It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

7.9 BILLION TONS of Fossil Fuels Released in 2005

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Really? Are you sure it is that the air has gotten better or have you just become accustomed to bad air?


The smog alerts of the time were only an occassionaly occurence. And I haven't lived their since 1981. But a quick check revealed that the last "smog alert" (stage one) was issued in 1998 and a stage 3 (the worse) hasn't been issued since 1984--indicating that the EPA emissions requirements are working. The smog alerts are based on particulate matter in the air which no longer reach the level to initiate an alert.

But you've now lost me in your aruments. First you complain about the amount of particulates being released; then complain about the "money grubbing" oil companies, which I don't necessarily disagree with; but quitting using petroleum products isn't the answer. Now your complaining about the effects of smog from 30 years ago when the air quality over the years has markedly improved due to governmental regulation--and without decreasing over all lifestyle.

Could you please restate or clarify your point?




posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Now your complaining about the effects of smog from 30 years ago when the air quality over the years has markedly improved due to governmental regulation--and without decreasing over all lifestyle.



How is it that I am the one complaining about smog when I am not the one who initiated it into the topic?? Hmmm?
You are the one who mentioned smog. I made no mention of it.

[edit on 24-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
How is it that I am the one complaining about smog when I am not the one who initiated it into the topic?? Hmmm?
You are the one who mentioned smog. I made no mention of it.


Dude!! This entire thread is founded on "smog" as indicated by the article you provided regarding carbon emissions. What do you think carbon emissions are?


BTW: I question the accuracy of that article as its source (Environmental News Network) clearly has biased views.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
BTW: I question the accuracy of that article as its source (Environmental News Network) clearly has biased views.


Judging by your posts thus far,I am sure that you'd be all too giddy to believe an article spponsored by one of the corporate giants though.

Anyway, my main beef is not with the "smog" you keep alluding to and you never really did address my question about whether you thought air quality has gotten better or if you have just become adjusted to breathing bad air. I imagine it's the latter rather than the former,but what do environmental protectionists know?


Smog is certainly an aspect of the problem but there are invisible factors that are more troubling.Smog is a culmination of chemicals in the tmosphere and not simply caused by one specific... So,no,I'm not the one who initiated the conversation about smog... You did!!



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Anyway, my main beef is not with the "smog" you keep alluding to and you never really did address my question about whether you thought air quality has gotten better...


I did address it--you just choose not to read my posts!!


Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
So,no,I'm not the one who initiated the conversation about smog... You did!!


Apparently, you don't read your own posts either. Your first post, the foundation upon which this thread stands, is about....................SMOG!!!!


[edit on 25-11-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Quite amazing: who would have ever thought that we humans would need to make our adequate energy needs obtainable through the extraction, process and consumption of the earth?

--THIS JUST IN--

Man has been burning trees, leaves, shrubs and combustibles of all kinds for hundreds of thousands of years in order to cook meat, melt metal and help accomodate his various energy needs.

The amenities provided to us are by our own design and creation. We have no one else to thank and no one else to blame, and as far as I am concerned, it was a good run, but, 7.9 billion tons of released fossil fuels per annum is a joke. The number should be far more robust and round like any other thing in my life...like say 10 trillion tons!



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
This is beyond ridiculous.


Why is progress based on fossil fuels 'ridiculous'? What you rather have no progress under the current energy paradigm? What do you offer as alternatives for human development and growth and how do you plan on gaining public acceptance for them?


We continue to throw these toxic fumes into the atmosphere when it is not even necessary.


Why, in your opinion, is pollution of the atmosphere 'unnecessary' in terms of progress?


Global Warming aside,


What global warming? We have had a global atmospheric cooling trend since 1999.


the fact that we are not contributing anything beneficial to the ecosystm cannot be denied.


Simply not true as far as i can tell.


There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases
in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or
can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures
or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon
dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased.
We also need not worry about environmental calamities, even if
the current long-term natural warming trend continues. The Earth has
been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic
effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves
the habitability of colder regions. ‘‘Global warming,’’ an invalidated
hypothesis, provides no reason to limit human production
of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 as has been proposed (29).

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not measurably
warmed the atmosphere, and the extrapolation of current trends
shows that it will not significantly do so in the foreseeable future. It
does, however, release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates of
plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life,
which depends upon plants, also flourishes.
As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty
vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released
into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the
health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2
level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil,
and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface,
where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living
in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result
of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more
plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a
wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.

www.heartland.org...


If the planet was in fact warming up the plight of humanity would get generally better as history shows us...


We are a cancer upon mother earth.


Then i suggest you contribute to the solution , to the common good, by jumping off something relatively high. If you think humanity is in fact the 'problem' and that pollution is a necessary result of progress your seriving no purpose and contributing not a thing to the solution.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
We are a cancer upon mother earth.


Unless you live "off the grid", surviving only on solar/wind power and drive a horse fed only by the grass growing on your land; and eat food that only you raise/grow using hand tools; you are a major part of the problem--and a hypocrit!!

Saying "This has to stop!!" is not a viable solution.


LOL! He isn't control of the power grid, and maybe at the local election he voted for someone who would do more power saving measures.

Duh.


What global warming? We have had a global atmospheric cooling trend since 1999.

Yeah, sure it is



Simply not true as far as i can tell.

Human activity causes the extinction of between 70 and 150 species of animal, bird, fish, insect, and plant life each day.

Haha, yeah, what a 'wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.'


I also guess Glaciers are magically melting and the great barrier reef is magically dieing. Don't worry, it's not us, lets keep killing 70 species a day, it will help the eath



Then i suggest you contribute to the solution , to the common good, by jumping off something relatively high. If you think humanity is in fact the 'problem' and that pollution is a necessary result of progress your seriving no purpose and contributing not a thing to the solution.

Ah, yes. But we CAN do something about it.

[edit on 26-11-2006 by PisTonZOR]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Just compiled the things you have said so far here...


Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Copntinuing to support money grubbing corporations while they continue to not only kill the earth,but man himself with toxic fumes is not very viable either,eh?


Well industry may be killing us but our life expectations are still rising so either they suck at it or they see the logic in keeping the cash cow alive as long as humanly possible while it's being milked to near capacity for the duration... Remember that their profit is derived from the resources you gain by your labour and if you do not labour they have nothing to take from you...


Judging by your posts thus far,I am sure that you'd be all too giddy to believe an article spponsored by one of the corporate giants though.


Look i do not trust them as far as i can throw them ( corporations being pure tyrannies and all ) but they are at least to some extent predictable; they need to have us around if not to work for them then to exploit us... Industry does not HAVE to be evil and destructive but since we can not affect change in government corporations can get away with as much as they currently are. If we change our perception and requirements of reality we can have industrial enterprise owned by people ( not the not so human entities that currently own so many industries) FOR the people.


Well,firstly,humanity,not just Americans, need to quit using the argument that "We cannot give up our way of life for the good of the planet." Why the hell not?


Because i refuse to give up my current standard of living i will never expect anyone else below my standard to give up theirs and since that includes most of the people on Earth i am not going to preach to anyone. I want not only what i have but to do better if and when i like and since i do not want to destroy the world that sustains me i will do what i can to protect it. I for one simple do not believe that human activity logically leads to environmental destruction and that in fact ecologically destruction is a choice made and allowed by government policy. The true rulers of the world do want to see the environment destroyed as that would give them ever more control over us as one can see with their various ploys to make us feel guilty about the progress our forefathers fought so hard to attain.


Do we have the capability to pilgrimmage to another planet and "set up camp?" Absolutely not. What happens to the ecosystem also happens to us. However, the majority of the poulation is so wrapped in their own petty affairs to realize it.


If you think bettering yourself and your local community and it's environment is a 'petty affair' your not being reasonable and do not understand much about human activity in my opinion. We seem to have very tribal like considerations and in fact be shown that without a face and some background history about a person they could just as well not exist in your minds. Since our governments policy is almost always aimed at fragmenting our social behaviour ( but not our nationalistic and 'patriotic' aspirations; we want to be part of something meaningful) they know this well enough and do not want us to work together and thus fight back far more effectively.


Secondly, electrically powered vehicles are a viable alternative to fossil fuels. So is solaror nuclear powered energy. So don't tell me that there is not a "viable" solution to fossil fuels. That argument is codswallop.

Don't Tell Me That There Are Not Alternatives!!

www.alternative-energy-engineering.com...

www.alternative-energy-news.info...


I for one know that vacuum energy were in evidence to be extractable from ther vacuum for a century or more and that cold fusion and many other technologies could give us very nearly free energy with pollution that is inversely proportional to growth and development. Since these technologies are not being employed today it is abundantly clear that control over humanity is far more important to our would be rulers than protecting of the environment that does not seem to be doing too badly anyways.


s much more where that came from... Sure,it may take some time for some of these things. However, if the powers that be were as concerned as they claim about the welfare of humanity, it would seem that many of these projects would have been in the works long ago.


Oh they are and i wonder how you can say the things you do apparently understanding at least partly why it's all happening. Why should humans limit their aspirations because those who seek to control us refuse to allow us the technologies which would lead to unlimited growth with pollution growing ever less as we build a new industry?


Here is the problem I have with people who argue from the economic view of the argument. What good is a good economy going to do anyone if the air is not healthy to breathe?


Then i guess we will have to live indoors or buy respirators for activities outside our homes? Would you rather live in abject poverty and or starvation or wear a respirator type system when you go outside to spend time on your one acre lawn? How much time do average western people spend outside of buildings where the conditions could not be controlled?


Anyway, my main beef is not with the "smog" you keep alluding to and you never really did address my question about whether you thought air quality has gotten better or if you have just become adjusted to breathing bad air. I imagine it's the latter rather than the former,but what do environmental protectionists know?


Air quality has gotten better over the years.... Bad air simple kills you in the not so long run and since we are growing ever older ( almost everywhere) i am not sure how a argument for worse and worse air pollution can made to start with...


Smog is certainly an aspect of the problem but there are invisible factors that are more troubling.Smog is a culmination of chemicals in the tmosphere and not simply caused by one specific... So,no,I'm not the one who initiated the conversation about smog... You did!!


Total environmental ( atmospheric pollution) may have increased but if it's not affecting our standards of living why should we attempt to go back to earlier times when all that pollution were in your own back yard ( sewage and cooking fires, filthy water, etc) and killed you relatively fast?

Lets save yourselves first and fight the best fight we can to maintain the environment as best we can while we develop human civilization and ourselves; i refuse to even consider a alternative where the environment comes first ( have you ever seen what a poor starving person does to his local environment in his struggle to survive; lets just say it's not pretty at all) with humans consigned to starvation and worse in some kind of desperate attempt to fix what has not been shown to be broken.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   
that 7.9 billion tonne figure will increase as the rest ofthe world copies, emulates the USA energy glutton model.

i'm all for retrofitting our (USAs) power grid system to DC from AC
chemical toilets would do just as well
ethanol instead of state or regional fuel blends, (with Brazil as a starting example)
steam engine technology, synthetic gas from biomass scrap & waste is just beyond the prototype stage at this time...

a less polluted ecology is attainable & would not mean a rollback of living standards, --->but ramping up for it would put maximum economic strain or loss on established mega corps & displace the workers who are still on a payroll for those int'l mega corps
[those remaining & the jobs not already outsourced to 3rd world labor pools]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   
The only problem is that we need more trees. Trees love all forms of carbon emissions and spit out oxygen. In fact its known that as the carbon in the atmosphere becomes a larger percentage plants grow faster so all we need to do is stop massive deforestation and let nature do the rest.

[edit on 26-11-2006 by American Madman]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
LOL! He isn't control of the power grid, and maybe at the local election he voted for someone who would do more power saving measures.

Duh.


That will not help as the current 'alternative' solutions are not worth the effort compared to what is generally hidden from public awareness.


Yeah, sure it is


I should have instead said that if one attempts reaching a conclusion based on our limited knowledge and understanding of atmospheric average temperatures one would be stuck with a global cooling trend as 'result'. Since the science does not seem to be all that exact a global warming trend is just rather hard to defend in a remotely scientific way not mentioning the even less realistic claim that we are responsible in large or any part.


Human activity causes the extinction of between 70 and 150 species of animal, bird, fish, insect, and plant life each day.


Another propaganda lie that never panned out; bring me a list.


Haha, yeah, what a 'wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.'


Do you think we could have achieved our current living standards in another way?


I also guess Glaciers are magically melting and the great barrier reef is magically dieing.


Some glaciers are melting and some reef's are showing 'unexpected' ( you should ask by who's measure) decline but is it the norm ( when compared to glacier formation and so forth) and is there on the whole signs that the environment is being destroyed? Sure we can find areas that have been absolutely devastated but is it not true that we can find large areas tracts of land that today hold more biological material than before our arrival?


Don't worry, it's not us, lets keep killing 70 species a day, it will help the eath


I personally wont mind if we got rid of the 50 odd thousand beetle species and at 70 a day that's two years worth of destruction i don't much care about; after that we can move on to flies, spiders and a whole host of species i reckon contribute very little to the environment.
Look it's just a bunch of nonsense anyways and i would love to see you try defend that 'fact' that we are killing 70 species a day! Who's doing the counting anyways and how do you keep track of millions of beetle's anyways? You think chemtrails would be hard to hide but i can promise you the millions of specialist required to crawl around your local forest would be somewhat harder to keep from view.


Ah, yes. But we CAN do something about it.


Sure we can but not in the ways he proposed.... What do you suggest we do beside dismantling the industrialized western societies in some reckless vain attempt to fix a non existing problem?

Stellar



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
that 7.9 billion tonne figure will increase as the rest ofthe world copies, emulates the USA energy glutton model.

Has nothing to do with emulating the US.

Population increase (anywhere) = greater demand for power.


Originally posted by St Udio
i'm all for retrofitting our (USAs) power grid system to DC from AC
chemical toilets would do just as well
ethanol instead of state or regional fuel blends, (with Brazil as a starting example)
steam engine technology, synthetic gas from biomass scrap & waste is just beyond the prototype stage at this time...

Do you have any idea of what you are talking about? I've bolded the sections I'm referring to. Retrofitting blah blah blah!? You obviously have no clue of how electricity is made and transmitted across the nation. The retrofit you are referring to would only allow for a transfer of high voltages across a grander plain (meaning send it from here to there with less voltage loss).

Steam engine technology? What!?
umm... first, how would you make the steam?... Wish for it? You're gonna have to heat that water up some how!


[edit on 11/26/2006 by Infoholic]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
The fact is Speakeroftruth just by the fact that you began the thread makes you part of the problem.

Your PC whatever make and type used loads of luvly energy and oil somewhere in its manufacture.

The electricity you are using no doubt comes from the grid somewhere. Now unless you are using a dynamo powered by hamster or horse the majority of your electrical power uses fossil fuels.

If you were using wind power or such they also contribute to the problem in manufacture. If you use lime, cement or concrete in the construction of your home, you are yet again using fossils in their manufacture. Taken a stage further using wood at all removes a tree or two from the carbon balance.

Unless you built your home, fed yourself and drink your water using local resources and use no energy to obtain these essentials you are not in any position to dictate. When you and your hypocritical type start living in Earth friendly caves and eat and drink locally.....and stop using computers.....then I will listen to what you have to say.

Personally I have no intention of bringing children into this world so as long as it lasts a few more years I am happy. I live in the UK I could do with it warming up a few degrees anyway


The way I see it, if the religious types are right and man is gods special case then no worries. If there is no god (and there ain't IMHO) man is in the poo and who cares, just arrogant man. Let the roaches and rats have it. I say....Man ain't that important you know......

I grow weary of this...

SS

over and out



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
You have voted SpeakerofTruth for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

The US pays farmers to keep land idol! Land that could produce soybeans for biodeisel and corn for ethanol.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
This is beyond ridiculous. We continue to throw these toxic fumes into the atmosphere when it is not even necessary. Global Warming aside, the fact that we are not contributing anything beneficial to the ecosystm cannot be denied.

We are a cancer upon mother earth.


Finally a post on here with a little bit of truth with regards to the environment. I wouldn't necessarily call us a cancer upon earth, because you produced some of that stuff into the atmosphere by running your computer to type up that post. But the fact remains alot of what we do is at the very least causing a slight decline in the quality of our planet (some things are affecting it significantly). However this fact does NOT need to be intertwined with any talk about global warming. In my own mind I am undecided if the noted changes in our planet's temperatures are related to our chemicals, to erratic weather patterns, or just plain old cycles of earth's climate. But it seems like any time someone mentions that we are polluting the atmosphere, there is always that jump in logic to "yea! global warming!" Instead why don't we foster discussion on what we can really do to help minimize our impact on the planet? Arguing if these changes are or are not from our actions is pointless if these actions continue the whole time we are arguing.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
The earth is currently experiencing mass extinctions that some say outstrip that of the dinosaurs. Seems to me all the signs are there.

It's unfortunate the oil and automotive industries dismantled all the electric public transportation in favor of petroleum fueled. Geesh, they're even hawking petroleum jelly like some kind of beauty secret.., it's really vitamin E ointment and clean water.

There are marketable alternatives that are more or less ignored by builders. That would be a good idea for a contractor, communities of energy friendly homes.

What I find silly is things like: after Katrina a woman I know got in her SUV and drove down to save the pets. She probably burned enough Co2 to make another Katrina next year. Nevermind the destitute humans received less compassion.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by clearwater
The earth is currently experiencing mass extinctions that some say outstrip that of the dinosaurs. Seems to me all the signs are there.

It's unfortunate the oil and automotive industries dismantled all the electric public transportation in favor of petroleum fueled. Geesh, they're even hawking petroleum jelly like some kind of beauty secret.., it's really vitamin E ointment and clean water.

There are marketable alternatives that are more or less ignored by builders. That would be a good idea for a contractor, communities of energy friendly homes.

What I find silly is things like: after Katrina a woman I know got in her SUV and drove down to save the pets. She probably burned enough Co2 to make another Katrina next year. Nevermind the destitute humans received less compassion.


What?

The extinction that whiped out the Dinosaurs, I believe was one of the more mediocre Earth has had, in fact the worst Extinction was several hundreds of millions years before that, where most of the species(above 70 percent) that have ever lived on earth were destroyed, it occured 251 million years ago, the Permian-Triassic extinction. The worst extinctions earth has ever had occured long ago, and every year I'm sure there is some species noone has ever heard of that just went extinct. It's natural selection, survival of the fittest, call it what you will, it's evolution. Lets not contribute evolution and natural disasters to the poisoning of Earth.

There is nothing wrong with the environment, the biggest disaster we have to worry about is Mt. Yellowstone that scientists believe erupts every 600,000 years. It's been 800,000 since it's last eruption, and Ice Ages are actually a frequent occurance in Earth's History. Some of the earliest dating back billions of years ago.

Bottom line, I don't think human intervention plays a MAJOR role in the decline or incline of Earth's atmospheric and terrestrial health, sure we play a role, but not a major one as people want it to be. I just think some people want humans to be at fault for something, they're looking for someone to blame.

Blatantly put, fecal matter happens. This earth is going to experience an extinction, or ice age, or a major catastrophe with or without us, we have no say in it really.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
and i get in trouble,
Because i smoke near a restaurant door, yet people are killing our resources



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Maybe I overlooked someones comment, but has anybody ever noticed that even though the united states and other developed nations are causing a stir in the pot when it comes to pollution, that nations such as china, india, africa and south america are producing massive amounts of pollution... and in all reality the other corporations are market driven by share holders aka you and me... if you invest in something somehow someway its tied into some massive corporation... besides if our system was to just up and end tomorrow a good percentage of the poppulation would kill itself... riots... looting... rape... so if youd honestly like to stop the system as is go right ahead but just realize that chances are if you live in canada youll starve or freeze to death and if your in the states youll probably be beaten to death if not worse... our system might not be perfect... and of course it needs to be improved on... but dont blame it entirely on north america and dont say that developing nations dont have a right to burn down their rain forests because if you havent noticed its their land... if you dont like it go bomb them maybe you will change their mind then? Im pretty sure thats whats going on in iraq as well... americans didnt agree that women should be treated so poorly and that everyone should have the right to vote ect ect... or was it the oil... hmm so hard to remember...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join