Update on Question About Environmental Protection Concerns
Discussion
10 replies
Posted by GRAGGPHOTO on October 7, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Hello Everyone,
I recently posted a my first message to the forum as an introduction of new membership to NPN. Thanks for all the replies!
Hank Pennington asked that I elaborate on my statement about environmental protection concerns.
My feelings on the subject ultimately reside on the issue of climate change. I think this IS the number one concern that eclipses all other conservation issues combined. Even though I whole-heartedly support efforts by such groups as the Nature Conservancy and others, I feel if we do not start moving rapidly toward global solutions to sustainable and renewable energy resources, all efforts at conservation will be for naught. I mean think of what the experts are saying; if we continue on our present course of CO2 emissions, 30 percent of all plant and animal species will be extinct within 50 years by some estimates!
Great read right now: "Hot, Flat and Crowded," by Thomas Friedman
Another very interesting project to get involved with is:
"Focus on Planet Earth.Org". This organization is recruiting photographers from around the world to document fragile ecosystems in various locations (although right now their focus has been primarily on Africa, new projects are underway in more continents).
Matt, some sobering predictions out there and you have listed a few here. No doubt that global warming gets top billing as it will control most all other environmental & species outcomes in many ways. Overall the problem requires a tremendous effort by all to move toward improvement, however, with the lacking leadership in many key positions world wide the focus becomes even more paramount by each individual. This would include supporting environmental groups as well as any politician who works on behalf of making this a cleaner planet. Thanks for posting this message.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on October 8, 2008 at 8:54 AM
I would submit that conservation is - by far - the most powerful tool an individual has. And even if our esteemed leaders cannot move the alternative energy agenda ahead, conservation would most certainly not be "for naught"!
IMO, high energy prices are the best thing that have happened yet in this regard - it's forcing everyone to conserve and purchase more energy efficent cars, appliances, etc. And if the American public demands alternative energy systems (such as solar) for their homes with their wallets, there is a growing number of companies to supply such systems.
I guess what I'm saying here is if you're waiting for Washington to effectively address this issue, we'll all be dead and gone before anything meaningful happens. If you want to make such changes happen quickly, it all starts with us as individuals!
PS - it's now dipping into the 30s at night here in central NH. The highest setting our heating thermostats ever see is 60 degrees, and that's only in the areas of the house we're actually using. How much fuel do we save compared to setting the thermostats to 66 or 68? Over 40%!
All lighting is either flourescent or incadescent on dimmers, or better yet, not turned on at all. We shut off all electrical devices not in use. How much do we save there? At least 40%, perhaps more!
Driving the car? Only when absolutely neccessary!
OK, now everyone else do the same and let's see what happens.
Well stated, Jim. That was my point too; it is up to each person to help move things in a more positive direction and away from the resource consumption and pollution causes of the past.
I agree that we have to do our very best to make everything we do more sustainable. Energy-saving light bulbs, energy-efficient cars, less polluting industry, wiser use of all resources, absolutely very important and necessary, but...
It will never ever be enough if we do not grab hold of one other point too: the ever-unpopular subject of overpopulation.
As long as our global population will keep increasing (and even if it would stabilize on the current level) along with the species that we grow and keep to sustain ourselves with (mostly agriculture), ever less biomass will be available to wild species. In a way we are demanding an ever greater part of the pie of total available biomass. But it is even worse, because at the same time our actions make the total size of the pie ever smaller by converting healthy and (biomass) rich natural systems into concrete or into agricultural land (which typically has a much lower biomass than the wild system it replaces and, moreover, has a very unstable and rather useless biomass that is continuously destroyed and renewed so that the ground in fact is kept artificially in a state of disaster and never a valuable natural system), or we use or eat so much of some wild species that reproduction can never replace what is taken (the emptying of the oceans and clearcutting of forests for example).
I have been working for months now on a long article about this subject, but work unfortunately has been made inefficient by personal circumstances, but I would already like to share with you a few graphs that will be used (in this or an improved form) in the article that illustrate this point. You can find them here: http://www.project-canada.com/biomass.htm
What it boils down to is that, even if we would develop the most brilliant technologies to make industry, energy, traffic, households etc. sustainable, that alone can never 'save' wild species if we do not stop and reverse our growth and that of agricultural species. We have to give parts of the pie back to our fellow species in the community of life. The beauty would be that, if more potential biomass, and thereby also space, becomes available for wild species again, we don't even have to 'manage' or 'protect'. It will go all by itself, in the most efficient and balanced way! And the impact of a smaller human population, even if no other steps would be taken to become more sustainable per capita, would decrease accordingly! Imagine how effective it would be to make ourselves more sustainable and decreasing our population!
Matt - I'd have some very serious concerns about an organization that includes as a cornerstone of its mission statement the following:
"One project is Focus On Planet Earth Expeditions. We are inviting thousands of average American citizens to travel on special “Focus On” trips to thousands of ecosystems and communities around the planet to capture images of our natural and unnatural world." (quote)
It might help a company organizing safaris to make a profit, but it will not help the planet - encouraging thousands of people, average or otherwise, to indulge in air travel half way around the globe to drive in a herd of minibuses and all take the same images strikes me as totally irresponsible.
Instead how about taking one average resident from each ecosystem or community that could be visited from the "thousands" mentioned, and bringing them back to the US to talk directly from first-hand experience about the effect the 'average' American's environmentally unsustainable way of life is having on the planet in general, and the specific impact it is having on their small part of the developing world? You could start with some Inuit from the far north of Alaska - should get some interesting debate generated given your current elections and the issues that need careful consideration. It would be cheaper, less environmentally damaging, more politically astute, and perhaps ultimately more effective than the mass tourism being advocated.
But I might be missing something here so I'll keep an open mind and perhaps someone will offer another perspective?
Posted by Larry Fischer on November 11, 2008 at 8:05 AM
There is no question humans can always do more to slow their impact on the environment. It is also a given that as population increases, the demand on resources will also increase.
In all fairness we need to look beyond ourselves. First, China, whose population is now getting a taste of what we've had, is a major air polluter. Are we going to tell them to stop? If so, how?
And as far as global warming goes, there are so many inputs, many of which are NOT man-made, and we suffer hubris if we think we can control major factors. Volcanoes are one item and Hank Pennington can tell us about the Alaska eruption this year and the sulphuric acid cloud that now circles the earth.
And has anyone heard of the Maunder Minimum? It was a time of record minimum sunspot activity in the 1700's. The normal sunspot minimum last about 2-3 years and that one, the only one on record so far of its magnitude, lasted over 70 years. Guess what? That coincided with the "mini-ice age".
So, it would seem the sun is the main driver of warmth or cold, eh? We need to be careful we don't throw the baby out with the bath water by micro-managing when all evidence is not on the table. the fisch (for sunspot activity and discussion, try: spaceweather.com )
Posted by Larry Fischer on November 11, 2008 at 8:20 AM
Jim Erhardt said, "... All lighting is either flourescent or incadescent on dimmers, or better yet, not turned on at all. We shut off all electrical devices not in use. How much do we save there? At least 40%, perhaps more!..."
The electricity would only be saved if it were not generated. Electricity which is generated and not used is gone... gone... gone. So the only way to save electricity is to stop generating excess. Generating plants are built for excess for high demand times. Reducing demand would not necessarily save unless it was predictable and sustainable whereupon production of electricity could be substantially reduced. Is that possible? I don't know but especially with hydroelectric generation, you have only one gravity fall for energy until the next rain cycle replenishes the kinetic energy for the next gravity fall. Not using electricity from such generation might be considered wasteful. Just something to toss about. the fisch
Posted by Larry Fischer on November 11, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Posted by Robert Fisher on November 11, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Larry, while you're right that electricity generated but not used is gone that doesn't mean that generating stations run at full tilt all the time. Generation is scaled to meet demand. Yes, capacity is sized to meet peak demand but generation isn't run to meet peak demand at all times. In your example, water is diverted into a hydroelectric plant to run the turbines which generate electricity. If demand is reduced, less water will be diverted, turbines can be shut down or scaled back. Generation of electricity is not simply an on/off switch. Generation can be scaled during a day to adjust to demand. Scaling back personal use of electricity is not, therefore, wasteful.
It's interesting to read discussions like this because it brings to light the various rational and irrational perspectives of people in this topic. Unfortunately, there is too little critical thought involved in developing strategies to combat the problem. Ideas are developed by staunch ideologues and zealots and then adopted by bandwagon jumpers without giving the necessary analysis to implementation or practicality. I get particularly frightened of concepts such as those espoused by people like Arthur. I mean you no disrespect, Arthur but it almost seems as though you are one of these bandwagon jumpers who's latched onto a particular term "biomass" and simply feel that increasing biomass on a global scale will solve all the ills of the world. How do you propose we halt or reverse population growth? Forced sterilisation? Should all countries adopt something like China's 'One Child Policy'? Should "excess" children in multiple birth situations be killed to satisfy the policy? Are you familiar with the 4 to 2 to 1 problem that such policies cause?
Until recently changing behaviour patterns was simply not economically feasible. Viable alternatives like hybrid cars were priced at such a high premium that the premium couldn't be paid back in the useful life of the vehicle. That's starting to change. While there's still a significant premium, it is coming down and will continue to drop as more hybrid vehicle models are produced. There are still; however, no viable truly electric vehicles. Even if there were there's a trade-off between the reduced pollution of an electric vehicle and the increased environmental impact of producing the extra electricity to charge that vehicle. I don't know what the balance of that equation is. I'm not sure anyone does at this point. Similarly, the price of CFL light bulbs was so much higher than regular incandescent bulbs until relatively recently that people couldn't see the benefit. Prices of those bulbs are starting to drop, making it more economically viable. The offset is that there are problems with the disposal of these bulbs because of the compounds used in them. These trade-offs aren't considered by enough people. There aren't sufficient facilities to deal with the disposal of CFL bulbs and as a result most get tossed in the garbage which is not where they should go. Does that mean continuing to use incandescent bulbs is the right way to go? No. As more people become educated about the problem, more facilities will established to deal with them. In the meantime, we still need to take personal responsibility and do what we can on a personal level.
Take a look at ethanol which many feel is the wunderfuel (sorry, I don't know how to do an umlaut on the keyboard) answer to the problem of pollution. It's not. It's a great fuel but it's not the solution - as it's currently produced and used. Why? There isn't enough of it and unless something changes radically there can't be enough of it. There isn't sufficient land to grow enough crop to produce it in sufficient quantity. What does that mean? Well, it means that either more land - a lot more - has to be dedicated to crop production or improved, faster growing crops have to be developed so multiple harvests can be generated in a growing season. Also; at present, production, distillation and transportation of ethanol use as much petroleum as is saved. How can that be changed? Well, assuming the crop volume issue can get sorted out in say 10 or 20 years then we need to look at substitution of petroleum based fertilisation with something that works as well and is cost effective. After that, someone needs to be willing to produce farm machinery that will run on ethanol. Cogeneration distillation facilities that run on ethanol would be the next logical step. Then on to transportation. Trucks running on ethanol? Too inefficient to transport the volume required. OK, how about an ethanol pipeline network with cogen pumping stations that run on ethanol? Sound good? How long for all that to come into place and what would it take? Well first and foremost government would have to get out of the ethanol business. After that, private enterprise would have to be convinced of the economic viability (let's assume it's there) and begin building the infrastructure to support the expanding industry. How long? Probably on the order of 20 to 30 years at least.
None of this happens quickly. None of it is easy. None of it is going to happen by latching onto buzzwords like "biomass".
The ideas of conservation and sustainability are good. These are laudable and necessary goals. However more practical, economically viable solutions need to be developed and more critical thought needs to be applied to ideas to determine the best ways to implement them. Jim's right that in the absence of the necessary critical thought at the government level to develop broad, practical policies to combat the problem we, on a personal level are going to need to do what we can to help.
Discussion
10 repliesI recently posted a my first message to the forum as an introduction of new membership to NPN. Thanks for all the replies!
Hank Pennington asked that I elaborate on my statement about environmental protection concerns.
My feelings on the subject ultimately reside on the issue of climate change. I think this IS the number one concern that eclipses all other conservation issues combined. Even though I whole-heartedly support efforts by such groups as the Nature Conservancy and others, I feel if we do not start moving rapidly toward global solutions to sustainable and renewable energy resources, all efforts at conservation will be for naught. I mean think of what the experts are saying; if we continue on our present course of CO2 emissions, 30 percent of all plant and animal species will be extinct within 50 years by some estimates!
Great read right now: "Hot, Flat and Crowded," by Thomas Friedman
Another very interesting project to get involved with is:
"Focus on Planet Earth.Org". This organization is recruiting photographers from around the world to document fragile ecosystems in various locations (although right now their focus has been primarily on Africa, new projects are underway in more continents).
Thanks,
Matt Gragg
IMO, high energy prices are the best thing that have happened yet in this regard - it's forcing everyone to conserve and purchase more energy efficent cars, appliances, etc. And if the American public demands alternative energy systems (such as solar) for their homes with their wallets, there is a growing number of companies to supply such systems.
I guess what I'm saying here is if you're waiting for Washington to effectively address this issue, we'll all be dead and gone before anything meaningful happens. If you want to make such changes happen quickly, it all starts with us as individuals!
PS - it's now dipping into the 30s at night here in central NH. The highest setting our heating thermostats ever see is 60 degrees, and that's only in the areas of the house we're actually using. How much fuel do we save compared to setting the thermostats to 66 or 68? Over 40%!
All lighting is either flourescent or incadescent on dimmers, or better yet, not turned on at all. We shut off all electrical devices not in use. How much do we save there? At least 40%, perhaps more!
Driving the car? Only when absolutely neccessary!
OK, now everyone else do the same and let's see what happens.
It will never ever be enough if we do not grab hold of one other point too: the ever-unpopular subject of overpopulation.
As long as our global population will keep increasing (and even if it would stabilize on the current level) along with the species that we grow and keep to sustain ourselves with (mostly agriculture), ever less biomass will be available to wild species. In a way we are demanding an ever greater part of the pie of total available biomass. But it is even worse, because at the same time our actions make the total size of the pie ever smaller by converting healthy and (biomass) rich natural systems into concrete or into agricultural land (which typically has a much lower biomass than the wild system it replaces and, moreover, has a very unstable and rather useless biomass that is continuously destroyed and renewed so that the ground in fact is kept artificially in a state of disaster and never a valuable natural system), or we use or eat so much of some wild species that reproduction can never replace what is taken (the emptying of the oceans and clearcutting of forests for example).
I have been working for months now on a long article about this subject, but work unfortunately has been made inefficient by personal circumstances, but I would already like to share with you a few graphs that will be used (in this or an improved form) in the article that illustrate this point. You can find them here: http://www.project-canada.com/biomass.htm
What it boils down to is that, even if we would develop the most brilliant technologies to make industry, energy, traffic, households etc. sustainable, that alone can never 'save' wild species if we do not stop and reverse our growth and that of agricultural species. We have to give parts of the pie back to our fellow species in the community of life. The beauty would be that, if more potential biomass, and thereby also space, becomes available for wild species again, we don't even have to 'manage' or 'protect'. It will go all by itself, in the most efficient and balanced way! And the impact of a smaller human population, even if no other steps would be taken to become more sustainable per capita, would decrease accordingly! Imagine how effective it would be to make ourselves more sustainable and decreasing our population!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&feature=related
"One project is Focus On Planet Earth Expeditions. We are inviting thousands of average American citizens to travel on special “Focus On” trips to thousands of ecosystems and communities around the planet to capture images of our natural and unnatural world." (quote)
It might help a company organizing safaris to make a profit, but it will not help the planet - encouraging thousands of people, average or otherwise, to indulge in air travel half way around the globe to drive in a herd of minibuses and all take the same images strikes me as totally irresponsible.
Instead how about taking one average resident from each ecosystem or community that could be visited from the "thousands" mentioned, and bringing them back to the US to talk directly from first-hand experience about the effect the 'average' American's environmentally unsustainable way of life is having on the planet in general, and the specific impact it is having on their small part of the developing world? You could start with some Inuit from the far north of Alaska - should get some interesting debate generated given your current elections and the issues that need careful consideration. It would be cheaper, less environmentally damaging, more politically astute, and perhaps ultimately more effective than the mass tourism being advocated.
But I might be missing something here so I'll keep an open mind and perhaps someone will offer another perspective?
In all fairness we need to look beyond ourselves. First, China, whose population is now getting a taste of what we've had, is a major air polluter. Are we going to tell them to stop? If so, how?
And as far as global warming goes, there are so many inputs, many of which are NOT man-made, and we suffer hubris if we think we can control major factors. Volcanoes are one item and Hank Pennington can tell us about the Alaska eruption this year and the sulphuric acid cloud that now circles the earth.
And has anyone heard of the Maunder Minimum? It was a time of record minimum sunspot activity in the 1700's. The normal sunspot minimum last about 2-3 years and that one, the only one on record so far of its magnitude, lasted over 70 years. Guess what? That coincided with the "mini-ice age".
So, it would seem the sun is the main driver of warmth or cold, eh? We need to be careful we don't throw the baby out with the bath water by micro-managing when all evidence is not on the table. the fisch (for sunspot activity and discussion, try: spaceweather.com )
The electricity would only be saved if it were not generated. Electricity which is generated and not used is gone... gone... gone. So the only way to save electricity is to stop generating excess. Generating plants are built for excess for high demand times. Reducing demand would not necessarily save unless it was predictable and sustainable whereupon production of electricity could be substantially reduced. Is that possible? I don't know but especially with hydroelectric generation, you have only one gravity fall for energy until the next rain cycle replenishes the kinetic energy for the next gravity fall. Not using electricity from such generation might be considered wasteful. Just something to toss about. the fisch
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,449624,00.html
the fisch
It's interesting to read discussions like this because it brings to light the various rational and irrational perspectives of people in this topic. Unfortunately, there is too little critical thought involved in developing strategies to combat the problem. Ideas are developed by staunch ideologues and zealots and then adopted by bandwagon jumpers without giving the necessary analysis to implementation or practicality. I get particularly frightened of concepts such as those espoused by people like Arthur. I mean you no disrespect, Arthur but it almost seems as though you are one of these bandwagon jumpers who's latched onto a particular term "biomass" and simply feel that increasing biomass on a global scale will solve all the ills of the world. How do you propose we halt or reverse population growth? Forced sterilisation? Should all countries adopt something like China's 'One Child Policy'? Should "excess" children in multiple birth situations be killed to satisfy the policy? Are you familiar with the 4 to 2 to 1 problem that such policies cause?
Until recently changing behaviour patterns was simply not economically feasible. Viable alternatives like hybrid cars were priced at such a high premium that the premium couldn't be paid back in the useful life of the vehicle. That's starting to change. While there's still a significant premium, it is coming down and will continue to drop as more hybrid vehicle models are produced. There are still; however, no viable truly electric vehicles. Even if there were there's a trade-off between the reduced pollution of an electric vehicle and the increased environmental impact of producing the extra electricity to charge that vehicle. I don't know what the balance of that equation is. I'm not sure anyone does at this point. Similarly, the price of CFL light bulbs was so much higher than regular incandescent bulbs until relatively recently that people couldn't see the benefit. Prices of those bulbs are starting to drop, making it more economically viable. The offset is that there are problems with the disposal of these bulbs because of the compounds used in them. These trade-offs aren't considered by enough people. There aren't sufficient facilities to deal with the disposal of CFL bulbs and as a result most get tossed in the garbage which is not where they should go. Does that mean continuing to use incandescent bulbs is the right way to go? No. As more people become educated about the problem, more facilities will established to deal with them. In the meantime, we still need to take personal responsibility and do what we can on a personal level.
Take a look at ethanol which many feel is the wunderfuel (sorry, I don't know how to do an umlaut on the keyboard) answer to the problem of pollution. It's not. It's a great fuel but it's not the solution - as it's currently produced and used. Why? There isn't enough of it and unless something changes radically there can't be enough of it. There isn't sufficient land to grow enough crop to produce it in sufficient quantity. What does that mean? Well, it means that either more land - a lot more - has to be dedicated to crop production or improved, faster growing crops have to be developed so multiple harvests can be generated in a growing season. Also; at present, production, distillation and transportation of ethanol use as much petroleum as is saved. How can that be changed? Well, assuming the crop volume issue can get sorted out in say 10 or 20 years then we need to look at substitution of petroleum based fertilisation with something that works as well and is cost effective. After that, someone needs to be willing to produce farm machinery that will run on ethanol. Cogeneration distillation facilities that run on ethanol would be the next logical step. Then on to transportation. Trucks running on ethanol? Too inefficient to transport the volume required. OK, how about an ethanol pipeline network with cogen pumping stations that run on ethanol? Sound good? How long for all that to come into place and what would it take? Well first and foremost government would have to get out of the ethanol business. After that, private enterprise would have to be convinced of the economic viability (let's assume it's there) and begin building the infrastructure to support the expanding industry. How long? Probably on the order of 20 to 30 years at least.
None of this happens quickly. None of it is easy. None of it is going to happen by latching onto buzzwords like "biomass".
The ideas of conservation and sustainability are good. These are laudable and necessary goals. However more practical, economically viable solutions need to be developed and more critical thought needs to be applied to ideas to determine the best ways to implement them. Jim's right that in the absence of the necessary critical thought at the government level to develop broad, practical policies to combat the problem we, on a personal level are going to need to do what we can to help.