One take on the current world status...

[Pat McCarthy]

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/061504_call_action.html

[Stephan]

I would agree with the general point of this article. With the size of our Earth we are becoming increasingly overbearing. The planet of earth is not designed/equipped to deal with some of the pressures we place on it. As Americans we play an important role in the future of the planet. As we say we are the best country but we are also the country that exploits the environment to the utmost. Things like this make me glad that I am not religious, I'll die & it will be someone else's problem, I hope my kids are a lot smarter than I... Protect your mother, mother earth!!!!!

[Pat McCarthy]

There are things I agree and disagree with about it...but in general there are a lot of problems to be solved. I don't think we should really react with your notion of just dying and letting it be someone else's problem. That's how we got here in the first place. It's our problem now, so we should be acting to fix it.

[jason_ssr]

Here is a different spin. Im very much into our environment, keeping it free of litter and keeping some of it in a natural state. I had an uncle who recently past who felt the same way I do. He was a scientist (chemist) for the government and worked at Area 51 among other secret government facilities. He spent some time on atmospheric studies. He once told me that it was our job to keep the planet clean and nice, but that we actually have little to no impact on the health of the planet in general. Everyone blames pollution and aresol and whatever else on the change in the global health. He said that honestly, its just stages the planet goes through. The planet would warm up, flood due to ice caps melting, resurface itself with volcanic and tectonic activity, send ash and water into the atmosphere, ice age, and warm itself again. He believed this was a natural cycle that would occur if we were here or not. Our byproducts dont even put a micro dent in the health of the planet. Forrest fires and volcanos have more effect, and THEY are still miniscule. Eliminating polution will not change the natural cycle. This occurance will happen regardless of how we try to behave.

Obviously, unstoppable natural doom is not something you can sell to the world population.

[RampageWake]

Soooo.... you're saying that my eco-friendly hairspray with the hand pump is NOT going to save mother earth???

[Wakebrad]

I've heard that from a professor too jason_ssr.

I really hate articles like this. How can you write an entire article on the problems of this planet and not give a solution to it? I get so sick of these whiners who complain about us tearing up the earth and when asked what we do about it they're like "I don't know but we need to do something." If you don't have a solution to the problem you're not going to get people to change what they do. I understand that they are looking for solutions but seriously, you need to look at the top energy scientists to get an actual solution to this, not some joe schmoe saying "lets use the fuel they use in star trek, that seemed to work pretty well"

How about this here's a solution to some of that. A professor at Texas A&M designed an engine which is based on the Brayton (jet engine) cycle which can be practically applied to power plants/cars/lawn mowers/whatever else. The advantage of this is it can run on any fuel source such as jet fuel, olive oil, gasoline, whatever will combust. He is also working on using biomass as a fuel.

He is working on building the prototype right now and already has funding.

http://www.starrotor.com/indexflash.htm

[vette74]

jason_ssr, is right the world goes in cycles, now the latest media trend is "global warming". Back in the early 80's everyone thought we were going into another ice age I also find it funny how when they conduct UV and ozone tests the humidity is 0%. There is not a spot on this planet where the humidity is 0% even in the middle of Arizona the humidity never drops below 15%.
Just something else to think about.

[Pat McCarthy]

Of course the planet goes through cycles, and it may be in a warming cycle now. However, it is naive to think that we aren't damaging lots of aspects of the natural environment in thousands of ways. Global warming and whether or not you think it's something we caused or can control is one thing...but a declining oil supply is going to cause major, major problems.

Wakebrad, the guy is writing a book on solutions, so, saying he's a whiner who doesn't provide solutions isn't really accurate. The article itself doesn't provide solutions, but his goal is to actually have scientists and specialists contribute articles to his solutions book. Plus, there's no law that we can't discuss problems unless we have concrete solutions. If we weren't allowed to talk about problems before we solutions, we'd never arrive at solutions.

[jason_ssr]

I mentioned this in another thread so it might sound repetitive, but for the first time in our history our techological advancement is being limited by money and big business. We KNOW how to run engines on less/no gasoline. We KNOW how to build a hydrogen engine. We KNOW how to use tidal energy to make power. We KNOW how to use solar power. Our oil consumption has nothing to do with necessity, it as to do with oil being big money to the world! I agree that there are thousands of ways we could improve the way we inhabit the surface, I just dont like the scare tactics of, "look what we've done! its getting warmer because we are killing the planet! Must drive hybrids or we will all perish". I think we should do the things we can to keep things nice, but we should also stop letting big business determine how fast we advance. I think we should also learn to understand the cycles of the earth and try to be proactive in adapting.

[Swass]

Damn. I agree with 90% of what Jason just said. When you get to the bottom line, money is always the determining factor. Change will occur when, and only when, it no longer makes fiscal sense to maintain the status quo.

You don't have to worry about any of that stuff, though. Global overpopulation will be our downfall long before our environment gives out.

[Wakebrad]

that's true, I understand he's trying to get solutions but I just get frustrated with the many articles that don't have a solution so when you're done reading it you're like "well we're screwed, we might as well just enjoy it while it lasts." This is one of those articles right now but I understand he is trying to get solutions.

I think there is a law that we can't discuss problems unless we have concrete solutions, isn't that like the 24th amendment or something?

[Neognosis]

We are due for a good old-fashioned plague that will kill a third of the planet's human population.

[Leggester]

Oh, but the social welfare and free medical care won't allow that to happen will it

[RampageWake]

We're Between Ice Ages, So Relax

In response to George Melloan's Sept. 22 Global View column concerning Al Gore and global warming:

The earth has been warming for the past 10,000 to 15,000 years for reasons that have nothing to do with manmade "green-house gasses". The cost to reduce artificial emission of carbon dioxide could thus be a terrible waste. Mr. Melloan correctly notes that we should look to the facts, not to speculative computer models, to understand global climate change. The earth is warming from the last ice age; industrial gas emission is insignificant compared with greenhouse gasses from natural sources, and biologic and geologic processes regulate atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The geologic record suggests Earth could stay warm for another 100,000 years, no matter what we put into the air. The latest ice age just ended some 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. Warm periods that alternated with the ice ages of the past two million years persisted for 100,000 to 400,000 years each. A long warming trend unrelated to industrial gasses may have barely started.

Industry contributes too little carbon dioxide to affect global climate. Industrial carbon dioxide, six billion tons annually, is a small fraction of the 700 billion tons per year from geologic and biologic processes. Increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide stimulates plant life, which in turn consumes more carbon dioxide. Marine plants, such as calcareous algae, and other reef-forming organisms can sequester vast amounts of carbon dioxide in the calcium carbonate, or limestone, that they produce. Extensive limestone deposits thousands of feet thick that occur throughout the geologic record provide evidence of this process.

We accept our inability to prevent regional, transient climatic catastrophes such as floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes, yet people whose economic interest is vested in government grants to study greenhouse gasses claim we can alter global climate change that spans thousands of lifetimes.

Victor H. Abadie III

Geologist

Montara, Calif.


Swass hit the nail on the head....follow the money.

[Neognosis]

Ah, the suggestion that scientists who have the contrary opinion must be lying so that they can get grants.

I disreguard any article that commits a fallacious ad hominim attack as part of its argument.

[MinnDizzyG]

Geological evidence does indeed point to large-scale cycles of warming and cooling occurring for millions of years. I seem to remember a chart showing that we were approaching the peak of the current warming trend; the question then was whether humans were pushing that peak higher than it naturally would have been without human presence. An impossible question to answer. However, I think objectively, humans no matter how much we believe we have influenced our environment have still been only here for a ridiculously short time, and the portion of that time in which we have been industrialized is a geological eyeblink. To think that we are capable of "destroying the planet" - even if we began a nuclear war - seems a bit presumptuous. The earth and life on it will be here long after we are dust. I believe what scares people is that we may destroy ourselves, not the planet.

For the record, I do drive a hybrid car. I do carpool in it to work as much as possible. Why? I drive 30 miles one way to my job. My car gets 50 mpg, but even with national gas prices exceeding $2.00, I can still fill it for under $20 and get 500 or more miles out of a tank. I carpool because parking in the Twin Cities frankly sucks, but the mass transit is non-existent; I can get a contract for $20/month as a registered carpool that would be $130/month minimum as a singleton. You pay the piper or spend 90 minutes getting to work in the morning if you go by yourself.

My point is that it is becoming not only financially viable but perhaps even preferable to drive an ultra-efficient car and/or carpool with other people to boot.

[1759rider]

cameraboy - it's not called AIDS and its doing just that

[Swass]

LOL

Gotta love those bible thumpers.

[chavez]

1759rider,

Were you trying to say:

[Swass]

Know what he means, not what he says.

[microman]

[chavez]

Swass, gotcha

microman, believe it or not, I was thinking the same thing.

[MinnDizzyG]

[microman]

[Neognosis]

[1759rider]

points well taken. I stand corrected

[J-Ro]

Just like in 12 Monkeys

[microman]

[Dpierce37]

[Neognosis]

The end of the world is going to be the cause of tree huggers?

Isn't their cause saving the world and stuff?

[microman]

[Leggester]

aides could've killed more if we didn't have med research... ...

[Neognosis]

He meant to say that the end of the world will be "CAUSED" by tree huggers, not "the cause" of tree huggers.

[microman]

[Nor*Cal]

WOW... There is a general state of consensus here. Hmm... Maybe we aren't so different.

My grand thought was alternative fuels such as methanol and bio-diesel but that's where the profit argument is applied. It just seems with so many internal combustion engines it would cause a lot of economic strain to push fuel cells and new inovation on the public. I am sure these things will phase in like the DVD or CD.