(split from this thread--B) Wow, either have to ditch stock or stop Summer. It is at full load. Usually takes 30min to get to 52. It also should be alot cooler now, but thank Global Warming for that. Its so sad how much America is killing the Earth. Everybody just says "Global warming, aw your full of it". We just broke 3 record highs this month here in Rhode Island.
Using Peltier as a radiator Yeah, but even if America stops, China puts out so much more than we do, plus, you never hear claims of Global Warming in winter. You do hear about it when the summer starts heating up. Also, nobody seems to recognize that we are in an ice age, which is defined by having ice at the poles. Additionally, Mars ice caps are shrinking, which suggests that America, nor any other country may be having the effects people think. I'm not saying go throw radioactive waste in the water supply, here, but before we go down the path of "America is screwing up the planet", let's look at some other factors besides America.
Using Peltier as a radiator Wow. I never thought of it that way. For all I now, Global Warming is just a scam used by GM and Ford to promote the new hybrids. China's population boom is incredible, and since they haven't stopped using coal, there almost as much to blame as we are. But As i say, even if GW doesn't exist, slowing down or stopping pollution cant be bad. Americans may not be killing the earth but you gotta admit, we are somewhat of a wasteful country, using like 1M gallons of oil a day.
Using Peltier as a radiator If it's sensible to do, say turning off lights when you're not in the room, recycling, etc. sure. If something will save energy, people generally don't have an issue with it. It's when you have people like Al Gore yapping how we're destroying the planet yet using several times as much energy as the average person, yet using some silly Carbon Credits scheme to get around it, come on. Global warming does happen, but wether it's really being influenced by humans is debatable. That's the issue. People like Al Gore have turned it into a religion and a moral crusade. When something effectively becomes a religion, the brain is disengaged, and the grounds for debate are stifled. Driving less, and thus, using less oil, may not be an option for everybody. I'd love to cut down, but that's not an option for me. The problem is, the people making suggestions of what to do, like drive less, don't live in reality. Many people in the US do not live close enough to work to walk. I have about an 8 mile drive to work one way, and the buses stop running before I leave for work, not to mention don't go out where I work in the first place. If I could drive less, I would, but that's not something I'm afforded in reality. No matter what, there's a certain amount of fuel that's going to be consumed, and that simply may be unavoidable for many people. If it's reasonable things, people will do it, but when you have wishful thinking that's projected as possible, good luck on that one.
Using Peltier as a radiator Yeah. I have times sitting saying "wow i cant believe the amount driving I do from place to place". But like you said, what option do I have. Everything is at least 3 miles from my house and I sure as hell not gonna walk. If not driving less, i do think some alternative fuel should be created other than a hybrid (there horrible). Right now oil is one of the few irreplaceable resources. You cant plant new oil trees. For right now though, unless they come out with a car on air, America will have to continue with what it has. What's sad is even things like buying energy bulbs, recycling, etc. some Americans are too lazy to do. It pisses me off when Im driving down the street and all I see is trash cans full of paper, metal and plastics. BTW- You would make a great politician as you're an excellent arguer, even now making me thing twice about my views of Global Warming
Using Peltier as a radiator The current alternative fuels are fine for small-scale, but aren't realistic or possible for large-scale use. Corn ethanol isn't bad, but we're not going to be able to grow enough in the states to convert it over. Well, technically, it is possible, but we'd have to devote at least all the farm land to corn growing only for ethanol. That's not realistic. Additionally that and E-85 aren't as efficient as gasoline, not to mention the cost is close to the price of gas. It's not really attractive or a good long-term solution. Looking at higher MPG is about the best thing we can do right now. Gasoline has a few issues that are causing the spikes. -Refineries. There hasn't been a new refinery built since the 1970's (1979, I think was the last year one was built). The current ones have been running full throttle to help production due to Katrina taking out some refineries on the coast. States have different blends they require, which means more work to produce each blend. Legal blockades and environmental extremists make it a pain to build new ones, and then nobody wants one in their area (same thing with nuclear reactors, which are safe since the US built ones aren't crap like Chernobyl). Also, there's taxes. Oil companies make around 7% profit, compared to Coke which makes upwards of 30% or more. But, never mind those facts. George Bush is an oil whore in bed with big oil. Yeah, I'm also soooo loyal to companies I used to work for, too. I think a lot of people don't know both sides to the issue. Not on purpose, but more because they only hear one side and don't get a second opinion. I'm fairly conservative, but there are some views I take that would be more "liberal" views. As long as it deals with reality, it shouldn't matter the label of the view, be it liberal or conservative. If I went into politics, on a national level, I'd probably be portrayed as a heartless, blood-sucking, freedom bashing evil conservative. If not that, a pansy moderate. I'm not a good speaker, and I don't have a good look on camera. Unfortunately, that would do me in more than my politics.
Yeah, on the coal thing, i was watching the news today, and some energy company is deciding to build a coal power plant in the tri cities area (MI) and i was like what the crap, yeah way to go MI, just replace our jobs problems with more blue collar work, and make the area even more polluted. We have Down and Delphi in the area, and they dump all kinds of crap into the local rivers and such (not so much Delphi, or at all, but they don't help the air at all) Anyways, this all might be a little off topic, but regardless, no one really cares just as long as they make money while they are around.
Then theres global dimming! BigB is right, we are in an ice age but we are in an interglacial period and we should be heading toward another colder period and not a warmer one. There is loads of evidence that the sun is accountable for the increase in GMST but at the end of the day greenhouse gases are real and we emit shitloads of them. Even if the sun is 100% to blame for global warming we shouldnt shrug our shoulders and add fuel to the fire by carrying on as we are. As far as I can see every kind of energy is far too cheap. I believe the only way to make people to use less energy is charge a premium for it. Like 10 times the price. Forget better MPG, its public transport we need to be looking at. The thing is, at least in this country, it means government spending huge amounts of money on something people aren't using at the moment. Other services will suffer and elections will be lost so they wont do it. Very few people are going to totally rearrange thier life out of the goodness of thier hearts so we need to be forced into it. Especially when we see China and India growing at the rate they are. They are stupid IMO, they should be focusing on creating next generation nations which are as green as possible, but they are not. They are building thier countries exactly the same as we did 100 years ago. And like us they are getting richer so can now afford family cars, cars need to be out of the average persons budget. There are things that can be done by governments but aren't. Rubbish should be weighed when its thrown on the bin truck, free if you recycle and £? for unrecycled waste. Some places in the UK already have the technology (barcodes on bins which are placed of the back of the bin truck and tipped into the back), standby switches on electrical equipment should be illegal (something daft like 70% of wasted energy in a UK home is because of standby switches), tungsten light bulbs should be illegal, all cars need small engines... like less than 1000cc. Most 1000cc cars can do 100mph and have enough power for typical use. If you have a business and need a van then you can have a 2000cc diesel or something. Governments are trying to reduce emissions without upsetting people which is not the way to do it. The world needs an overhaul but it wont ever happen. An overhaul is a fantasy. At the end of the day we need to use less fuel which in turn will cause less emissions. The only way people will use less fuel is if they cant afford it. There is no other way around it, all these green ideas and products are ways of making life cheaper in such a world, and are not the solution to the emssions in the first place like we are led to believe by manufacturers, developers and governments. Despite the increase in public awareness around the world nothing will change. We will be thrown numbers, facts and figures but emissions will always go up.... at least in our lifetime and more thean likely our grandchildrens too.
For some places, public transportation is much better than having your own. Places like New York City are great examples of this. Unfortunately, there is a reality: not all cities have the level of public transportation larger cities do. Where I work doesn't have buses go out around there (well, not frequently) and they stop running about the time I leave for work, and walking isn't an option since it's about 8 miles. I have 80 miles a week that I cannot cut back on and do not have an alternative means to get to work. Is closer housing available? Yes, but I'd pay more now for housing than what I pay in fuel costs. If I was in a large enough city, a bus would likely be a better choice just due to insurance and traffic. However, I don't, and that's the reality. The US is a large country, and while pockets of the country do have better public transportation, it's not the only solution, especially for less densely populated areas. Using less fuel is a nice idea, but the reality is that it's not always possible, and I can't figure out why I should be taxed more just so I can go to work, which is most of what I use my car for. Higher prices do not encourage purchases, which is one thing that's hurting some energy-saving devices. I'm not saying no to something that has a slightly higher up-front cost, but if this energy-saving device won't net me savings until near the end of my life-time, the price isn't so attractive. You can use higher prices and/or price breaks if there's something that is genuinely better. However, if there's not, you're putting people between a rock and a hard place. Higher fuel costs without a solid alternative for mass use is hurting the shipping and transportation industry. This causes other prices, like food, to go up. We don't have teleportation, so vehicles and aircraft play a large part in you getting your food. A company isn't going to just take the hit, it's going to be passed along to the consumer, and that's not a good thing. I don't think the government has any business attempting to push dubious ideas on it's citizens. It's still not conclusive that humans really do have a real marked effect on the environment. Every time gas goes up, the oil companies get blamed for being greedy, never mind the taxes we have already. Governments are inefficient at management. They are necessary, but like glue, you don't need it slathered everywhere. Price control was tried here in the US in the 1970's. We had rationed gas, and lines to get it. Also, the percent of their income people paid for gas was higher. I don't know about you, but I really have no desire to spend several hours waiting to purchase gas. The more the government gets involved, the more it screws things up. This is one thing that has landed Jimmy Carter as one of the worst, if not the worst US President. How can we make China and India be green? We can't. However, the US gets bashed for not signing the Kyoto treaty, for example. Well, the US would be the only country required to follow this. Uh, no. Can the US do better? Probably. However, it's a joke to require one country to abide by a rule, and force no other country, including ones that put out more pollution by significant amounts, to that agreement. It's just silly.
Using Peltier as a radiator Why do you say that?? That's ridiculous lol. He tries really hard to get the point across, hence the famous slide show and now the movie. Have you been at one of his slide show presentations? What do you possibly see "religious" and thought-blocking about it?
Thats true. The US only makes up for 1/21th of the Worlds population. Yet no matter how bad china is polluting, the finger always goes toward us. Apparently they have the right to pollute because there a "developing nation". Zues, I like the idea about recycling and measuring waste. Unfortunately, with over hundreds of houses to do in a few hours, its not practical. The thing about the government telling us what to do to save the earth, is nobody listens anymore. Unless the word losing/saving money or death is on the news, people dont seem to care enough to take a physical action. Again, scientists have not ruled out an ice age but those air quality warnings have to be from something.
Because, he's taken an issue that's based in science as it stands now, and trying to close the book on the matter. It's not, hey, the way things appear now, this is the case. It's become, these are the cold hard, unchangeable facts. Global warming caused by man is a popular view; so was the idea of a flat Earth. Popular does not mean it's a fact. Gore isn't looking for the truth, and I don't know if he honestly believes it or not. However, the focus has gone away from making sure a real issue is being brought up. When opposing views are quickly dismissed based not on data or all the data, but on consensus, it's a religious mindset. Maybe it's just me, but I notice cries of global warming during the summer, when it's hot already. I don't seem to here that in the dead of winter with 2 feet of snow.
We've been doing it in my town for years. The recycling truck comes every two weeks, and you have two bins (more upon request) which you sort stuff between. They have it setup so that the recycling truck comes the same day trash is picked up in your area. If I remember, the price is next to nothing and I think is part of the trash bill.
Its just forcing people to do it. We have pink bin bags for paper, green for plastic/metal, reuseable white nylon sacks for glass, a brown wheelie bin for garden waste and the usual black bin bags for everything. The recycling bins are used but I know more people that dont use them than do. The brown wheelie bin gets picked up and tipped into the waggon. Its when its picked up I think it would be easy to weigh it and to scan a barcode which is specific to your house. Wide open to fraud unless they have a screen confirming the bin is from a particular house.... but like thomasbuonoman said its just down to time, which costs money. How are you billed for your trash in the US? Do you have to pay extra for the recycling truck to stop by at yours? We have £100ish a month council tax (depends on how big your house is and how many live there) which covers stuff like the bins, sewers n stuff like that.
I think it's included in part of the waste disposal fee. Since I have all utilities included in my rent, I don't know the breakdown. I'm pretty sure there's a small fee (like maybe $5/month), but it's very minor. It's not so much forcing (there's no law requiring this, so far as I know), but it's making it convient to do so. It's easier than going down to the recycling facility and sorting through all that crap yourself. The price is for convience, as I'm sure the company gets something when it resells the recycleables. Stuff like this is reasonable, and it's not forcing anyone to do it. It just makes it a more accessible option. You're going to toss it away anyhow, and a program that makes it this simple to toss it in one bin or another is a great way. Stuff like raising gas prices is bad because it will adversely affect any good or service using transportation---which is just about everything. Your food has to get to the store somehow, plane or truck, and usually both are involved, and both use some form of oil. It might not be so bad if there was a solid alternative that could realistically be implemented in a widespread fashion, but until we have that option, consumers like us are going to end up footing the bill. You might not like that either, but investors want a return on their money, and employees like being paid. A company isn't going to continually take hits and not raise prices. It's a nice thought, but simply unrealistic.
Increase in fuel prices will just increase the prices of everything. They are already blaming the increase in petrol prices for the increase in food. We all know that global warming exists but maybe there those people that go overboard and exaggerate the problem. Many older people take the position that they won't be around for when the roblem REALLY kicks in, that annoys me. It's like saying that we will find another fuel source when oil runs out. P.S Is there a place on the forum I can post about a non-computer related hardware issue?
Zeus- The recycling trucks are included in regular taxes. We have, atleast in my town, 2 separate trucks for rec. and trash. There is no extra cost, just $20 for a second bin. Jake- You mean like an ipod or x-box
A DVD Recorder I am having trouble with. We also have two types of bins, green for rubbish and a yellow for recycling. They are continuing to add more items to the list of recyclables. I think it is a little bit extra but not too much. We always manage to fill up our yellow bin so it's a good idea.
That's dead wrong. He doesn't champion the global warming cause just because it's popular -- he's one of the voices who actually helped make it so. He started working on the issue long ago: he held the first-ever congressional hearings about global warming in the 80's and published the book Earth in the Balance in '92. (link... look for bolded "1980s" header) Global warming and the blame on humans wasn't a popular concept at all back then, and yet he was for it. So obviously he does truly believe in it and not just because it's a popular idea now. I understand what you mean by "religious" mindset now, but that's simply not true about Gore. You're saying he's glossing over the science rather than truly looking for truth in the available data? I was at one of his famous "slide show" talks when he came to Arizona State University this spring to deliver it. And I guarantee you and everyone else that his entire presentation consisted of solid data (along with discussion and jokes, of course). There was nothing hasty or whitewashed about it. Just the most complete evidence consisting of photos, graphs, charts, statistics that he could find for illustrating all the important points and facets of the problem. Of course you shouldn't just take my word for it, so you should watch his movie (based on the slideshow), An Inconvenient Truth. It's basically the same material as the slideshow I think (I actually haven't watched it myself... am planning on it). If you could tell me what parts of it seem to you like he was "[taking] an issue that's based in science as it stands now, and trying to close the book on the matter", I'd like to hear it. Finally, what data is he ignoring, as you say in your last sentence (unless I understood you wrong)? Obviously, in his campaign for greater awareness he only uses the best supporting evidence for his side of the argument and leaves it to the opponents to present their own counter-case. Do you find that problematic or are you talking about something else?
