by region. (Fakey you live in Delaware? I wouldn't bother if I were you)
2. It can be intermittent, which is bad for our electrical grid.
3. Cost of upkeep vs. what you get out of it. There can be huge disparities, although technological advances have made it better.All in all, I'd say this is better overall for individual use than on a mass scale. If you do mass scale, best to set it up in a desert environment that gets plenty of sunshine.
I got a guy down the street from me that is averaging $25-30 a month for his electric/heating bill, down from around $400 a month, that is using solar with no difficulties. Unfortunately he spent around $45,000 to buy the system and have it installed. The big problem here is the cost of the systems which at around 5k+ per panel is ridiculous.
Delaware has also been considering a wind farm offshore but animal rights people are concerned with all the poor birds that could get whacked and the fictitious problems to the marine environment (the farm actually provides places for marine growth, like artificial reefs and such).|
|
Delaware has also been considering a wind farm offshore but animal rights people are concerned with all the poor birds that could get whacked and the fictitious problems to the marine environment (the farm actually provides places for marine growth, like artificial reefs and such).
Yeah, I hear that's the same excuses the Cape Cod dwellers used to try and prevent a wind farm from spoiling their view.
I've heard this before, but I don't understand--how does vegetarianism help the environment?
It's like this. Organisms like plants that are autotrophs make food from various organic compounds, water, and sunlight (we won't deal with the chemoautotrophs here). With sunlight, CO2, and water, plants produce all the energy they need. We all learn this in school fairly early on.
When you eat a plant, you aren't getting every single scrap of energy that the plant is made up from. Humans can't digest cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin worth squat. Those 3 compounds make up the cell walls of plants, which are a good bit of the mass of any given plant. So that part is useless to us. We can digest proteins, however, which plants do have. We can digest fats. Secondary metabolites vary as to whether we can digest them or not. So when you eat a salad, you don't get all the energy the plant had built up prior to harvesting. The normal number used is that you get about 10% of the energy, the rest is lost.
Now, let's say instead of you eating the plant, you feed it to a cow. The cow has a slightly better chance of digesting some of that stuff. But again, not great. While it can handle cellulose and hemicellulose (I think), it can't deal with lignin. So maybe the cow gets 15%.
Now you eat the cow. You can't digest all of that cow either. We'll use the same 10% I used on that salad for energy conversion between trophic levels. So by eating the cow that ate the plant, you got 1% (0.1 X 0.1) of the plant's energy. As you can see, that's inefficient compared to eating the plant. And this doesn't account for the greater water inputs needed to raise a calf to adulthood (I think Pimentel once calculated that the amount of water to raise that calf would be sufficient to float a destroyer), or other inputs.
This is the basic logic of why vegetarian behavior is more helpful to the environment. You can feed more people, not to mention that many livestock run roughshod over the landscape. In Maryland, the chicken farms of Purdue leak nutrients into the Bay, resulting in eutrophication (the dead zones) from phosphorus (birds seem to do poorly at phosphorus absorption) and nitrogen overloads. And so on.
What some people don't know about farming is twofold. First, organic farming doesn't necessarily have the same yields as conventional; I've seen one study out of several where the yields matched up well, for apples grown in Washington. Organic can compete with conventional in cases where they start on equal footing with soils of good quality or so I'm told; I'd be inclined to believe that. Secondly, there are places where the soil is too poor to grow crops through conventional or organic means that are still perfectly suitable for grazing animals; hillsides can be good places for that, and Bedouins have done it for ages.
Ultimately, there is no one true path, no one right way to help our environment (except to exile the human race from Earth and let the planet alone for a few million years).
Sorry about the rambling semi-rant.
Yeah, I hear that's the same excuses the Cape Cod dwellers used to try and prevent a wind farm from spoiling their view.
Ah, NIMBYism never dies. I'd love to hear the studies the Delaware and Cape Cod dwellers use to back this up. I'm all for protecting the animals, but only if someone proves that they're in danger. Bats are one thing, they seem to get swatted by wind farms regularly, but birds?
Bats are one thing, they seem to get swatted by wind farms regularly....
Hmmm, I wonder of the Joker ever tried that....
Bats are one thing, they seem to get swatted by wind farms regularly....Hmmm, I wonder of the Joker ever tried that....
LMAO!!! You win the thread!
Let's help the environment. Tell the greenies to shove it and allow us to build more nuclear power plants. These are reliable which solar and wind is not, have a much less effect on the ecosystem and are not tied to geographic location unlike hydropower. And they give off zero greenhouse gases which coal and other fossil fuel planets do not. Come on, if a bunch of french guys can do it, what is stopping us but an irrational fear? If you care about the environment, then you should support nuclear power.
I'm doing my part.
I refuse to change in any way, shape or form.
I over eat. espeacilly at a steak buffet, extra rare is delicious.
I dont recycle.
I do however maintain my GMC extra cab truck in pristine condition not for the gas milage but just because I love my truck.
I hunt for deer for my thanksgiving and christmas table, again not because I care about turkeys(we have that and ham too) but because grilled bambi is a wondefull addition to our family get together. Plus it's fun for all of us (yes the girls come too) to hunt as a FAMILY.
Now all of you hippie tree hugging, lets tax people into oblivion to save a freaking bird habitat can look down your noses at me and cast aspertions in my direction.
See win-win situation.
I get to be happy in my jacked-up truck and you get to be moraly superior in your tiny cramped hugo hybred type thing.
The two links showed me a 'page not found' message. I've heard this before, but I don't understand--how does vegetarianism help the environment?I realize that veganism isn't for everyone (sigh!), but if everyone would commit to just one or two vegetarian meals a week (no animal products) it would make a huge difference. We only have one planet to live on-please be gentle with it, even if you don't care about animals.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html
The resources that go into creating animal products is insane. We feed pigs and cows better then most third world contries feed people.
I'm sure that sounds more like an arguement against world hunger, but remember, that in our oil based economy, that grain has to get trucked to the animals to eat, then the animals have to be trucked from the ranch to a proccessing plant, then from there to your local grocer, and from there to your home. If you ate merely vegetable based meals, a LOT more of your food is going from farm, directly to grocer, to your home (and shopping at Farmer's Markets makes an even bigger difference, not only on the environment, but your local economy as well).
A lot of vegans also quote the amount of methane gas that cattle release into the air, since methane is a greenhouse gas.
When it comes down to it, because of all the resources and chemicals that go into meat production (grain for the animals, water for the animals, water to raise the grain, pesticides for the grain, antibiotics for the animals, oil to transport all these resources, the amount of forest that gets destroyed to create grazing land), going vegan is one of the best things a single individual can do to help the planet, let alone their own bodies.
I'm doing my part.
I refuse to change in any way, shape or form.
I over eat. espeacilly at a steak buffet, extra rare is delicious.
I dont recycle.
I do however maintain my GMC extra cab truck in pristine condition not for the gas milage but just because I love my truck.
I hunt for deer for my thanksgiving and christmas table, again not because I care about turkeys(we have that and ham too) but because grilled bambi is a wondefull addition to our family get together. Plus it's fun for all of us (yes the girls come too) to hunt as a FAMILY.Now all of you hippie tree hugging, lets tax people into oblivion to save a freaking bird habitat can look down your noses at me and cast aspertions in my direction.
See win-win situation.
I get to be happy in my jacked-up truck and you get to be moraly superior in your tiny cramped hugo hybred type thing.
Uh-oh, troll methinks. The moment someone calls someone who doesn't want the world to collapse a 'hippy', the argument loses relevance.
And actually, I know someone who's a birder, and he says that wind farms actually DO do a lot of damage to birds. Apparently, the places where they generally put the wind farms are also places where birds are common.The thing is, every way has problems. I get most of my electricity from hydro-electric, but of course, that endangers salmon. We've already gone over wind, and in addition to what Aberzombie mentioned, just creating solar panels stands to pollute the environment, I believe. It's hard to know which to go which.
However, Radavel, I thought I'd just point out that they're making these new 'solar oven' things for only about 10 bucks. They're like the sort you see in craft magazines, except way more advanced. In a sunny place, they're really helpful. So if you get a lot of sun there, you might want to consider one. No electricity is always a good thing.
Let's help the environment. Tell the greenies to shove it and allow us to build more nuclear power plants. These are reliable which solar and wind is not, have a much less effect on the ecosystem and are not tied to geographic location unlike hydropower. And they give off zero greenhouse gases which coal and other fossil fuel planets do not. Come on, if a bunch of french guys can do it, what is stopping us but an irrational fear? If you care about the environment, then you should support nuclear power.
Because Chyrnoble (sp?) is an irrational fear?
Yeah, I know that they have increased the safety of nuclear plants so it's not as likely to happen. But we increase the number of plants, and have them run for a time, and that safety increase isn't gonna mean squat, because it's going to happen sooner or later, and personally, I don't care HOW much energy is produced, or how "clean" the energy is, it's not worth a meltdown. It's not worth creating a dead zone that will last 50 years, and cause horrible mutations for another 50-100 years after.
Not only that, but I am kind of a paranoid conspiricy theorist, and I definitely don't rule out the possibility that nuclear powerplants can (and are) used as a cover for covert nuke making. Do I think it IS happening? I have no clue. Would I put it past our (or any other) government? Heck no.
|
|
When it comes down to it, because of all the resources and chemicals that go into meat production (grain for the animals, water for the animals, water to raise the grain, pesticides for the grain, antibiotics for the animals, oil to transport all these resources, the amount of forest that gets destroyed to create grazing land), going vegan is one of the best things a single individual can do to help the planet, let alone their own bodies.
Then why did we evolve as omnivores?
When it comes down to it, because of all the resources and chemicals that go into meat production (grain for the animals, water for the animals, water to raise the grain, pesticides for the grain, antibiotics for the animals, oil to transport all these resources, the amount of forest that gets destroyed to create grazing land), going vegan is one of the best things a single individual can do to help the planet, let alone their own bodies.Then why did we evolve as omnivores?
** spoiler omitted **
Because instead of wasting resources on raising livestock, we originally hunted them.
EDIT: Unless you were speaking more to what I was saying about it being one of the best things we can do for our bodies. To that I reply that it's not going fully vegan, but cutting down on the excessive amounts of meat that we eat in this day and age in this country. We're omnivores, but we weren't meant to have meat with every meal, hell, back in the days of our evolution, and for most of the human population of the earth until just recently, we didn't even eat meat every day. Also, eat organic meat, eliminate all those nasty chemicals.
As for dairy, you know that humans are actually naturally lactose intolerant (at least to milk that isn't our own species)? We develop enzymes in our system to deal with cow (and other species) milk by drinking it, and from the immunities and enzymes we get from breastfeeding (which we get only because our mother's built up their tolerance as well). We are also one of the few (maybe only, I can't remember my facts right now, so I'm not gonna paint myself into a corner) animals that does ingest what basically amounts to another species baby formula, and I'm also pretty sure we're the only ones that continue to drink milk beyond infancy.
A lot of vegans also quote the amount of methane gas that cattle release into the air, since methane is a greenhouse gas.
Damn those cows! They need to stop farting!
A lot of vegans also quote the amount of methane gas that cattle release into the air, since methane is a greenhouse gas.Damn those cows! They need to stop farting!
Yeah, I always laugh at that one. Personally, my thought is that the cows exist, they're going to fart whether we raise and eat them or not. So really, trying to blame global warming on another species' flatulence, and using that as a reason to guilt trip people into changing their diets, is in my opinion misleading and underhanded.
I only included the factoid because it is in most vegan's arguement for people going vegan.
|
|
A lot of vegans also quote the amount of methane gas that cattle release into the air, since methane is a greenhouse gas.Damn those cows! They need to stop farting!Yeah, I always laugh at that one. Personally, my thought is that the cows exist, they're going to fart whether we raise and eat them or not. So really, trying to blame global warming on another species' flatulence, and using that as a reason to guilt trip people into changing their diets, is in my opinion misleading and underhanded.
I only included the factoid because it is in most vegan's arguement for people going vegan.
Except that if we weren't going to eat them, we wouldn't raise them so they wouldn't exist.
A lot of vegans also quote the amount of methane gas that cattle release into the air, since methane is a greenhouse gas.Damn those cows! They need to stop farting!Yeah, I always laugh at that one. Personally, my thought is that the cows exist, they're going to fart whether we raise and eat them or not. So really, trying to blame global warming on another species' flatulence, and using that as a reason to guilt trip people into changing their diets, is in my opinion misleading and underhanded.
I only included the factoid because it is in most vegan's arguement for people going vegan.
Except that if we weren't going to eat them, we wouldn't raise them so they wouldn't exist.
** spoiler omitted **
So because we stop raising cattle, the entire species is going to disappear? I don't think so.
|
|
When it comes down to it, because of all the resources and chemicals that go into meat production (grain for the animals, water for the animals, water to raise the grain, pesticides for the grain, antibiotics for the animals, oil to transport all these resources, the amount of forest that gets destroyed to create grazing land), going vegan is one of the best things a single individual can do to help the planet, let alone their own bodies.Then why did we evolve as omnivores?
** spoiler omitted **
Because instead of wasting resources on raising livestock, we originally hunted them.
** spoiler omitted **
EDIT: Unless you were speaking more to what I was saying about it being one of the best things we can do for our bodies. To that I reply that it's not going fully vegan, but cutting down on the excessive amounts of meat that we eat in this day and age in this country. We're omnivores, but we weren't meant to have meat with every meal, hell, back in the days of our evolution, and for most of the human population of the earth until just recently, we didn't even eat meat every day. Also, eat organic meat, eliminate all those nasty chemicals.
As for dairy, you know that humans are actually naturally lactose intolerant (at least to milk that isn't our own species)? We develop enzymes in our system to deal with cow (and other species) milk by drinking it, and from the immunities and enzymes we get from breastfeeding (which we get only because our mother's built up their tolerance as well). We are also one of the few (maybe only, I can't remember my facts right now, so I'm not gonna paint myself into a corner) animals that does ingest what basically amounts to another species baby formula, and I'm also pretty sure we're the only ones that continue to drink milk beyond infancy.
Your edit actually was what I was asking about. Your argument makes a lot of sense and I will take it into consideration. I would like to beg your indulgance and ask one other question. It is my understanding that most foods that humans can digest do not provide enough calcium for bone health. I have two friends who are vegan and both have been perscribed calcium suplaments by their doctors. My question is this, if we were to entrirely give up milk, from cows or other sources, where would we get the needed cacium from. I know that degenrative bone diseases were a major problem for pre-agricultural humans.
Let's help the environment. Tell the greenies to shove it and allow us to build more nuclear power plants. These are reliable which solar and wind is not, have a much less effect on the ecosystem and are not tied to geographic location unlike hydropower. And they give off zero greenhouse gases which coal and other fossil fuel planets do not. Come on, if a bunch of french guys can do it, what is stopping us but an irrational fear? If you care about the environment, then you should support nuclear power.Because Chyrnoble (sp?) is an irrational fear?
Being locked into fear because of a single disaster is irrational. It is like being bitten by one spider and suddenly being terrified of all spiders.
Yeah, I know that they have increased the safety of nuclear plants so it's not as likely to happen. But we increase the number of plants, and have them run for a time, and that safety increase isn't gonna mean squat, because it's going to happen sooner or later, and personally, I don't care HOW much energy is produced, or how "clean" the energy is, it's not worth a meltdown. It's not worth creating a dead zone that will last 50 years, and cause horrible mutations for another 50-100 years after.
Actually the area around Chernobyl is thriving with life. Mostly because there are few people around which is the number one killer.
Not only that, but I am kind of a paranoid conspiricy theorist, and I definitely don't rule out the possibility that nuclear powerplants can (and are) used as a cover for covert nuke making. Do I think it IS happening? I have no clue. Would I put it past our (or any other) government? Heck no.
From: Nuclear Power Myths and Realities
Nuclear Energy - Myths and Realities
Nuclear Power has been in decline since the TMI accident in 1979. In fact US nuclear plants are producing 50% more energy than they did in 1980. Nuclear orders appear imminent as plans for 31 new reactors have been announced.
Nuclear power is dangerous: radiation emissions and potential accidents are intolerable. In fact there have not been accidents in the US that harmed the public, and only one accident world-wide for a design and operating procedures that would not have been allowed in the US.
Nuclear power is too expensive. While expensive to build, it is very inexpensive to run, and can run continuously. That is why when other fuels get expensive it will be only logical to turn to nuclear for more energy.
Nuclear power generates intolerable amounts of wastes. Per unit energy, the volume of the fuel and the plant is the smallest of any other power source.
Nuclear power will lead to nuclear weapons proliferation. The fuel used in nuclear power plants is not suitable for bombs as it enters or leaves the reactor. There are lower cost options to weapon materials than nuclear power.
Nuclear power is useful for electricity generation, but cannot help meet the transportation energy sector needs. Nuclear (heat and hydrogen) can in the near future lower the carbon intensity of heavy and unconventional oil extraction and refining. It can recharge car batteries or fuel cells in the future
|
|
So because we stop raising cattle, the entire species is going to disappear? I don't think so.A lot of vegans also quote the amount of methane gas that cattle release into the air, since methane is a greenhouse gas.Damn those cows! They need to stop farting!Yeah, I always laugh at that one. Personally, my thought is that the cows exist, they're going to fart whether we raise and eat them or not. So really, trying to blame global warming on another species' flatulence, and using that as a reason to guilt trip people into changing their diets, is in my opinion misleading and underhanded.
I only included the factoid because it is in most vegan's arguement for people going vegan.
Except that if we weren't going to eat them, we wouldn't raise them so they wouldn't exist.
** spoiler omitted **
How many cattle are raised purely for beef? Answer most of them. Ergo, if we stop eating beef, there will be no reason for the vast majority of the cattle to exist and we will stop breeding them quite so extensively. this will reduce the number of cattle by a large amount which will decrease their emissions by a similar amount. We will especially stop breeding them in South America where the need for pasture is reducing the rainforest. If you're going to be dismissive, it's generally a good idea to know what you're talking about first.
So because we stop raising cattle, the entire species is going to disappear? I don't think so.
Is that what happened to the dodo? Ice Age lied!!
|
|
So because we stop raising cattle, the entire species is going to disappear? I don't think so.A lot of vegans also quote the amount of methane gas that cattle release into the air, since methane is a greenhouse gas.Damn those cows! They need to stop farting!Yeah, I always laugh at that one. Personally, my thought is that the cows exist, they're going to fart whether we raise and eat them or not. So really, trying to blame global warming on another species' flatulence, and using that as a reason to guilt trip people into changing their diets, is in my opinion misleading and underhanded.
I only included the factoid because it is in most vegan's arguement for people going vegan.
Except that if we weren't going to eat them, we wouldn't raise them so they wouldn't exist.
** spoiler omitted **
It would likely decline due to natural predation. However, it would also create huge populations of feral cattle. I saw this on Life After People.
However, it would also create huge populations of feral cattle. I saw this on Life After People.
I once seen feral cattle attack a horticulture fair. It weren't a pretty sight.
|
|
It would likely decline due to natural predation. However, it would also create huge populations of feral cattle. I saw this on Life After People.So because we stop raising cattle, the entire species is going to disappear? I don't think so.A lot of vegans also quote the amount of methane gas that cattle release into the air, since methane is a greenhouse gas.Damn those cows! They need to stop farting!Yeah, I always laugh at that one. Personally, my thought is that the cows exist, they're going to fart whether we raise and eat them or not. So really, trying to blame global warming on another species' flatulence, and using that as a reason to guilt trip people into changing their diets, is in my opinion misleading and underhanded.
I only included the factoid because it is in most vegan's arguement for people going vegan.
Except that if we weren't going to eat them, we wouldn't raise them so they wouldn't exist.
** spoiler omitted **
Either that or we have the world's largest barbecue before swearing off meat for good.
It would likely decline due to natural predation. However, it would also create huge populations of feral cattle. I saw this on Life After People.So because we stop raising cattle, the entire species is going to disappear? I don't think so.A lot of vegans also quote the amount of methane gas that cattle release into the air, since methane is a greenhouse gas.Damn those cows! They need to stop farting!Yeah, I always laugh at that one. Personally, my thought is that the cows exist, they're going to fart whether we raise and eat them or not. So really, trying to blame global warming on another species' flatulence, and using that as a reason to guilt trip people into changing their diets, is in my opinion misleading and underhanded.
I only included the factoid because it is in most vegan's arguement for people going vegan.
Except that if we weren't going to eat them, we wouldn't raise them so they wouldn't exist.
** spoiler omitted **
If we didn't have any use for cattle, they would probably be killed off. People can talk all about how much they love animals, but if they are vegan and gangs of cows are tramping through their soybean farms eating all the plants, those vegans would be for the culling of the cows. Would they go extinct? Some breeds probably would, while the more "exotic" ones (longhorns?) would probably still survive in some kind of protected environment. Much like the american buffalo (bison) has, though I think the numbers have started increasing more since people started considering eating them.
One thing that always cracks me up is when someone says, "Eat Organic food". I thought the stuff I was eating had carbon in it, was I wrong?