This is a good topic and since Copenhagen (where I live) is going to host the event I'd thought I get some opinions from people around the world.
Just saw this movie about the climate changes and how the western world's consumptions.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014762/

What are your thoughts about saving the enviroment ?
Do you think it's going to be as bad as scientists say it's going to be ?
Do you do anything to save electricity or be friendly to the enviroment ?

Moved to Debater's Den

Anyway, on that film: Watch Koyaanisqatsi. Basically, it looks like he stepped in 20 years later and little change has happened.

When you say scientists, im assuming you mean the ones that are predicting impending doom from the ice caps melting and not the ones that are saying the earth naturally fluctuates in temperature anyway (Ice Age anyone?).

The earth would heat up with or without our intervention, we are simply speeding up the process. People are currently short sighted - they aren't looking at the big picture, and are running on simplistic idea's that biodegradable materials are good and that oil is bad. Fucktards no; employ someone who actually knows something about materials before making changes.

Fact 1: All these 'biodegradable' plastics that are currently starting to go around, largely for fancy expensive shampoo bottles and the like are more harmful for the environment than bog standard plastic, as it takes ~5x the energy to make the same amount of material. Really want to recycle your plastics? Re-use your plastic bags, or the government should set up facilities to filter and recycle plastics. Most of it will happily melt down again for re-use.

Fact 2: The 'electric car' is a retarded idea. Not only do the cars run like shit but since the electricity is coming from huge power stations, more concerned with the amount of power produced and not the efficiency at which it is produced, its actually less fuel efficient and more harmful to the environment.

Fact 3: More a local bitching, we have to remove the caps of plastic bottles when we recycle them. This is because the lid is made from PP (Polypropylene) and the bottle PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate). However, there will still be a little ring around the outside of the bottle top which will contaminate the sample, and mix the polymers to create an inferior recycled product. FURTHERMORE, it is the most retardedly simple thing to sort. PP has a density of about 0.9g/cm. PET, about 1.3g/cm. Put it all in water, the PP will float and the PET wont. How fucking expensive is that gonna be to set up?

Fact 4: Finally, legislation has been put into place that has stopped allowing the dumping of old car tyres, and companies are now being forced to recycle them. Currently the only application for this rubber is to have them shredded and used in mats for playgrounds and the like, which is nowhere near enough. So-called "experts" are racking their brains to find alternate uses, exhausting time and energy into adding recycled rubber into fresh rubber so as to have a minimal loss in properties, but what manufacturer is gonna pay more money for something that isn't as good? Why has nobody realised that rubber is a hydrocarbon and hence combustible for energy? And yes, there is a problem of SO2 emission from such an endeavour, but ways of reducing this to near-zero emissions have been around for decades now. Fuck, heres a patent from 1981 of how to siphon it off and react it into a disposable liquid.

Wasting electricity is just stupid. Im not gonna go nazi with it, but remembering to turn off the lights when your done will save enough on the electricity bill to buy another pint each month. Ironically, Germany - who were the second largest polluters after the US - are now leading the way for most of the west, and the US has pretty much refused to do anything. As have China, who seem to have something of the stance of 'we let you pollute when we were developing, why cant we do the same?' Despite that, a lot of weight is currently placed on ITER to get a working tokamak (Fusion power), and theres reports that some US scientists have developed a high energy laser capable of generating power from a fusion reaction, though I should note that many of these top level US labs have a tendency to release bullshit claims (there was some lab in California that once claimed to be able to 'cloak' atoms, which turned out to be complete bullshit. The guy just needed something to present to justify their spending).

Will it be as bad as scientists say? If nothing is done, then eventually yes it will. the Ice caps are already beginning to melt, and if you do the maths, all that ice will cause the sea level to rise, knocking out lowland islands. Tsunami's and Tornado's are already becoming more common, though thats more 'hassle' for most people than danger. Its perhaps sad, but its always seemed to be the rule that the scientists get ignored whilst politicians lie and people forget they're politicians, and hence lying.

Two things Thomas.

1. Reports are that China are actually going to start changing their ways. Being that they will not have to go through all the bureaucratic bullshit that we in the states must endure. It is safe to say that they to will be surpassing the US.

2. How are electric car's that bad? They have one that now go well over 100 mph. They will help the environment quite a bit. Getting rid of coal burning plants and changing to solar of wind to produce electricity to provide to homes coupled with the electric car that plugs in at home would be a huge step in the right direction. You should watch "Who Killed the Electric Car". Another alternative is natural gas powered cars. Once again something al ready going to most homes. So you simply plug you car at home for recharge.

AarO)))n wrote:

Two things Thomas.

1. Reports are that China are actually going to start changing their ways. Being that they will not have to go through all the bureaucratic bullshit that we in the states must endure. It is safe to say that they to will be surpassing the US.

2. How are electric car's that bad? They have one that now go well over 100 mph. They will help the environment quite a bit. Getting rid of coal burning plants and changing to solar of wind to produce electricity to provide to homes coupled with the electric car that plugs in at home would be a huge step in the right direction. You should watch "Who Killed the Electric Car". Another alternative is natural gas powered cars. Once again something al ready going to most homes. So you simply plug you car at home for recharge.

Did not know that about China. Last I heard they were very defensive about the idea, but then im not up to date with all my politics.

I saw that film, and a lot of it was bollocks. Denmark tried to converting to wind power, and their taxes rose by about 5% and their electricity bills tripled to cover the cost of the wind farms, still generating less than 10% of their energy. Solar power isnt feasible either for most of the world which sees a lot of cloud cover, and is at best a supplement to pre-existing facilities. I agree that attempts to improve efficiency and reduce emissions of power stations is something that should be strived to attain, but when you consider that most car engines are now far more fuel efficient than conventional power stations which have to convert that energy into electricity at a loss of efficiency, the answer is simple: more emissions will be emitted into the atmosphere as a result of using electricity as it would to simply use petrol in your car.

Rosalind wrote:

Did not know that about China. Last I heard they were very defensive about the idea, but then im not up to date with all my politics.

I saw that film, and a lot of it was bollocks. Denmark tried to converting to wind power, and their taxes rose by about 5% and their electricity bills tripled to cover the cost of the wind farms, still generating less than 10% of their energy. Solar power isnt feasible either for most of the world which sees a lot of cloud cover, and is at best a supplement to pre-existing facilities. I agree that attempts to improve efficiency and reduce emissions of power stations is something that should be strived to attain, but when you consider that most car engines are now far more fuel efficient than conventional power stations which have to convert that energy into electricity at a loss of efficiency, the answer is simple: more emissions will be emitted into the atmosphere as a result of using electricity as it would to simply use petrol in your car.

Well cars in other countries are FAR more fuel efficient. But here in America they have not risen as they should. Even the hybrids are only getting 32 mpg. The real threat to the environment is actually methane produced by livestock. As I heard it said. You could do more for the environment by eating a salad in a Hummer than eating a cheeseburger in a Prius. Electric cars are not the best answer per say. but may be a better temporary solution that the one we are currently using.

AarO)))n wrote:

Rosalind wrote:

Did not know that about China. Last I heard they were very defensive about the idea, but then im not up to date with all my politics.

I saw that film, and a lot of it was bollocks. Denmark tried to converting to wind power, and their taxes rose by about 5% and their electricity bills tripled to cover the cost of the wind farms, still generating less than 10% of their energy. Solar power isnt feasible either for most of the world which sees a lot of cloud cover, and is at best a supplement to pre-existing facilities. I agree that attempts to improve efficiency and reduce emissions of power stations is something that should be strived to attain, but when you consider that most car engines are now far more fuel efficient than conventional power stations which have to convert that energy into electricity at a loss of efficiency, the answer is simple: more emissions will be emitted into the atmosphere as a result of using electricity as it would to simply use petrol in your car.

Well cars in other countries are FAR more fuel efficient. But here in America they have not risen as they should. Even the hybrids are only getting 32 mpg. The real threat to the environment is actually methane produced by livestock. As I heard it said. You could do more for the environment by eating a salad in a Hummer than eating a cheeseburger in a Prius. Electric cars are not the best answer per say. but may be a better temporary solution that the one we are currently using.

Really? Thats fucking awful. There are cars out now easily getting 50-60mpg, and theres a japanese prototype estimated to be able to get 100mpg (though the engine is pretty highly strung apparently).

As for livestock, its mostly cows, and even they release far less methane than termites do. Eat less beef, sure, but most livestock is relatively harmless. Theres very little reliable information on just how big an impact they have as its pretty hard to measure, and lets face it, who wants to specialise in the field of cow fart research?

Rosalind wrote:

Really? Thats fucking awful. There are cars out now easily getting 50-60mpg, and theres a japanese prototype estimated to be able to get 100mpg (though the engine is pretty highly strung apparently).

As for livestock, its mostly cows, and even they release far less methane than termites do. Eat less beef, sure, but most livestock is relatively harmless. Theres very little reliable information on just how big an impact they have as its pretty hard to measure, and lets face it, who wants to specialise in the field of cow fart research?

This a country that is deep in the pocket of the oil companies. Plus do those cars you speak of meet the safety standards that car here in America must have? I doubt it. That is what stops many from coming over.


It is not harmless. the reality is that we are raising so much livestock that it is affecting thins. Remember, it is not only the cows, but the equipment used in the farming process. So now you have cows plus farm equipment. Add to that that many countries are buying beef from us at rates not seen before and there is a problem. They have actually done studies to prove this. Where to find it i could not tell you. This info I hear from T.V. shows like Bill Mahar's or read in news magazines. Who knows it could be bullshit figures like second hand smoke.

AarO)))n wrote:

Rosalind wrote:

Really? Thats fucking awful. There are cars out now easily getting 50-60mpg, and theres a japanese prototype estimated to be able to get 100mpg (though the engine is pretty highly strung apparently).

As for livestock, its mostly cows, and even they release far less methane than termites do. Eat less beef, sure, but most livestock is relatively harmless. Theres very little reliable information on just how big an impact they have as its pretty hard to measure, and lets face it, who wants to specialise in the field of cow fart research?

This a country that is deep in the pocket of the oil companies. Plus do those cars you speak of meet the safety standards that car here in America must have? I doubt it. That is what stops many from coming over.


It is not harmless. the reality is that we are raising so much livestock that it is affecting thins. Remember, it is not only the cows, but the equipment used in the farming process. So now you have cows plus farm equipment. Add to that that many countries are buying beef from us at rates not seen before and there is a problem. They have actually done studies to prove this. Where to find it i could not tell you. This info I hear from T.V. shows like Bill Mahar's or read in news magazines. Who knows it could be bullshit figures like second hand smoke.

Safety standards? How is more efficient fuel consumption unsafe? I wouldn't ride a high horse believing your standards are higher than everywhere else in the world; they run perfectly fine here. The reason is as you said it, it would mean less money for the oil companies, coupled with your culture of loving bigass trucks.

The emission from a lot of livestock is negligible compared to power plants. Studies have estimated it to be anywhere from 5% of the global emissions to 75% of global emissions. Anyone who claims to know just how much of an impact it has is either lying, or only reading biased articles. Theres no money in it, and so no research really goes on. Its the same with a lot of things - you dont need to drink 8 pints of water a day, and there is no evidence to eat 5 fruit and veg a day (dont get me wrong, fruit and veg is healthy ofc. Im just saying that the number is an arbitrary one plucked from the air).

Rosalind wrote:

Quote :

Safety standards? How is more efficient fuel consumption unsafe? I wouldn't ride a high horse believing your standards are higher than everywhere else in the world; they run perfectly fine here. The reason is as you said it, it would mean less money for the oil companies, coupled with your culture of loving bigass trucks.

When you eliminate some of the thing that are required for a car to be driven the US the car becomes lighter. There fore you get better milage out of the vehicle. India just released a new car some month ago that that got incredible gas mileage. But was not available in America because it did not have certain safety features that are required for all cars in America. Same goes for emissions here in the states. If I bought a car in Arizona, it would not be allowed to be driven in California once I became a resident of he state. It would have to meet higher smog standard then that of Arizona.I don't know all that is required for cars in Europe to be deemed "safe". But I do know that in order to import a car from there is must have stuff put on it to make to safe enough to drive here. This is where you lose fuel efficency. Seeing as you are not much of a car buff I can see why you may not have known this. Along with bigger trucks. One other big problem. Tire inflation. Even if off by a few pounds it can make a difference in fuel economy.

Quote :

The emission from a lot of livestock is negligible compared to power plants. Studies have estimated it to be anywhere from 5% of the global emissions to 75% of global emissions. Anyone who claims to know just how much of an impact it has is either lying, or only reading biased articles. Theres no money in it, and so no research really goes on. Its the same with a lot of things - you dont need to drink 8 pints of water a day, and there is no evidence to eat 5 fruit and veg a day (dont get me wrong, fruit and veg is healthy ofc. Im just saying that the number is an arbitrary one plucked from the air).

I think the point is is that it is an impact. And that to simply say get rid of gas burning cars and problem solved is foolish.

I knew about the car tyres, but I can't think what safety features would cause you to halve the efficiency of a car. You're effectively saying these features would double the weight of the car. Thats what, 0.5-1 tonnes worth of safety features? :/ Cars - fuck it everything - is bigger in the US. I swear even the pigeons looked huge. This could be another source of the problem.

We will never end all emissions, and you'd be foolish to think otherwise. We can only reduce them, and whilst livestock may account for some of the emissions, its unknown how much. There are other ways to reduce emissions more effectively that have yet to be utilised.

It's the sun, not CO2, that's causing warming.

Rosalind wrote:

I knew about the car tyres, but I can't think what safety features would cause you to halve the efficiency of a car. You're effectively saying these features would double the weight of the car. Thats what, 0.5-1 tonnes worth of safety features? :/ Cars - fuck it everything - is bigger in the US. I swear even the pigeons looked huge. This could be another source of the problem.

We will never end all emissions, and you'd be foolish to think otherwise. We can only reduce them, and whilst livestock may account for some of the emissions, its unknown how much. There are other ways to reduce emissions more effectively that have yet to be utilised.

There are many factor the safety one is only part of it. There is also no motivation to build a car that gets better gas milage really. Couple that with oil companies buying companies making batteries with triple the capacity for electric cars(as shown in the doc you called full of "bollocks" ). It doesn't show promise for more fuel efficiency. It is not financially worth it to most car companies. Though it seems to be changing.


I am saying that it is part of the problem. Not the entire problem. Some are unaware of this problem and is why I brought it up. I don't think ending emissions is the goal. Reduction is the goal. Eating less meat as a nation and as a planet can help(though I do love me some charred cow meat).

AarO)))n wrote:

Rosalind wrote:

I knew about the car tyres, but I can't think what safety features would cause you to halve the efficiency of a car. You're effectively saying these features would double the weight of the car. Thats what, 0.5-1 tonnes worth of safety features? :/ Cars - fuck it everything - is bigger in the US. I swear even the pigeons looked huge. This could be another source of the problem.

We will never end all emissions, and you'd be foolish to think otherwise. We can only reduce them, and whilst livestock may account for some of the emissions, its unknown how much. There are other ways to reduce emissions more effectively that have yet to be utilised.

There are many factor the safety one is only part of it. There is also no motivation to build a car that gets better gas milage really. Couple that with oil companies buying companies making batteries with triple the capacity for electric cars(as shown in the doc you called full of "bollocks" ). It doesn't show promise for more fuel efficiency. It is not financially worth it to most car companies. Though it seems to be changing.


I am saying that it is part of the problem. Not the entire problem. Some are unaware of this problem and is why I brought it up. I don't think ending emissions is the goal. Reduction is the goal. Eating less meat as a nation and as a planet can help(though I do love me some charred cow meat).

Batteries still need to be charged. Hence, less efficient than most currently available fuel-burning engines. If your country has an obsession with everything big and clunky fine. Waste all your money on petrol and destroy the earth whilst your at it

The electirc car is a waste of time. It's only in countries with very good power plants ot saves CO2 (still better than the normal car), but really I'm convinced that hydrogen cars are the future (in an episode of top gear james reviewed this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Clarity). This works pretty much like a normal car.

Peter wrote:

The electirc car is a waste of time. It's only in countries with very good power plants ot saves CO2 (still better than the normal car), but really I'm convinced that hydrogen cars are the future (in an episode of top gear james reviewed this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Clarity). This works pretty much like a normal car.

Yeah, it runs on PEMFC's I believe. This could be awesome, but its currently really expensive and the material isn't 'right' to put it simply. We're largely at a stage of 'make a material and test it' trial and error type thing. One of my old uni lecturers had been doing research on it for a few years.

Rosalind wrote:

Batteries still need to be charged. Hence, less efficient than most currently available fuel-burning engines. If your country has an obsession with everything big and clunky fine. Waste all your money on petrol and destroy the earth whilst your at it

What? Batteries have to be recharged I had no idea. They have a long charge there fore do not have to be charged as often. So they would reduce the use of gas vehicle use. The average American lives less than 20 miles form their job. If they were to drive these electric vehicles, even on the week days, the reduction on emissions would be significant. Provided that you reduce the pollution that coal plants put off or eliminate them all together. There is no one single solution. It is a group effort. I am not sure about America's obsession with big and clunky? They add safety features they believe will help keep people safe. Some may not be as necessary as others. Times are changing though and as much as American politics want's to drag it's feet in finding solutions. The people seem to be willing to pay for more fuel efficient cars and car companies want peoples money. So change is eminent, though going at a snails pace compared to other countries.