Is there any longer a need for a environmental debate?

2008-03-11 03:55:06

#1

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6681|Canberra, AUS

I know, I know, another pointless, repetetive, flamebaiting, environment thread.

But do we any longer need a debate on whether 'green' and environmental technology/R&D should be brought into the mainstream should contine? Because the technology is being developed, researched and brought into the market regardless of the debate?

I mean, basically every day now there is a story about a new 'green' alternative transport or a new 'green' technology. Nothing earth-shattering, but hey.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2008-03-11 03:58:19

#2

m0v3m3nt: Member; +15|6163

Yeah there is still a need for debate.

You know how dumb the average person is? Well, Half of them are even dumber than that.

2008-03-11 04:05:11

#3

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|6764|Argentina

Yes, there is because a lot of people can't see what we are doing to our "home". Hence the need to debate.

2008-03-11 04:21:59

#4

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|6768

ethanol is terrible for the environment. debate that.

2008-03-11 04:24:02

#5

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6778|PNW

m0v3m3nt wrote:
Yeah there is still a need for debate.

You know how dumb the average person is? Well, Hhalf of them are even dumber than that.

Fixed.

sergeriver wrote:
Yes, there is because a lot of people can't see what we are doing to our "home". Hence the need to debate.

How big is your carbon footprint for even being on a computer?

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-03-11 04:25:42)

2008-03-11 04:28:19

#6

m0v3m3nt: Member; +15|6163

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
m0v3m3nt wrote:
Yeah there is still a need for debate.

You know how dumb the average person is? Well, Hhalf of them are even dumber than that.
Fixed.

2008-03-11 06:01:47

#7

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6112|eXtreme to the maX

However you look at it its worth debating, but better to get on and do something.
Even if the global warming theories are wrong - which I doubt - it makes sense to move away from oil since it will soon run out.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2008-03-11 06:05:24

#8

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6417|'Murka

If by soon you mean in a few hundred years or so, then you're right. But at the rate of change/advancement of green technologies in the marketplace, the primary use for petroleum (transportation) should be nearly oil-independent by then.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-03-11 06:07:29

#9

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6627|London, England

Regardless of whether it's going to stop Climate Change/Global Warming, it's still good to have cleaner power plants etc.. as they do without a doubt effect the environment and they are pretty in-effecient too, also most of the fossil fueled power plants mean that we're still reliant on the Middle East.

I don't see why anyone would hate how people are trying to come up with good electric cars etc..

If we just went nuclear/wind/hydroelectric, and then made electric cars as simple as filling up petrol at a petrol station. Then shit would be alot better for everyone.

2008-03-11 06:14:06

#10

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|6772|UK

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
m0v3m3nt wrote:
Yeah there is still a need for debate.

You know how dumb the average person is? Well, Hhalf of them are even dumber than that.
Fixed.
sergeriver wrote:
Yes, there is because a lot of people can't see what we are doing to our "home". Hence the need to debate.
How big is your carbon footprint for even being on a computer?

Fuck carbon footprints. How about just dont make power with fossil fuels. NUCLEAR POWER!

2008-03-11 06:48:20

#11

Gawwad: My way or Haddaway!; +212|6691|Espoo, Finland

Everyone should be pro 'green' technology as it's going to be good for all of us in the end.
Cities keep growing larger and larger through urbanisation and population growth, just imagine the air in any future major city if we don't cut emissions...

2008-03-11 07:01:43

#12

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6607|132 and Bush

I woke up to see "Oil Prices Surpass $109 a Barrel..." . nuff said? It must be nice to be able to produce less and still make the same amount of money.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-03-11 07:12:24

#13

-=]DeatH1337[=-: Member; +51|6640|England

Spark wrote:
I know, I know, another pointless, repetetive, flamebaiting, environment thread.

Why create one then?!

2008-03-11 07:14:45

#14

liquix: Member; +51|6460|Peoples Republic of Portland

there is no debate anymore among product designers like myself, it is the de-facto. The goal is to use more and more "green" materials and processes in production, as long as said methods are cost-effective. The problem is, and has been, that green materials are not cost effective, and in many cases take more energy (fossil fuel) to produce than regular petrochemical based materials. Regardless of this fact, many large corporations DO listen to the public in regards to sustainability, and their R&D departments are advancing every day in the direction of improvement. Sadly most consumers will never know this, and that's okay because as long as the marketplace continues to respond to green marketed products the companies will continue to produce them.

The best most folks can do is change out your lighting, I wouldn't jump all over CFLs due to mercury, but spend big on LED bulbs...or wait till their cost goes down. A few other things are also to get low flow fixtures, and high-efficiency appliances. Another thing is to trade in or improve the fuel economy of your inefficient cars, however in light of a failing economy, this may have to wait.

2008-03-11 19:13:01

#15

BVC: Member; +325|6702

I've got a really bad carbon footprint at the moment, too much chili.

2008-03-11 19:22:52

#16

SEREMAKER: BABYMAKIN EXPERT √; +2,187|6574|Mountains of NC

yeah theres always a need .............. now you'll have to excuse me, I have to go chop a few trees down

Last edited by SEREMAKER (2008-03-11 19:27:19)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg

2008-03-11 19:26:38

#17

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6535|Global Command

usmarine wrote:
ethanol is terrible for the environment. debate that.

That won't stop it's use. What will is the ranchers lobby who now have to pay way more for corn feed.
It will drive up the cost of everything from tortillas to hamburger.

2008-03-11 19:29:27

#18

G3|Genius: Pope of BF2s; +355|6632|Sea to globally-cooled sea

As long as there is support for legislation to further hinder the free market, there is room for debate

2008-03-11 20:21:06

#19

CommieChipmunk: Member; +488|6576|Portland, OR, USA

If we want lower prices? Then sure, look up alternative fuels.

If we want a solution to a change in the global weather patterns (remember the earth has been around for billions of years and goes through cycles), than do what you like. Another ice age is inevitable. And fossil fuels will build back up in several million years anyway...

2008-03-11 20:44:57

#20

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6451|The Land of Scott Walker

Pubic wrote:
I've got a really bad carbon footprint at the moment, too much chili.

That would methane, not CO2 yes?

2008-03-11 20:46:23

#21

CommieChipmunk: Member; +488|6576|Portland, OR, USA

Methane is CH4

Still carbon

2008-03-11 20:59:05

#22

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6451|The Land of Scott Walker

That means those damned cows are REALLY messing up the earth. What are we going to do about them? I say make them into steak.

2008-03-11 21:08:35

#23

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6687|Disaster Free Zone

Energy usage isn't the problem. Energy production is.

2008-03-11 21:28:38

#24

13rin: Member; +977|6485

No. The "not in my backyard" philosophy is the problem. We need more refineries. Drill in the Gulf. Tap deeper into Alaska.

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2008-03-11 22:26:56

#25

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6681|Canberra, AUS

usmarine wrote:
ethanol is terrible for the environment. debate that.

Ethanol is a dumb idea IMO.

What we really need is for someone to invent an engine which doesn't lose 70% of its energy to heat.

No. The "not in my backyard" philosophy is the problem. We need more refineries. Drill in the Gulf. Tap deeper into Alaska.

Reread the OP.

Energy usage isn't the problem. Energy production is.

Again. Reread the OP.

The point I make in the OP is that energy production tech is advancing and becoming "cleaner" (and what a cliche that is) without people having to change their habits too substantially.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

BF2S Forums Is there any longer a need for a environmental debate?

m0v3m3nt wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

m0v3m3nt wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

m0v3m3nt wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Spark wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Pubic wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Board footer