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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I have done a few things, that at least EVERYONE here is capable of doing.
#1, I have pretty much changed out all my old incandecent bulbs into compact flourescent, which you can buy exclusively at Wal-Mart
. They last for years and years, shine just as bright, and use way less energy.
#2, I dont fux with bottled water. I mean damn stop being picky and buy a filter. We got to where we are today from our ancestors drinking straight from the damn rivers and lakes. So do us all a favor, upgrade your fridge to one with a filtered water dispensor, or simply purchase a filtration system for your family. I help the environment by not purchasing bottles that were manufactured with petroleum products, powered by fossil fuels, and then just throwing it in the trash.
#3, Recycle everything possible!! I participate in the curbside pick-up. All you have to do is get the blue bucket in put in your recylables.
#4, Not only have I seriously cut down my garbage load by recycling, now I will be making a compost heap for all the organic matter I dispose of. Chicken/pork/beef bones, coffee grounds, eggshells, fruit aand veggies skins and cores, bad leftovers. ALL that stuff will soon be going outside for compost heap. The great thing aobut that is that since I love tomatoes so much, I am going to start growing them in my backyard. I use a lto of onions too, so I will see if I cannot get that too. You do not actually need to big of a yard to do this, but mine is quite adequate. If you have the space you can even get a chicken or two. They do a good job at cleaning up the insects in the yard!!

there is not much I can do about my cars emmissions though. I am in fact not wealthy enough to purchase a hybrid or high mileage vehicle. I am not a genie either, so I cannot magically change our societal system to enable me the opportunity for the most fuel-efficient car.

Fact is if the world was one socialist, hybrid system, we would only have the most efficient things possible at any time. In fact, it would be the law.

Which brings me to my own personal desire. I would love nothing more but for our government to mandate environmental laws on the individual level. Its called take up some responsibility for your home. You may believe that emmission probably do not harm anything, but I can tell you dumping chemicals into a local water body, or just burying your non bio-degradeables into the ground to leech for hundreds to thousands of years does NOT help the environment.

Hey as far as emmisions go, I think we need a new system of government to enforce environmental RESPONSIBILITY. Thats right, I am talking fines for violaters and jail time for repeat offendors. I dont see gazelles and pigeons dumping motor oil into the water and throwing their garbage on the ground. I also doubt wild dogs are burying their old tv's, tires, dye rich clothes and prints into the ground.




posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
DYepes... I agree.

My children take materials to the local grade school, of which they have recycling receptacles available. They've even got a reward system for the class that produces the most recyclable material. We use a home water filtration system, as well. I've actually changed out all the old incandescent bulbs in the house for the new and improved "natural light" florescent type.

Plant a tree, make changes everywhere you can (light bulbs, walk, carpool, recycle), and when worse comes to worse... sacrifice. But most importantly, teach your children. If this world is so important to everyone, then why is it so hard to participate?


I don't really buy into this whole "we are a disease to mother earth" idealism, however. The fact of the matter is, I try to make a little bit of difference. I'm not the least bit hypocritical of this topic. I will never sit here and say "don't do this" or "don't do that", because I'm the last one to call the kettle black.

I own/drive 2 SUV's, I have 3 computers that run non-stop, a television that the kids are using at all times of the day... and I even work at a 385Mw Coal Fired Power Plant.


For those of you that don't "know" power plant business, you really should work for one so that you get the proper training of the ongoings of a plant and it's operation. There's a ton of bias crap you could learn online, but you wouldn't get the full grasp of what's taking place. You'd actually be surprised as to learn the truth that power plants (of course, not all of them) don't really put out the emissions in the amount that they are accused of. Yes, there are some that are grandfathered in... meaning according to EPA regulations, they wouldn't have to put forth the finances to change their emissions. The newer plants, or the ones that make enough cash flow and do actually upgrade... are next to nil on pollution output.

[edit on 11/26/2006 by Infoholic]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I definetly know what your talking about on the power plants thing Infoholic. Before all that steam everyone sees goes into the air, it goes through all kinds of filters and scrubbers. Although I have only been to a waste to energy facility for a tour, I assume the filtratino process works quite similarly. Pretty much all the lead, mercury, and other metalliz nasties are virtually gone. It like goes through phosphates, carbon, clorine and other things I do not remember the names too. Most of what gets released is nitrogen, which makes up the majority of our atmosphere anyways right? Am I about close to correct?



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I'm starting at a local nuke plant in January and am really looking forward to it. This spring another plant comes online in Alabama and will go down there for 3 months. After that I get the whole summer off paid thanks to Enron and company. Then in the fall back to work again. We need more nuclear plants they are the safest and cleanest things going.

mikell



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
First thing first, DYepes... funny thing we've found something we can actually agree on.



The waste type facilities are a bit different than a coal fired power plant, however as you discussed, it's pretty close.

Coal fired power plants have many different types of emissions controls. Ranging from, but not limited to...

1. Most importantly - the type of coal burned.
2. Air/fuel ratios - actually control the output of CO2
3. Different burner nozzles. (actually assist with the lowered output of NOx)
4. Regenerative air heaters (recover flue gas heat as to lower the need of more coal)
5. Scrubbers - dry type and wet type (process that removes SO2)
6. Baghouse - collects the particulates (solid material)


The plant I work at over the past couple years has even tried a "carbon injection" method... allegedly reported by the EPA to reduce CO2 emissions even further... but to no prevail.

As well, over the years of me working at a power plant, I have first hand experience in watching the load on the system increase. We were at one point in time able to cycle the plant from higher loads to lower loads... but as the increase in population and the increase demand for power... guess what.. it's "pedal to the metal" 24/7.

[edit on 11/26/2006 by Infoholic]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikellmikell
I'm starting at a local nuke plant in January and am really looking forward to it. This spring another plant comes online in Alabama and will go down there for 3 months. After that I get the whole summer off paid thanks to Enron and company. Then in the fall back to work again. We need more nuclear plants they are the safest and cleanest things going.

Sorry... cleanest "running" yes... safest... no.

Good luck in the power field. It's a great experience.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
No doubt Info, when it comes to environmental responsibility, I am in it as best as possible. I live in Tampa, FL and well I think our air is pretty clean. I get my power from big Bend power plant in Apollo Beach. From what I read on the website, they are quite clean, like what you have explained.


Location
Situated on Tampa Bay, Big Bend Power Station is located on Big Bend Road on nearly 1,500 acres in southeastern Hillsborough County, close to Apollo Beach.

Description
Big Bend Power Station has four coal-fired units with a combined output of almost 1,800 megawatts. Big Bend Power Station expanded to meet the demands of rapid growth during the 1970s and 1980s. The first unit began service in 1970; the second and third generating units were added in 1973 and 1976; and Unit Four was added in 1985. With the capacity provided by three combustion turbines that serve as peaking units, combined output from Big Bend Power Station is over 1,900 megawatts.

Technology
Big Bend Power Station meets strict environmental regulations through the use of flue gas desulfurization systems or “scrubbers,” which remove sulfur dioxide produced when coal is burned.

The scrubber for Big Bend Unit Four began operation in 1984, and since 1995, has simultaneously scrubbed Unit Three as well. The scrubber for Big Bend Units One and Two began operation at the end of 1999. The scrubber system complies with standards set by the U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and removes 95 percent of sulfur dioxide from all four units.

Environment
By using a variety of proven technologies, Tampa Electric will continue to significantly reduce nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions from Big Bend Power Station. Planned actions include:

Combustion modifications to all four units and evaluation of the effects of each modification on nitrogen oxides emissions. By the end of 2010, nitrogen oxides emissions from Big Bend Power Station will be reduced by approximately 80 percent from 1998 emission levels through the installation of a Selective Catalytic Reduction system on each unit.
Optimizing electrostatic precipitators to minimize emissions of particulate matter from the stacks was completed in 2004, resulting in a reduction of approximately *71 percent when compared to 1998 levels.
Further reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions by investing more than $23 million in scrubber upgrades, resulting in a reduction of over 88 percent from 1998 levels.
Recyclable byproducts
During the scrubbing process, coal combustion gases are sprayed with a mixture of water and limestone. Sulfur oxides react with the spray to form gypsum. Tampa Electric recycles virtually all of its gypsum.

Gypsum is used locally in wallboard (drywall) for construction, in cement and concrete for construction and in agriculture as a soil nutrient or fertilizer

Fly ash, a fine particulate material that results from the combustion of coal and is collected in the electrostatic precipitators in all four Big Bend Units, is used in the cement and concrete industries.

Slag, which is collected at the bottom of the furnace, is a hard, glass-like material with many reuses, including in cement. Its hard quality makes it valuable to use as a high-velocity blast material to clean ships, storage tanks and other large metal surfaces.

Tampa Electric

I think for those who would like to reduce the effect our power plants have on our environment need to take a good look at the power stations that supply their energy. If they are not burning as clean as they should be, then perhaps it would be time to take up a local effort in one's own community, in conjuction with all the communities your power station serves to bring about either the proper legislation or media attention.

Now for those of you saying Hydrogen is not a viable ooption because water is too scarce... what the heck are you on? The earth is more than three fourths water.

If we used Solar fields in the Southwest desert areas (limited to no impact on barren surface environment) we could use that energy to power the Hydrogen refineries fed by pipelines directly from the coast. That in turn, can fuel the shift from fossil powered autos (cars, trucks, planes, boats) into the hydrogen age.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Wow,quite a response.
I think what some are missing here is that though there will not be a "quick fix" to this problem,if we choose to continue on the path of using fossil fuels simply for effeciencies sake, we are in trouble. I am not even so much talking about what we'll experience,but what our children and their children's children will experience.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Wow,quite a response.
I think what some are missing here is that though there will not be a "quick fix" to this problem,if we choose to continue on the path of using fossil fuels simply for effeciencies sake, we are in trouble. I am not even so much talking about what we'll experience,but what our children and their children's children will experience.


1. which response(s) are you referring to?
2. which efficiencies are you referring to?



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes

Which brings me to my own personal desire. I would love nothing more but for our government to mandate environmental laws on the individual level.


Just what we need, even MORE useless laws that TARGET individual's, cause chaos (think renters).


Originally posted by DYepes
Hey as far as emmisions go, I think we need a new system of government to enforce environmental RESPONSIBILITY.


How about some moralistic RESPONSIBILITY?


Originally posted by DYepes
Thats right, I am talking fines for violaters and jail time for repeat offendors.


Yep, makes perfect sense... you either forget, miss the recycle bin, throw it in your regular garbage, and baam! Wind yourself up in the slammer...damn right that would help... seeing as how everyone seems to manage to do this anyway; with the correction center overloads, tenfold taxation to accomodate that overload from a real-estate and personnel standpoint, and countless people out of jobs due to incarceration ... while the quality of life would suffer for MILLIONS, the environment would certainly clean-up quickly! Agreed!



Originally posted by DYepes
I dont see gazelles and pigeons dumping motor oil into the water and throwing their garbage on the ground. I also doubt wild dogs are burying their old tv's, tires, dye rich clothes and prints into the ground.


You also don't see Gazelles or Pigeons or Dogs doing anything more than sleeping, eating, and mating! However, I HAVE seen wild dogs (read: Coyotes) take a dump WAYYYY too close to a source of water AND cover it up...perhaps it's a conspiracy and THEY are in-fact polluting a vast portion of our pottable water...not to mention adding to emissions...
I fail to see, btw, the correlation from Emission (smog) to buried tires TV's OR dyed clothing...perhaps in their manufacture, but not in their disposal.

Dont get me wrong I AM the first for cleaning up this god-forsaken world's pollution, ecosystem, and atmospheric anamolies...however, needless legislation, incarceration, and punitive measures will NOT create a more responsible population...my contention is that ONLY catastrophe (much like a child learning that a stove is hot by getting burned) will spawn change. You cant force a people(s) to FEEL responsible for our Earth...to do so, strains the fabic that our great country (for those of us living in the US) was built on to begin with

AB1


Edited for grammar and typo

[edit on 27-11-2006 by alphabetaone]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Wow,quite a response.
I think what some are missing here is that though there will not be a "quick fix" to this problem,if we choose to continue on the path of using fossil fuels simply for effeciencies sake, we are in trouble. I am not even so much talking about what we'll experience,but what our children and their children's children will experience.


1. which response(s) are you referring to?
2. which efficiencies are you referring to?


Just the over-all response.

What efficiencies? Well, we,as humans, do not like to change things.As a matter of fact, we hide from change every chance we get.It's really not any wonder why we are still using fossil fuels. It's certainly not because it is overly abundant,nor is it particularly beneficial to any living systems on earth. We do it because that's what we have done for quite some time. It is more efficient for us to use fossil fuels,than it is for us to actually give a %$#^ and look for an alternative.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

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...



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.



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


Whoa,bubba,there are several things that you said that I must address.


First,Stellar you say:

logic in keeping the cash cow alive


You kind of made my argument for me here. It's all about the money. The corporations and the powers that be don't care about you or I, or the environment as long as they are able to profit.


Then you state:

I want not only what i have but to do better if and when i like


Plain selfishness there,but it's a good representation of the collective mentality.


Then you state:

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;



What good is "saving ourselves" if down the line we will just be destroyed by natural perils?



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?


Ummm,how about doing neither? Your assumptions are somewhat humorous to me. You seem to assume that having an abundant economy is osmehow dependent on destroying the environment. Wow,what logic!!


[edit on 27-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Nov, 27 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.


Well i am sure you have good source material for that so lets see it!


It's unfortunate the oil and automotive industries dismantled all the electric public transportation in favor of petroleum fueled.


Actually those are policy decisions made by city councils and states; not by oil executives.


Geesh, they're even hawking petroleum jelly like some kind of beauty secret.., it's really vitamin E ointment and clean water.


Apparently there is still enough suckers around.



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.


The really cool stuff never reaches the ears of the builders and the like as it's simply buried by the science establishments...


What I find silly is things like: after Katrina a woman I know got in her SUV and drove down to save the pets.


I would rather have her save people but i guess some people hold a real low opinion of their fellow man and would rather save something else; at least she's got the guts to do something and might discover that there is more important things to do in the area...


She probably burned enough Co2 to make another Katrina next year.


Last i checked there were no relation between those issues....


Nevermind the destitute humans received less compassion.


Twenty five thousand humans beings starve to death each day and if it was not for global news media not very many people would have given Katrina a second thought... Frankly i find PETA and like organizations revolting as it creates the media illusion that we have no bigger issues.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
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.


That's very much what i recall reading....


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.


The relative loss of diversity have steeply declined ( according to the 'experts') over the aeon's so whatever we try do now is probably a little too late if we really want to muck things up for life on 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.


I think there is plenty wrong with the environment ( things that are far worse than they could have been for different policy decisions )but since our lot in the world is steadily getting better i can not understand how people ( actually the government and their scientist ) want to solve those problems by going back to 1754 or for that matter 1950. One can in my opinion only assume that they do not want the problems solved and want it to get worse so that the planet might reach a level of destruction where people may willing accept restrictions on their activities....


Bottom line, I don't think human intervention plays a MAJOR role in the decline or incline of Earth's atmospheric and terrestrial health,


I am no longer sure there is such a atmospheric or terrestial biological decline to blame on humanity...


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.


If you want to control people blame as much of the problems you yourself created on them; the oppressors always blame their victims for the crimes they themselves committed.


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...


Good post and i apologise if my general agreement does not seem readily obvious.


Stellar



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Speaker, I think you are ignoring the fact that we are changing our habits daily. My citie's public transportation has a fleet of hybrid buses, I just gave you the evidence that we are making our coal plants cleaner. I just looked out at my block this morning and almost the whole block, even the majority of the neighborhood after I got I the car and drove off is participating in the curbside recycling program.

this is not just my city, many municipilities are taking the same and more steps to reduce their impact. And the Developing countries have the advantage. They do not have to upgrade or renovate their systems because they are just starting in many cases. they have the opportunity to implement the changes at the beginning of developing their infrastructure. Nothing comes overnight. The oil age took in a good 75 years or so after discovery of black gold before it became ingrained into our infrastructure. And that was at the beginning of development. Now we have to physically upgrade and renovate our systems, and that takes time, but it is happening.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Whoa,bubba,there are several things that you said that I must address.


If you must....


First,Stellar you say:

logic in keeping the cash cow alive

You kind of made my argument for me here. It's all about the money.


Money ( the fiat money which comes from their central banks) is just a mechanism of control so it's actually got very little to do with 'money' itself; if they could control us better by other means our method of exchange ( fiat money distributed by not for profit government treasury departments) would not be a problem at all.


The corporations and the powers that be don't care about you or I, or the environment as long as they are able to profit.


The thing is that they do need us in that they can not spread or maintain their control of the world without people who do what they require but assume their acting in their own best interest. I can thus assure you that they do care about those people who actively aid them and will use them ( and normally reward them well) for as long as that person follows order or generally serves their interest. Do you think the economic decline of the United States of America ( and some other western economies) is some kind of accident? I am not sure that industry WANTS to destroy the environment as much as they are pretty sure that they can get away with it and that it gives them more profit and thus more control to affect the world in their own interest....


Then you state:

I want not only what i have but to do better if and when i like


Plain selfishness there,but it's a good representation of the collective mentality.


Why should every human being not aspire to do ever better in this world? The question of what he will stoop to ( or allow others to do in his name) in self interested action is quite separate from the logical and expected want to better oneself. If you delve


Then you state:

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;


What good is "saving ourselves" if down the line we will just be destroyed by natural perils?


I don't understand how you can so clearly link natural industrial activity with the type of environmental destruction that will have unique short term effects? Hurricanes, earthquakes and temperature extremes have happened throughout human history and i just plainly do not understand how we will be able to prevent those by halting our industrial and technological progress. Do you realise that the US government managed to reduce the strengths of hurricanes by 30 -40% in the late 60's? I am almost certain that whatever we do by industrial action we would most certainly be able to compensate for with concerted action had we in the end discovered that we were changing the atmosphere to our general detriment.


Ummm,how about doing neither?


I am simply assuming that the current energy ( fossil fuels) will not change any decade soon as that is what i consider most likely... In that case we should choose development first while doing our best to force government and industry to do as little damage as possible; we after all can choose where to shop and what form of government we like.


Your assumptions are somewhat humorous to me.


I believed i made which conditions my views are based on? I don't think a person behind a computer should laugh at people who do not believe in the notion that the environment can be 'saved' by halting human progress and development ( one presumes these people think it will be Chinese or Indians left holding empty food baskets) but why is this being focused on western industrialized societies? I am surprised non of these people mentions the fact that there will be few or any restrictions on the third world and that this will be yet not another incentive for industry to move there thus further undermining the relatively high living standards ( and thus human rights) 'we' have achieved so far?



You seem to assume that having an abundant economy is osmehow dependent on destroying the environment. Wow,what logic!!


Actually i can prove that 'free' energy technologies ( energy extraction from the active vacuum ) are very much reality and has been in the science literature since the late eigtheen sixties and within our engineering ability for over a hundred years. I know that we could have had a world based on these technologies decades ago and that we would have had very few of the 'problems' we are experiencing today or have for the last century. Don't pretend to understand me when you know so very little about me and the issues i have discussed here

Stellar



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Stellar,the "point" you are trying to get across doesn't make since. First you seem very pro-corporate and then you degrade them for not using alternative sources. Where in the hell do you stand on this issue?
You puzzle me. You really do. It's clear where I stand;I can't say the same for you. You seem to be arguing from both sides of the fence to me.

This is an either/or topic:

You either

A) Support the development and use of alternative fuels sources.

or

B) Don't mind if corporations continue to pollute the atmosphere with toxic fossil fuels and chemicals.

So,which is it?

[edit on 28-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 28-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I just found out about something that our power company offers as well.


Q. How am I helping the environment by participating in Tampa Electric's Renewable Energy program?


A. Your participation helps to preserve our environment for future generations by using renewable energy sources like biomass (plant materials), sunlight and landfill gas to generate electricity. Each 100 kilowatt-hour block subscribed to will offset over 2,800 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2).

In just one year, an investment in renewable energy will produce a positive environmental impact. A “block” of renewable energy equals 100 kilowatt-hours (100kWh) of electricity on the electric grid. And it only costs you $5 per month, conveniently added to your electric bill. Compare the difference your participation in Tampa Electric’s Renewable Energy program can make:

Over a one year period,

One block offsets the same amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) as not driving an average passenger car for three months.
Three blocks offsets the same amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) as planting one acre of trees.
Four blocks offsets the same amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) as removing an average passenger car for one year.


Me and my partner will be purchasing a block each to help offset pollution you know? I had to actually browse the company website before I found this just now. Speaker, perhaps you should consider browsing around your power companies website and see if they offer this option. If they do not, write them a letter citing this example as a reference.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth


A) Support the development and use of alternative fuels sources.


Alternative is a lame man's way of saying 'I think I am actually doing something good, but I still have no idea what it is I was doing in the first place, or as of now'.



B) Don't mind if corporations continue to pollute the atmosphere with toxic fossil fuels and chemicals.


Sulfuric acid baby! Who cares, people pollute on a daily basis. Where do you think feces goes? To magical disposal land? Out to sea!



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aramco
Sulfuric acid baby! Who cares, people pollute on a daily basis. Where do you think feces goes? To magical disposal land? Out to sea!


I hope you're kidding.

Feces is processed at waste treatment facilities. There are actually bugs that eat the fecal material, which is then passed on to birds as food... on up the food chain... and right back in your mouth.

The same is true for your city's waste treatment, wastes such as from meat packing plants, and most power plants (on site waste treatment).

Deny Ignorance

[edit on 11/30/2006 by Infoholic]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join