 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
kamal nidam adan
Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Posts: 6 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Province/State: Bari
City: Bosaso
|
DISASTER
November 20, 2002 - 03:23 AM
|
|
The bad news is that a ruptured tanker carrying 77,000 tons of fuel oil, almost
twice what the Exxon Valdez spilled, is sinking off the coast of Spain. The
full impact has yet to be seen, but it is clear that this is already a major
environmental disaster.
As long as we continue to rely on oil for energy there will be more devastating
oil spills and global warming will become catastrophic. The only solution is to
switch to clean renewable forms of energy like wind power and the clean green
fuels like hydrogen.
After dozens of spills like these (averaging more than one oil spill every two
weeks during the 1990s), what will it take for us to reduce our dependence on
oil?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ahmed Ali Mire
Joined: Oct 7, 2002
Posts: 8 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender: Male
Country: Somalia
|
Re: DISASTER
November 21, 2002 - 06:55 AM
|
|
the only thing i can see as alternative to reduce the oil consumption is that by going back to our primative technology,that is using our foot, domestic animals etc which have no pollution at all.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
More land used?
December 4, 2002 - 01:01 AM
|
|
Wouldn't such a lower population density mean that more land gets used up to accommodate the sprawl? Also, I would wonder if more travel would be required if people were separated by greater distances.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Martin Kuplens-Ewart
Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Posts: 81 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 29
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Re: DISASTER
December 4, 2002 - 03:13 AM
|
|
I think that in order to maintain a sane planet, we need to go back to the roots of the Bauhaus movement; creating individual 'dwelling places', in which work, living, etc. are taken care of, with community spaces for collective activity and growth.
In major cities, we see too much suburban sprawl, replacing countryside with pesticide, water with mortar, creating overnight shelters for urban workers.
Ew.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Actually...
December 4, 2002 - 11:03 AM
|
|
You may not believe this, but going back to animal power means more pollution and disease from animal wastes. Populations are much larger since most countries went to more advanced means of transportation. To accomodate transportation needs with the environment probably will need more substitution (i.e. more internet use) and advanced technologies (e.g. maglevs, scramjets, etc.).
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Darren Houldcroft
Joined: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 37 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: Reading
City: Reading
|
Re: Actually...
December 4, 2002 - 12:40 PM
|
|
The real solution to travel-related polution is the 'global village' concept - decentralisation and diversification. No more towns, no more commuting (yipee!), everything spread out over a larger distance and no need to travel.
However, you then run directly against the economies of scale which brought about cities and large-scale farming in the first place.
Rock.. meet hard place. Hard place, meet rock 
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Darren Houldcroft
Joined: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 37 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: Reading
City: Reading
|
Re: More land used?
December 5, 2002 - 07:24 AM
|
|
Originally posted by rsmarg
Wouldn't such a lower population density mean that more land gets used up to accommodate the sprawl? Also, I would wonder if more travel would be required if people were separated by greater distances.
More land would be used yes.... but that isn't neccesarily a bad thing if you are one of the poor people who live in central london
As for more travel.... the whole 'global village' concept should reduce travel to only pleasure use and critical business use. No more commuting / good shipments for requirements which can be fullfilled at home. For instance, I used to drive 180 miles to Norwich on a monday and drive back to Reading on a friday - I knew a guy from my company doing the exact opposite journey. Same skillset, same job
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Ideal
December 5, 2002 - 08:07 AM
|
|
It would certainly be the ideal if travel (read gasolene-fueled travel) could be reduced without a major hit on standard of living. Maybe new developments both technologically and politically will bring this to fruition.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Darren Houldcroft
Joined: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 37 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: Reading
City: Reading
|
Re: DISASTER
December 5, 2002 - 12:50 PM
|
|
Teleworking is already comming in, though certain tasks (such as callcentres) cannot efficently be performed this way. I do forsee costs as being the big driver for business, and what with the focus on efficency these days....
That just leaves private travel. I suppose it could be taxed such that it was uneconomicable, but that just penalises the poor. Hmm.... I really can't see any interventionalist policy working in this area.... it would have to be acheieved via education I guess.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Andrew Lauman
Joined: Oct 18, 2002
Posts: 157 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: Canada
Province/State: British Columbia
City: Vancouver
|
Re: DISASTER
December 7, 2002 - 05:01 AM
|
|
Going back to the tanker, why don't they impose double hulls on them? I don't know much about it, but I seem to remember that they don't have to have double hulls. Wouldn't this help? Any experts out there?
Market demand has to drive it. Too many people enjoying the luxuries of their SUV's and power cars.
And from what I know, solar, geothermal and other such products are not nearly enough to power the energy grids that we have. I'm no expert in it, but from living in Michigan, there was a push away from free energy systems, such as solar and back towards the oil industry. I think it was because of deregulation. They thought it would allow for a free market on energy. Didn't realize it was going to create the problems of California. So they seem to be in a bind. I don't know nearly enough about it, but I know that money always talks louder than sustainability. Materialism and commercialism seems to speak louder to this generation than finding true solutions of sustainability.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Markets work both ways
December 7, 2002 - 05:06 AM
|
|
Markets are not gravity or electricity. One can make markets work in many directions. One way is to use solar and wind energy based on its strengths (remote areas that are low population density and not connected to a grid). Trying to make a solar car or replace coal with solar is an uphill battle since these energy sources are dilute and intermittent. There are plenty of opportunities to use more solar energy and boost its reputation.
We do not use alkaline batteries to power our homes, but they are great in flashlights. Nobody says that batteries cannot coexist with other generation devices. Solar can be spread the same way: one of many energy sources.
One note about the long-term: when people see so much change (e.g., internet, telecommunications, gas turbine technology) they are quite skeptical regarding taking actions or making large investments that will involve a long payback period. If technology and society can change rapidly, you can understand people being reluctant to try to place bets on which technologies will be winners and losers.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mike
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 369 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Australia
Province/State: Western Australia
City: Perth
|
long term/short term.
December 7, 2002 - 10:25 AM
|
|
The problem with most things environmentally sound is that their real 'saving grace' only applies in the long run.
It is understandable therefore, that the largest corporations in the world are energy and oil companies, who can rely on profits being distributed EVERY YEAR, instead of after an original investment period of about half-a-decade or more.
Sustainable Development is all about shifting focus to the long term, away from the short term.
- - -
Pred.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Popularity made the profits
December 8, 2002 - 02:22 AM
|
|
My reading of the history of oil is that it is easy to use and has a high energy density. This makes it popular and of course profitable. This does not mean that solar cannot be profitable. It needs to concentrate on niches that work best for the technology.
(Of course Bill Gates did not become the world's richest man from petroleum. There's gold in places other than underground. ;-) )
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Darren Houldcroft
Joined: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 37 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: Reading
City: Reading
|
Re: DISASTER
December 9, 2002 - 11:16 AM
|
|
Double Hulls are indeed required for all new ship construction, and will soon be required for operation in EU waters. However there is a significant additional cost involved in producing them, hence why everyone has been so slow in introducing them..... they will however be 'the norm' within a decade.
On the 'clean energy' Versus fossil fuel debates, it comes down to a few factors :
1) Value of output (the power it produces) versus the value of input (oil drilling etc)
2) Maintainance overhead of collecting equiptment
3) Flexiblity (use anywhere/anytime? connection? storage?)
In all of the above cases current wind turbines, solar generators etc fail miserably when compared to existing products. The only time this will catch on (Sadly) is when 'dead dino juice' is so expensive as to prohibite it's use by the majority.
It's time like this when I really, really wished the anti-nuclear lobby would just take 5 mins to examine the 'real' impact of burying nuclear waste till it decays. In the scale of things, and with sensible precautions, it'd have no effect whatsoever. People are just too afraid of another disaster.....
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Simon Moss
Joined: May 7, 2002
Posts: 79 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Australia
Province/State: Victoria
City: Melbourne
|
Re: DISASTER
December 10, 2002 - 01:12 AM
|
|
Jingles point that ancient squashed animals are better on all 3 counts is correct - but it doesn't have to be.
The only reason that other sources of energy maintain such high prices are remain so unviable is that there is no REAL will amongst the wealthy of the world to change the current state of affairs. Civil society may pay polite lip service to the concept of cleaner fuels, but I'm sure the vast majority still drive and fly their way through life dependent on dwindling oil resources.
I think the best thing that could happen as far as energy awareness is concerned is for OPEC to slash production, sky-rocketing prices, much like in 1973. Whatever OPEC's motives, the action would likely cause the same sort of economic turmoil that embraced the North post 1973. It was only post 1973 that the US bothered to invest in alternative energy (and it must be said, Oil Drilling in Alaska), and another reality check could bode well for the world in the long term, even if it did result in the same upheavals due to 1973 (stagflation, end of the boom & full employment, move away from Keynsian economics to free markets, the birth of the post-industrial society, petrodollars & the IMF's misguided lending policy, etc.)
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
Home
Community
