BurzaP wrote:pal, I guess my shortcut misled you. I was writing my post with a small piece of irony.
By "crazy ecos" I meant people who: believe electric cars save environment more than those on fuel and who are shouting: "ban Range Rovers", that atomic energy is BAD because someone in Russia didn't listen to orders and stopped the nuclear power plant and now everyone thinks it can happen with rest etc., finally, that it is us who are responsible for climate change and so on.
I know you were joking
It's just that several individuals often equate Eco crazies with Climatologists and Environmentalists. Since I'm Majoring in this field, I would also be a crazy then
Using electric vs fuel cars is a very complex situation that does not only focus on the emissions. It involves the energy and resource balance, human health, economic factors and social mindsets.
Electric cars would (in the long run) reduce emissions (O3, NOx, CO2, SOx etc.) within cities/high traffic areas. This would reduce health effects on Humans and reduce ecological impact on the environment. Use of electric cars would also negate the need to import large amounts of Oil if the Energy sector is able to accommodate the transition (construction of renewable energy and Nuclear Power Plants if needed). Using coal plants would negate the emissions reductions of electric cars for obvious reasons. The problem with the electric cars would be an increase in costs (both the consumer and producer), making it a bit difficult selling it commercially for the average individual. There is also the problem with rare resources that are required to produce high capacity batteries for the cars. There is also the need to construct the infrastructure to support the use of electric cars.
Nuclear energy does have its setbacks (costs being one of them), though I would say that in the long run, Nuclear energy would be better than the use of coal plants. Although the Uranium deposits are expected to deplete within the next 50 years with current use of Nuclear Plants. There are other resources that can be used and would have a longer lifetime than Uranium but that would increase costs dramatically in constructing new plants and refurbishing older ones to use the other nuclear fuel sources.
Many (almost all) experts (Climatologists and Environmentalists) say that
humans do have an effect on the climate and the environment.
BurzaP wrote:So - no , I'm not stupid and I know that it is because our planet changes it's road around the sun with years/centuries and it is normal that every thousands years there is an Ice Age/ climate changes not affected by creatures/people who settled the planet. I just laugh out this "crazy ecos" who think different than that and do other ridiculous things to just make our life harder with slogan on their mouths: "we're saving the f planet".
I laugh out pps George Carlin now is talking about:
Never have I stated or implied that you're stupid...
Yes, the Earth undergoes Ice Age cycles about every 100 thousand years, that is considered normal/natural. It is not the 'ecos' that rave about Ice Age, it is the Anthropogenic Climate Change opponents. My previous post was about solar minimum, where many opponents of Anthropogenic Climate Change claim has a larger effect on the Climate than Human/Anthropogenic Emissions have on the Climate.
The current Climate Change many Climatologists and Environmentalists are talking about is the Climate (also Environment) Change from human actions (Anthropogenic). The rate of Species extinction today has exceeded (many say by a factor of a 100) the previous major extinction rates (based on geologic history ect.) in Earth's History. Current rates could achieve the rate of the mass extinction that occurred 65 million years ago. That is what has the scientists alarmed. There is also the problem with lack of diversity that can cause several problems within ecosystems (this will also affect Humans). Environmentalism isn't only about 'saving' the Planet, but preserving resources, natural habitats and quality of life for future generations.
The major problem in the argument with Mr. Carlin is that he assumes that the extinctions we have today are natural, it's not. His statement that 25 species die every day regardless of human behavior is misleading. Scientists say that human activity cause about 50,000 species to disappear/go extinct every year, that is 137 species per day, vastly more than what Mr. Carlin states. Already about 1.5 minutes into the video, Mr. Carlin makes a lot of baseless assumptions. Sure, we [m'kay] ourselves and the planet can recover (albeit very slow, took over 30 million years for the planet to fully recover from the extinction 65 million years ago). But, if we [m'kay] the planet, we get [m'kay] regardless. So trying to reduce our effect on the environment and the 'planet' would enable us to live on said planet a bit more comfortable and longer than if we didn't do [poo]. I don't even need to go on with his rant about environmentalists. The amount of exploitation and emissions we have done over the course of 200 years is quite a feat compared to how long the same processes took in the past 4.5 Billion years of Earth's history. That is also a reason why Climatologists and Environmentalists are worried. He keeps talking about the Planet, but doesn't talk about the organisms that inhabit the planet. The organisms were the ones that had to endure the hardships of what Mr. Carlin lists the Earth has undergone. Quite a difference how omitting something small can change the perspective.
BurzaP wrote:to sum up, I don't think climatologists and environmental scientists are crazy. I respect them, I disrespect others.
The planet is fine, the people are [m'kay].
Climatologists and Environmentalists (Environmental Scientists) were the ones that say that Humans have negative effects on the Climate and Earth, that if we want to preserve the natural ecosystem/habitat and our survival, that we need to change our mindsets and way of life (not reducing it FYI). It is they that promoted the use of Emissions regulation to reduce pollution, to say that waste products need to be disposed of properly. Now they say that the economic system needs to change as well, to reduce the notion of consumerism to a more sustainable form of system (recycling, less consumerism, increasing public transport, less waste, more efficiency etc.).
Any planet is fine, may it be Mars, Venus or Jupiter. It is the organisms that live on Earth/planet that will suffer (including us). That is what I think many environmental activists (from what many told me) refer to when talking about 'Saving the Planet'.
Cheers
Yanoda
