Page 1 of 2
#1
Personally I feel like the hippie movement, and later Al Gore, gave us treehuggers a bad reputation.

We have the technology to produce energy completely free of fossil fuels. We have the technology to make our cars run on ethanol that we could produce from plants which would create jobs and stimulate the economy, and the cars would be more powerful and get better MPG.

So why isn't it happening? Or if you don't care, why not?
Today I feel electric grey
I hope tomorrow, neon black
#3
Apathetic, because there are no exceptions to my apathy!
R.I.P. M.C.A.
Tweet at me bro
lushacrous loves you
Quote by blake1221
Don't be ludicrous, lushacrous.
Quote by Gunpowder
that joke regarding your username was NOT originally posted by blake1221. That was a Gunpowder original.

I INVOKE SOPA TO SMITE YE FOR THIS FALSEHOOD.
#4


It all won't be solved, because of an intertemporal allocation issue.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#5
I agree. We don't don't use green technology because people are lazy and don't want to make the transition.
#6
Quote by Ganoosh
Personally I feel like the hippie movement, and later Al Gore, gave us treehuggers a bad reputation.

We have the technology to produce energy completely free of fossil fuels. We have the technology to make our cars run on ethanol that we could produce from plants which would create jobs and stimulate the economy, and the cars would be more powerful and get better MPG.

So why isn't it happening? Or if you don't care, why not?


who does?

companys that would rather profit from damaging the environment
#7
Quote by JohnnyGenzale
there's no issue.


False.
Today I feel electric grey
I hope tomorrow, neon black
#8
Quote by dazed60
who does?

companys that would rather profit from damaging the environment


You make it sound like damaging the enviroment is a bad thing?
sometimes I see us in a cymbal splash or in the sound of a car crash
#9
Apathetic because nothing I do will matter anyway; it'd be like being angry about the heat death of the universe.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#10
Yay Capitalism
<//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\>
<//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\>
<//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\>
#11
Quote by JohnnyGenzale
You make it sound like damaging the enviroment is a bad thing?


You don't even seem to understand the problem. It's not even about forests and endangered animals and romanticizing all that nature shit. I'm talking about economic reasons for moving towards sustainability. If mass produced, solar energy is be infinitely cheaper to produce than any petroleum or coal products; you set up a bunch of panels in a giant field, attach them to batteries, and send the electricity off into the power grid. Compare that to the amount of equipment, fuel, transportation of materials, etc. needed to operate a coal mine. It just doesn't make sense to produce electricity that way when we have so much more efficient methods of doing so. Producing ethanol to power cars would create an obscene amount of jobs and boost our agricultural production like crazy, versus importing oil from a foreign country and paying all that money to have it shipped all the way here.

At least be open to the idea that being more environmentally friendly would be more economically feasible than what we're doing now.
Today I feel electric grey
I hope tomorrow, neon black
#12
I don't really care. Yea, it sucks when I hear something stupid that we are doing, but then I forget about it and get on with my life.
___

Quote by The_Blode
she was saying things like... do you want to netflix and chill but just the chill part...too bad she'll never know that I only like the Netflix part...
#13
Quote by Ganoosh
You don't even seem to understand the problem. It's not even about forests and endangered animals and romanticizing all that nature shit. I'm talking about economic reasons for moving towards sustainability. If mass produced, solar energy is be infinitely cheaper to produce than any petroleum or coal products; you set up a bunch of panels in a giant field, attach them to batteries, and send the electricity off into the power grid. Compare that to the amount of equipment, fuel, transportation of materials, etc. needed to operate a coal mine. It just doesn't make sense to produce electricity that way when we have so much more efficient methods of doing so. Producing ethanol to power cars would create an obscene amount of jobs and boost our agricultural production like crazy, versus importing oil from a foreign country and paying all that money to have it shipped all the way here.

At least be open to the idea that being more environmentally friendly would be more economically feasible than what we're doing now.


human vs nature. Pick a side bro.
sometimes I see us in a cymbal splash or in the sound of a car crash
#14
Quote by JohnnyGenzale
human vs nature. Pick a side bro.



Humans are part of nature. You are an animal.
Today I feel electric grey
I hope tomorrow, neon black
#15
Quote by JohnnyGenzale
human vs nature. Pick a side bro.


What makes you think that humans are apart from nature?
"The future's uncertain, and The End is always near."
-Jim Morrison
#16
Quote by Ganoosh
Humans are part of nature.


Nature is defined to exclude all humans and their doings.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#17
Too much to say! The Ogallala Aquifer is shrinking faster than it is recharging, which means the water source for 80 percent of the world food supply is going! Algal Blooms are causing anoxic events, the glaciers in the Himalayas that supply 40 percent of the world's population with water, are melting. Even on small scales, things suck. I'm pretty pissed off about so many issues, but there really is a lot behind it all; not to mention, the greed and corporate influence on politics is ****ing deplorable, but I guess we asked for that when we decided that capitalism is the way to be.
#19
Quote by SlinkyBlue
What makes you think that humans are apart from nature?


Quote by Ganoosh
Humans are part of nature. You are an animal.


Maybe nature shouldn't have given us this obvious intelligence if she's afraid of us now.
I'm not going to say I'm sorry when I'm making a corn field into a much needed factory to produce new fresh electronic device. Supply and demand you know.

sometimes I see us in a cymbal splash or in the sound of a car crash
Last edited by JohnnyGenzale at Mar 29, 2012,
#20
Quote by Neo Evil11
Nature is defined to exclude all humans and their doings.


This idea in itself puts nature beneath man. The attitude should be that man and nature need to have a symbiotic relationship, not that they're apart from each other.

I think that CO2 emissions and such are trumped up way too high; however, theres much to be said in doing away with coal, disposable one-time use plastic products, research of cold-fusion fuel cells, etc.

Technology comes from necessity. It'll happen some day. But likely, the technology won't come until we actually need it. (I.e. when gas is $20 a gallon.)
"The future's uncertain, and The End is always near."
-Jim Morrison
#21
Ethanol is horribly inefficient and drives up food prices. Bad all around. Electric and hydrogen for vehicles is much better, and windmills along with thorium power plants would be better for power grids.
NOW PART OF THE

Quote by Robchappers
You are epic my friend ;-)
Quote by RU Experienced?
At this point I'd be more surprised if you found me a Christian children's entertainer that didn't sodomize and eat kids.
#22
Quote by GibsonMan321
Ethanol is horribly inefficient and drives up food prices. Bad all around. Electric and hydrogen for vehicles is much better, and windmills along with thorium power plants would be better for power grids.


Yeah, it was a miserable failure.

We should all be wary of hearing about environmental issues from politicians rather than meteorologists and scientists. They never have the same conclusions.

The differences is politicians have an agenda to pursue and interests to satisfy, while scientists have their reputation and life's work on the line.
"The future's uncertain, and The End is always near."
-Jim Morrison
#23
Quote by SlinkyBlue
This idea in itself puts nature beneath man. The attitude should be that man and nature need to have a symbiotic relationship, not that they're apart from each other.

That is what should be according to some. Mind you this is a personal oppinion. Most people don't agree with you, or at least don't act like it.

Quote by SlinkyBlue
I think that CO2 emissions and such are trumped up way too high; however, theres much to be said in doing away with coal, disposable one-time use plastic products, research of cold-fusion fuel cells, etc.

Technology comes from necessity. It'll happen some day. But likely, the technology won't come until we actually need it. (I.e. when gas is $20 a gallon.)

Define too high CO2 levels? The damages are mostly after we are already dead so do we really care that much that we want to change our whole system which will cost trillions? Why would we? I think governments should just invest in research and let the system develop naturally. We can demand green products and vote green parties... that's what we can do without government intervention. But other parties shouldn't pull this shit.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
Last edited by Neo Evil11 at Mar 29, 2012,
#24
Quote by Neo Evil11
Nature is defined to exclude all humans and their doings.


Show me that definition.


Humans depend on the rest of nature to do almost everything in society. The things you eat wear sleep on and live in come from nature. Humans have been so successful because of their ability to learn to use tools. Nature is the toolbox. The soil we farm with and the trees we build buildings with and the metal we make cars out of all come from the world's ecosystem, so we're dependent on it for our survival, making us a part of it. You have to take care of your tools or they will break and then you'll be stuck on the side of the road in the rain with nobody to call for help. Earth is the only planet we know of with the right conditions to support life, so why would you want to wreck it?
Today I feel electric grey
I hope tomorrow, neon black
#25
Quote by Ganoosh
You don't even seem to understand the problem. It's not even about forests and endangered animals and romanticizing all that nature shit. I'm talking about economic reasons for moving towards sustainability. If mass produced, solar energy is be infinitely cheaper to produce than any petroleum or coal products; you set up a bunch of panels in a giant field, attach them to batteries, and send the electricity off into the power grid. Compare that to the amount of equipment, fuel, transportation of materials, etc. needed to operate a coal mine. It just doesn't make sense to produce electricity that way when we have so much more efficient methods of doing so. Producing ethanol to power cars would create an obscene amount of jobs and boost our agricultural production like crazy, versus importing oil from a foreign country and paying all that money to have it shipped all the way here.

At least be open to the idea that being more environmentally friendly would be more economically feasible than what we're doing now.


Plus, well, you know, nature ****ing rules.
#26
Nature shouldn't pick a fight against her own creation as she obviously created a being far too superior for her to control. We owe nothing to the environment.

Environment freaks are just disillusioned kids who should study economics or how to properply abuse a third war country (courses on university.)
sometimes I see us in a cymbal splash or in the sound of a car crash
Last edited by JohnnyGenzale at Mar 29, 2012,
#27
Quote by Ganoosh
Show me that definition.


Come here and I show you my first earth sciences book that I had to use in my university. Normal people will probably have a different definition >.>.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#28
some of the responses in this thread are good enough reason for us to become extinct

i cant do anything wah wah humans in a war verses nature wah wah

pit monkeys:lowering the iq of humanity one thread at a time
#29
Quote by GibsonMan321
Ethanol is horribly inefficient and drives up food prices. Bad all around. Electric and hydrogen for vehicles is much better, and windmills along with thorium power plants would be better for power grids.


Except for the fact the electric vehicles are appallingly inefficient (they produce more greenhouse gases over their lifetime (construction included) than standard cars; are stupidly useless at actually being a car and cost a fortune.

Hydrogen is far better, but it is incredibly inefficient to produce hydrogen powered cars and engines.

Face it, fossil fuels are - at our current state of technology - simply the best fuel source for personal vehicles in almost every sense (except the fact it's running out).

The idea that we can **** up the planet in any kind of long term way is laughably arrogant. We might make things inhospitable for ourselves at our current population, but hey, nature won't care.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Last edited by Todd Hart at Mar 29, 2012,
#30
Quote by GibsonMan321
Ethanol is horribly inefficient and drives up food prices. Bad all around. Electric and hydrogen for vehicles is much better, and windmills along with thorium power plants would be better for power grids.


Ethanol is inefficient when applied to "flex-fuel" vehicles, which are set up to run on gasoline OR ethanol. In higher compression engines that are properly tuned only to run on ethanol, it's both a more efficient and more powerful way to power a car.

The reason it drives up food prices is because corn is used to make it, which is the worst product you could probably use to make ethanol for the exact reason that it drives up food prices. You can make ethanol from pretty much any plant you could think of; so crops like Switchgrass and bamboo, which can be grown on marginal land and produce up to 60 tons of material per hectare(corn produces 2.5 tons per hectare), are much better and more environmentally/economically feasible.

Ethanol as a fuel source in its current implementation is a complete joke compared to what it has potential to be.

Oh, and hydrogen cars blow up, that's why they haven't been considered as a viable option since like 2003.


And yeah, windmills are awesome.
Today I feel electric grey
I hope tomorrow, neon black
#31
Quote by Ganoosh
Personally I feel like the hippie movement, and later Al Gore, gave us treehuggers a bad reputation.

We have the technology to produce energy completely free of fossil fuels. We have the technology to make our cars run on ethanol that we could produce from plants which would create jobs and stimulate the economy, and the cars would be more powerful and get better MPG.

So why isn't it happening? Or if you don't care, why not?


How would it create jobs? Ethanol is made from corn, which is already already subsidized a bunch by the US government. That is why so many of our processed foods contain huge amounts of corn syrup. So it is unlikely forcing everyone to use ethanol would create more farming jobs.

As for the increased fuel efficiency and increase in power, that is incorrect. Ethanol contains approx. 34% less energy per unit volume than gasoline, and therefore in theory, burning pure ethanol in a vehicle will result in a 34% reduction in miles per US gallon, given the same fuel economy, compared to burning pure gasoline.

Maybe its not Al Gore giving tree huggers a bad name, but uninformed tree huggers giving a bad name to themselves.
"They don't think it be like it is, but it do." - Oscar Gamble

Follow me on the tweet machine. I tweet about interesting things like the weather and what I ate for breakfast.
#32
Quote by Neo Evil11
That is what should be according to some. Mind you this is a personal oppinion. Most people don't agree with you, or at least don't act like it.


Define too high CO2 levels? The damages are mostly after we are already dead so do we really care that much that we want to change our whole system which will cost trillions? Why would we? I think governments should just invest in research and let the system develop naturally. We can demand green products and vote green parties... that's what we can do without government intervention. But other parties shouldn't pull this shit.


The problem is that big business and corporate America have more to profit from lobbying government and manipulating their competitors market than they have to profit from pioneering new products for consumers.

If the U.S. gov't didn't spend $4,000,000,000,000 a year, and less lobbyists flocked to Washington to grab a slice of the enormous pie, it's a lot more plausible for business to spend their money innovating and producing products that consumers want.

It's undeniable that there's a huge demand for biodegradable and green energy products out there, it's just a shame that business has more to gain in the corrupt washington-wall street complex.
"The future's uncertain, and The End is always near."
-Jim Morrison
#33
Quote by iplayat11
How would it create jobs? Ethanol is made from corn, which is already already subsidized a bunch by the US government. That is why so many of our processed foods contain huge amounts of corn syrup. So it is unlikely forcing everyone to use ethanol would create more farming jobs.

As for the increased fuel efficiency and increase in power, that is incorrect. Ethanol contains approx. 34% less energy per unit volume than gasoline, and therefore in theory, burning pure ethanol in a vehicle will result in a 34% reduction in miles per US gallon, given the same fuel economy, compared to burning pure gasoline.

Maybe its not Al Gore giving tree huggers a bad name, but uninformed tree huggers giving a bad name to themselves.



Ideally, ethanol wouldn't be produced from corn.

There are cars in existence already that produce higher power on ethanol than on gasoline. One made by Koenigsegg produces about 300 more horsepower on E85 than on gasoline; there's more to it than just the amount of energy present in the chemical, it's about how the engine is set up and how you make use of the way it burns. A larger amount of the energy in gasoline is wasted as heat. Ethanol burns at a lower temperature than gasoline, which can be taken advantage of to increase power. Lower temperature means you can get gas to enter the cylinders at a lower temperature, letting you cram more of it in there to provide more fuel for the explosion and improving efficiency. This allows you to use a smaller engine to make the same power as a comparable gas engine, and smaller engines obviously use less fuel. The lower temperature also improves long-term reliability.


Maybe some treehuggers are more informed than you think.
Today I feel electric grey
I hope tomorrow, neon black
Last edited by Ganoosh at Mar 29, 2012,
#34
what i dont understand is this

why dont the people who dont care if the human race dies today just kill themselves
#35
Quote by dazed60
what i dont understand is this

why dont the people who dont care if the human race dies today just kill themselves


Because they're intelligent enough to realise that no level of global warming that is possible to incite could possibly result in our extinction?

Edit: Ooh, and that. V
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#36
Quote by dazed60
what i dont understand is this

why dont the people who dont care if the human race dies today just kill themselves


It's fun to linger on and watch those who actually do and watch their feeble attempt at doing stuff.
sometimes I see us in a cymbal splash or in the sound of a car crash
#37
I lol at people who think hydrogen cars will fix everything because they don't understand thermodynamics.
i don't know why i feel so dry
#38
Quote by Ganoosh
We have the technology to produce energy completely free of fossil fuels. We have the technology to make our cars run on ethanol that we could produce from plants which would create jobs and stimulate the economy, and the cars would be more powerful and get better MPG.

Spoiler: it's not as easy as you might think

Most renewable energy sources are inefficient or not viable for certain climates. With the current technology, it is not possible to completely replace all fossil fuel power stations with renewable sources. Energy consumption continues to grow year after year.

Large-scale ethanol production would have to compete with agriculture in terms of land allocation. It is possible to use agricultural waste for producing biofuel, but that won't be enough to run every car in the world.

It's not just a matter of replacing one source with another. We have to reduce our consumption if we really want to make a difference.

I think that if you want to get more people on your side, you need to stop preaching about saving the environment. Most people honestly don't give a shit. The causes and consequences are so far apart in terms of time and space that it's hard for the average person to imagine that turning the lights on is somehow slowly killing the entire planet. Put it in terms that people can understand and relate to.
#39
Green technology isn't going to fix everything.

basically what sashki said, although I can think of a couple of things that have immediate consequences which people should be able to appreciate. Unfortunately a lot of people see environmentalism as being solely about climate change, which is just one aspect of the whole thing.

Educating people about other things such as loss of biodiversity/urban redevelopment (which I do in my free time and people I talk to actually care about that a lot more because they can see how it affects their quality of life) would be more effective but that isn't focused on nearly as much.
cat
Last edited by guitarxo at Mar 29, 2012,
#40
Quote by sashki
Spoiler: it's not as easy as you might think

Most renewable energy sources are inefficient or not viable for certain climates. With the current technology, it is not possible to completely replace all fossil fuel power stations with renewable sources. Energy consumption continues to grow year after year.

Large-scale ethanol production would have to compete with agriculture in terms of land allocation. It is possible to use agricultural waste for producing biofuel, but that won't be enough to run every car in the world.

It's not just a matter of replacing one source with another. We have to reduce our consumption if we really want to make a difference.

I think that if you want to get more people on your side, you need to stop preaching about saving the environment. Most people honestly don't give a shit. The causes and consequences are so far apart in terms of time and space that it's hard for the average person to imagine that turning the lights on is somehow slowly killing the entire planet. Put it in terms that people can understand and relate to.



Like I said, extremely high-yield crops like switchgrass and bamboo can be grown on marginal lands that aren't suitable for agriculture production.

I agree that we have to reduce our consumption, but that's just a given. Also, I'm not even as concerned with saving the environment itself. The earth is durable and it will be here long after humans are gone. Unfortunately, people are a little more fragile. I never did preach about saving the environment just for the sake of saving it, I'm strictly talking about the economic effects of unsustainable behavior.
Today I feel electric grey
I hope tomorrow, neon black
Page 1 of 2