What can we do about Climate Change?

[RetroGrow]

The single biggest thing that the average person can do to alleviate environmental destruction is to quit eating cattle. I stopped eating red meat 20 years ago when I learned of the devastation caused by this practice. Cattle consume the majority of food grain grown in the world, in addition to most of the water. Countless millions of tons of pesticides and fertilizers are poured into our waters as a by product of growing all this grain. Rain forests are being razed so that more soy can be grown to feed the cattle. This deforestation is devastating to the planet. We need those forests. They are not a luxury. They are a necessity. Raising cattle for the meat is the most wasteful use of the biomass. Tremendous amounts of energy are used to make those burgers.
Unfortunately, this disturbing situation is getting ever worse, as McDonalds are springing up all over the world. So, if you really want to help, stop eating red meat.

Some links for further information:

http://kids.mongabay.com/lesson_plans/lisa_algee/cattle_ranching.html

http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2006/final/threats/threat_agg.html

http://planetsave.com/blog/2009/01/...n-deforestation-stems-from-cattle-ranching-2/

http://www.naturalnews.com/000672_cattle_hormones_growth_hormone.html

http://forests.org/archive/general/macfore.htm

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268/htdocs/text-lv.html

Cattle use over 50% of all water in the western U.S.

So, if you eat burgers, you are part of the problem. Nothing is as harmful as cattle ranching on our planet.

 

[1G12]

Well cool.......

I just logged in and sat here for half an hour and typed out a long response about what I've learned concerning possible solutions.

When I hit "submit reply" the system treated me as if I wasn't logged in and the whole thing was lost.

What's up with that IC?

What a waste of my freakin time!

Next go around, I'll just use Word & copy & paste it.

 

[facelift]

adapt.

 

[alaskan]

Well cool.......

I just logged in and sat here for half an hour and typed out a long response about what I've learned concerning possible solutions.

When I hit "submit reply" the system treated me as if I wasn't logged in and the whole thing was lost.

What's up with that IC?

What a waste of my freakin time!

Next go around, I'll just use Word & copy & paste it.

Right click in the text field, select undo, problem solved

 

[Nor'Easter]

yes it is as simple as that, reduce CO2 emissions by reducing fossil fuel use to zero as quickly as possible. It may be up for debate how to best accomplish that, but there can be no debate that something substantial has to be done now. Solar, wind, tidal power, nuclear fusion when it is feasible, conservation, reducing meat intake (which is as good for you as it is for the environment) are all steps we can take.

Great thread, but I fail to see how it is any different than the old thread. Solutions were being discussed there too, and I have seen a thread I started and one or two others merged into that one a while back. I did not agree with that, but I would think the same fate will befall this thread. It is encouraging though that you are realizing the need to change our ways. there is hope after all!

 

[alaskan]

Dihydrogen monoxide:

* is called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain.
* contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
* may cause severe burns.
* is fatal if inhaled.
* contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
* accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
* may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

* as an industrial solvent and coolant.
* in nuclear power plants.
* in the production of Styrofoam.
* as a fire retardant.
* in many forms of cruel animal research.
* in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
* as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

 

[MarquisBlack]

http://www.greenhomebuilding.com/keepcool.htm

A well designed solar house is both warm when you want it and cool when you want it; that is to say, the temperature tends to stay fairly even. Another good way to keep your cool is to dig into the earth. About six feet under the earth, you will find that the temperature varies by only a few degrees year round. While this temperature (about 50-55 degrees F.) might be too cool for general living comfort, you can use the stability of the earth's temperature to moderate the thermal fluctuations of the house. If you dig into a south-facing hillside to build, or berm the north part of the house with soil, you can take advantage of this. The part of the house that is underground needs to be well insulated, or the earth will continually suck warmth out of the house.

I think this is where the future is at, guys. Not so feasible for in-city home-building, at least not this decade or the next. (Underground sewer, power, water, and cable systems would have to be redesigned) However, for anyone who is looking to get off the grid, this is a great place to start.

By building subterranean structures, a 1 acre plot of land all-of-a-sudden seems like more than enough to live on and do some farming. These are the types of things I'm looking for, guys!

 

[stink.whistler]

Even things short of subterranean or full on solar would be a big improvement to modern house design.

I used to live in a *very* hot part of the US, when my AC went out, it would quickly climb to well past 100 in my modern home. BUT - I had friends w/ 100+ year old farmhouse, and they just had a window unit in their upstairs bedroom. The rest of the house would stay in the 80s because it was designed to be comfortable w/o AC.

Those design principles w/ modern materials could go a long way to reducing energy needs of a home.

off topic: Oh, and grass lawns really need to go away - use native plants in your lawn. IMO fresh water availability will be a bigger problem than general GW effects much sooner.

ps. I guess the civil discussion was more a draw than I expected, seems I actually am visiting this thread regularly

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Dihydrogen monoxide:

* is called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain.
* contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
* may cause severe burns.
* is fatal if inhaled.
* contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
* accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
* may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

* as an industrial solvent and coolant.
* in nuclear power plants.
* in the production of Styrofoam.
* as a fire retardant.
* in many forms of cruel animal research.
* in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
* as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

Water.


Education defeats propaganda.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

http://www.simondale.net/house/

http://www.simondale.net/house/gallery.htm

cool homes.

 

[MarquisBlack]

Thanks guys, for stopping in. I think this thread will stay afloat now that the stage has been set.

As far as grass lawns go, Stink, are you addressing the introduction of non-native grasses, or the use of grass in general?

I'm very interested in any other means of improving the efficiency of the average home that you guys may have heard of..

This house is by far one of the coolest I've seen, aesthetically speaking...

 

[Rednick]

Cattle drink use over 50% of all water in the western U.S.

So, if you eat burgers, you are part of the problem. Nothing is as harmful as cattle ranching on our planet.

BULLSHIT!!!

Personal hygiene uses more water than that. Do the mafths. Your shower takes X amount of time, your shower head uses Y amounts of GPH, you shower Z times per day/week. That is why I rarely shower (or is it 'cause I'm lazy and waiting for Maria to clean my house).

If ranching uses so much more water than agriculture, then why does it remain as a viable use for land in the plains of the Eastern Seirras (near NV), where all of their natural water has been diverted for SoCal??? Or why is ranching used anywhere, where there is insufficient rainfall for agriculture??? Hell, your Hydro system uses more water than that piece of red meat. Washing your foining car uses more water.

Fink people! If you keep blindly dancing to the fools piper, then you're no better than Al 'Da Truuff' Gore.

Which brings me to my original point. If humans are the cause of global warming, doesn't it make sense to control (or reduce) the population..."oh no, you can't say that, you're advocating Genocide!!!"

It is only Genocide if I kill off only one group of people, if I treat all groups as equally expendable, then I'm a humanitarian.

You hollier than thou vegans needs to shut the fuck up and look at your life. Cause whatever you are eating is making you think you are saving the planet, one vegetable at a time, has probably fermented a long time ago.

 

[Rednick]

This house is by far one of the coolest I've seen, aesthetically speaking...

A Hobbit-Hole...
I have always wanted to live in one, they are supposed to be quite cosy...Hobbits have a way with comfort, and let's not forget second breakfast!

 

[stink.whistler]

Thanks guys, for stopping in. I think this thread will stay afloat now that the stage has been set.

As far as grass lawns go, Stink, are you addressing the introduction of non-native grasses, or the use of grass in general?

Native grasses would probably be best - though some areas shouldn't have grass covered lawns at all.

'Beautiful' grass lawns in Phoenix just look like a big 'Eff You' to me.

I guess the best way to put it is 'if you have to turn the sprinkler on every summer, instead of just the unusually dry summers, you probably should have something different in your lawn'.

Use that water for producing bubble, not a lawn you are going to have to mow every week (the time you save from not mowing your lawn should of course be used smoking the bubble you made).

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

yes it is as simple as that, reduce CO2 emissions by reducing fossil fuel use to zero as quickly as possible. It may be up for debate how to best accomplish that, but there can be no debate that something substantial has to be done now. Solar, wind, tidal power, nuclear fusion when it is feasible, conservation, reducing meat intake (which is as good for you as it is for the environment) are all steps we can take.

Great thread, but I fail to see how it is any different than the old thread. Solutions were being discussed there too, and I have seen a thread I started and one or two others merged into that one a while back. I did not agree with that, but I would think the same fate will befall this thread. It is encouraging though that you are realizing the need to change our ways. there is hope after all!

I hope this thread does not get merged...
Two very different topics imho...

It would be the equivalent of merging every thread in the 'religion and spirituality' forum into the 'does god exist' thread....

The other thread is about the factuality of AGW... any discussions about what changes we as individuals or collectively should be looking at, are immediately outnumbered by posts denying that there is a problem to be dealt with, and get lost in the cacophony... As long as those of us participating in the discussion skip over any posts which deny the problem or the need for action and only reply to people who are participating in the discussion as laid out in the OP, I see no reason for this to ever get merged.

 

[Rednick]

Agriculture uses more water than ranching. Period.

You can argue about, protein per drop and all the other ways to classify it, but in the end.
Agriculture uses more water than ranching.

Ranching becomes a problem when you run out of space, you run out of space when there are tooo many humans....common theme. Tube tying and vasectomies for all children under 15 in the states.

 

[MarquisBlack]

Which brings me to my original point. If humans are the cause of global warming, doesn't it make sense to control (or reduce) the population..."oh no, you can't say that, you're advocating Genocide!!!"

It is only Genocide if I kill off only one group of people, if I treat all groups as equally expendable, then I'm a humanitarian.

I personally think there are those that are ready to try to get the Public acclimated with the idea of a one or two-child policy. However, I'm a bit of a Libertarian myself, and I think that the Gov't enforcing something like this is patently un-American.

The first step needs to be education. We need to show people, without using exaggerated scare tactics, the consequences of 3 and 4 child families.

Very few people in America want our country to go the way of China, so if we don't want the Government to take action on this issue, we need to advocate personal responsibility on the matter.

Stop giving more welfare money for more kids, it's ridiculous. We are rewarding this behavior.

However, I don't think the population issue is SO bleak. Nature has a way of dealing with these things.

To quote George Carlin: "What would you do if you were the planet, trying to defend against this pesky, troublesome species? Let's see.. Hmmm.. Viruses! Viruses might be good, they seem to be vulnerable to viruses. And viruses are tricky, always mutating every time a new vaccine is developed.. Perhaps this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures.. Perhaps a Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe, it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction. Well.. That's a poetic note, and I can dream can't I?"

I've posted this video before, but it's just so funny. It's a good caricature of the environmental movement, as many Americans see it today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

 

[Rednick]

Well said.
One gun-toting Libertarian to another.

 

[MarquisBlack]

Hell ya.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Agriculture uses more water than ranching. Period.

You can argue about, protein per drop and all the other ways to classify it, but in the end.
Agriculture uses more water than ranching.

Ranching becomes a problem when you run out of space, you run out of space when there are tooo many humans....common theme. Tube tying and vasectomies for all children under 15 in the states.

does any of the water used, then become unusable and leave the water cycle? of course not... water use is not the problem, water contamination is... runoff from farms and ranches both is a part of that problem..