Nintendo still most eco-unfriendly console maker
Nintendo is still the most eco-unfriendly of all the console manufacturers, says a Greenpeace report.
Manufacturing electronics on large scales is an obviously eco-unfriendly activity, but Greenpeace campaigns to make the process as efficient as possible. The new report ranked 18 companies according to factors such as e-waste, energy efficiency, recycling protocols and commitment to reduce greenhouse gases.
Nintendo was most heavily slated on the issue of waste and on a second year of increased greenhouse gases, despite pledges to cut them. The Japanese Wii-makers were however praised for using PVC-free wiring in consoles and for banning the use of harmful chemicals, such as phthalates, during production. Nintendo was also praised for publishing figures of it's CO2 output.
Nintendo has pledged to completely stop using PVC in the Wii at all, though no timeline has been established for the goal. Overall the company remained in last place, again - with a score of just 1.4 out of 10.
Microsoft didn't do well this year either, managing just 2.4 out of 10 points and settling in second to last place.
Sony was revealed as the most green console manufacturer, placing in 7th place with a score of 5.1 out of 10, largely thanks to a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gases and the use of recycled plastics.
Nokia, Sony Ericsson and Toshiba were all the chart leaders, while Apple was also heavily praised. Let us know your thoughts in the forums.
Previous Article
77 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyOr you could just, y'know - not read articles you don't care about?
+1
Tho they probably still rate Nintendo like this because Nintendo still don't tell them everything (nor probably does anyone else).
Maybe you should? Regardless of whether you believe that the world is heating up, or cooling down, or that it's a natural cycle, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if we dont take a greater interest in protecting our environment, it will come back to haunt us, sooner or later. I don't mean to preach, but the world we live in is everyone's responsibility.
thanks
I care, but I think judging by nintendo's sales not many people do...I don't know why greenpeace even bother with these types of things, what is it achieving apart from telling us, the consumers that they are not a 'eco-friendly' business. Shouldnt they really be having a go at oil companies or governments?
By making (potential) customers aware of a company's green credentials, greenpeace enables said customer to make an informed decision about their purchases from an environmental point of view. Granted, many people may still chose to buy their products, but some people who are particuarly passionate about the environment may choose to take their business somewhere else. Secondly, there is a hope that by "naming and shaming" these companies, they might be persuaded to change.
I agree that the oil companies and governments are "bigger fish", but at the same time, every little helps. Especially when oil companies are largely inclined to disregard/discredit green efforts as it directly affects their revenue stream.
thanks
Labelling someone eco-unfriendly just because they refuse to cooperate with you is just throwing a tantrum for not getting your way. " You won't give us the information? Well you're a poo-head."
Greenpeace aside, why would companies not want to release information regarding their environmental policies? Surely it is in their (pr) interest to be seen as environmentally responsible?
I am aware that there are legal guidelines/requirements for the various sectors, but they are not, in most cases. a complete solution but a (often small) step in the right direction. I am not saying that greenpeace is perfect and we should all go chain ourselves to trees, but the sooner we realise the we each have a responsibility to our world and to each other, the sooner we can start moving forward together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dXCR9LX-Kc
And Apple? Doesn't it mill MacBook cases from a single piece of aluminium, which obviously is rather wasteful? Even recycling takes energy. Greenpeace seems to be getting rather McCarthy-esque nowadays, even for a eco-organisation.
The article is interesting, but I don't care which companies are green and which aren't. It has no baring on which products I buy. Greenpeace just annoy me with this kind of thing.
honestly why do we even pay attention to Greenpeace? they are morons who's polices are usually against the environment when you actually look at them. they used to have activists sit in fields up in Yosemite park to block control burns in the 70s and 80s. then half the park burned down because of too much undergrowth. . . . yeah, how is not managing parkland eco friendly again?
and they actively encouraged bio diesel when it was the new fad, completely ignoring how much new land would have to be put to the plough to provide the corn and soy needed for the bio plants. oil is way better, since it takes up way less space, and the co2 released from the burning of oil is one of the greatest benefits to the environment that mankind has ever given. if only we could actually make the planet warmer and wetter, just think of how happy all the plants would be! co2 is nothing more than airborne fertilizer as far as plants are concerned. and the higher the concentration we can put out, the faster plants will grow and the happier the biosphere will be.
now don't get me wrong, i don't like the sulfur in the air that some coal plants produce, and i am happy we banned lead in gasoline, but the war against co2 is retarded. we need to be putting *more* co2 in the air, and less of the other stuff.
what we really need is more conservation, and less "eco" and "green" anything. if you want a good example of good conservation, look at pretty much any modern day hunting organization in the U.S. they have have wildlife and environmental management down pat. why? because they actually learned from their mistakes and have an honest motivation to keep the environment healthy. you can't hunt deer or turkey if they are all killed off now can you? also the hunters actually spend time with nature, and understand the woods and fields. unlike the vast majority of Greenpeace activists, who grew up in cities and have no idea how a forest actually works.
i know most of this from personal experience, as i grew up in the sticks before i moved to the big city. most people, in my experience at least, who grew up in the woods hate "environmental" groups. they just plain don't know what they are talking about.
+1
Umm, the term "eco-unfriendly" doesn't refer just to CO2, it refers to all practices which are damaging to the environment, and the companies' overall attitude towards the environment. Moreover, you seem to be neglecting the fact that CO2 concentrations of 50000ppm (5%) are directly toxic to human beings and may cause unconsciousness or death. Even at 10000ppm (1%) people are likely to feel drowsy under prolonged exposure. I think that we are in danger of letting our disdain of "tree hugging" cloud our judgement of the bigger picture, which is that we need to be much more aware of our environmental impact.
I honestly hope that you are kidding...
Its a bit like having a suitcase underneath you, you know its ticking, but you don't know when it goes off. May cost alot to open it, but as soon as you do you know if its a clock or a bomb about to go off, you can find a way to solve it/defuse it. And thats where I personally stand on the environment.
in short, co2 concentrations are just not worth worrying about, as they are no threat to humans, and actually benefit the biosphere as a whole.
and just so you get me correctly, i am not advocating pollution. i think it is important to keep certain thing out of the water, air and ground. that is just proper conservation and care. but it is just flat out retarded to call co2 pollution when it is an essential trace gas that benefits the environment in higher concentrations.
the other point is that Greenpeace's "eco-friendly" label does not take into account the wider ramifications of those policies. take soy and corn based plastics for example. they are more unfriendly to the environment than normal petrol plastics. why? a huge list of reasons, but lets start at the top. first off, that soy and corn takes a lot of land to grow, which eats up land that could otherwise be "natural." second is that the plastic is inferior, requiring it to be replaced on a more regular basis. this eats up energy that could otherwise go to something else. the bio-plastic production chain also has a lot more wast involved, and while that may change (as it did with the early oil based chain) that has not happened yet, and at the rate of current development i may never. which, by the way, is fine with me, as the bio based chain is inferior in every respect.
what about "organic" food production? it is inferior as well, since it takes 2 to 3 times the space of regular food production (space that could otherwise be "natural"). and since farmers have figured out that fertilizer and pesticide runoff basically equals money runoff that problem has declined sharply, becoming a nonissue in recent times as well. as the spraying technology gets better it will be even less of an issue. and with the advent of hearty, high yield crops certain kinds of spraying may become obsolete entirely. that is unless those types of crops are banned by the eco-greenies for political reasons. i would not put it past them.
to sum up, Greenpeace activists are ignorant about the natural order of things, and ignorant about humans interaction and participation in that natural order. they seem to be proud of that fact. that is why you should not listen to a thing that they say. instead i would talk to someone who actually know about the situation and has something constructive to say.
The only reason controlled forest/foliage burns are sanctioned is so nature doesn't take it's course and kill a bunch of campers who are impeding on a natural forest habitat. I'm sure Yosemite has burned several times before man became concerned with it as a tourist attraction. For someone who claims to be in tune with forest nature, you seem rather oblivious to the fact that a forest catching fire, burning out, and regrowing is part of nature.
I'm pretty sure the amount of corn and soy products fed to livestock that winds up being the meat we consume at the dinner table is more than enough to fuel a couple hundred-thousand biodiesel vehicles (not to mention animals fed on their actual natural diet, [which is not corn and soy products, by the way] produce leaner, healthier meat, and they are significantly less likely to produce meat contaminated with bacteria). Oil is full of harmful carbonates. If you don't believe me, here's an experiment you can try at home: Turn your car on, sit behind the tailpipe while it's running, and breathe deeply. Let me know how that works out for you.
You, sir, obviously didn't do well in elementary school science... or biology... or chemistry... or health class... come to think of it: Did you make it out of elementary school?
Like controlled burns, hunting eliminates wildlife that naturally occurs. Were there no humans where wildlife occurs, there wouldn't be a problem. Wildlife population is controlled because, again, they're 'impeding' on what we humans are doing to their environment. (Remind me again why this is considered conservation?) By the way: I grew up in Philadelphia... y'know, which means I know nothing about how a forest works... not like I can't leave or anything and spend several days in a forest near the Appalachian mountains, the Chesapeake Bay, or upstate New York like I have... no, no, just not possible.
Seems to me you grew up in a rural suburb full of uneducated ignorant hicks. Congratulations on your ability to create cohesive sentences. I'm sure environmental groups hate you and your narrow-minded view of the world, too.
CO2 concentration varies by area. If you live in an area near a factory that pushes out tons of CO2, you should probably be concerned. And, again, while I may have grown up in "The Big City," I'm pretty sure plants consume more than just CO2 in order to survive, like nutrients from the soil and water (which could also be polluted when you chuck your Wii into a landfill and all the harmful chemicals leak out), never mind the fact polluted air carries more than just one lethal compound that might hinder plant growth. Looking at Google Earth and just randomly spinning the globe, I've noticed that most of the earth isn't covered in foliage. I've also noticed there isn't a lot of foliage near those big cities that produce all of the pollution you don't seem so worried about.
So you a Wii an environmentally conscious purchase, considering how much waste was produced to get it into your hands and how much harm it will cause when you throw it away? And we're supposed to take you seriously how?
I'm not sure if you've heard of this invention from the 20th century called 'recycled plastic'. I hear it's just like plastic, only previously used. You're arguing about the virtues of Greenpeace with the inadequacies of biodegradable plastic?
See, last I checked 'organic' food involved no pesticides or chemical fertilizer. Organic farms grow more crops because it's cheap to maintain. Not that I would know anything about that, growing up in Philadelphia near where the Amish have been producing high-yield organic crops for a few hundred years (organic food tastes better, too).
I encourage you to keep talking. You're certainly amusing me.
lets take it step by step shall we?
1. co2 is a naturally and "artificially" produced gas that is produced by respiration of biological organisms, as well as by the combustion of carbon based compounds, among other sources. the oxidation of carbon into co2 liberates energy, which organisms need to live, and which produces heat in combustion.
2. plants use this co2, in a process called photosynthesis, in case you were wondering, to build simple sugar molecules (c6h12o6 to be precise, in most cases). this also liberates o2, a molecule needed both for respiration and combustion, incidentaly. the more co2 available to the plant the faster it can preform this reaction, and the more sugar it can make.
i would like to draw your attention at this time to the fact that the plant does not care where it gets its co2 from. weather or not it came from the last breath you just exhaled or the tailpipe of a car is irrelevant. co2 is co2, chemically speaking.
and while you assertion that co2 levels do vary by location is true, the variation is insignificant, and poses no threat to humans. to date the highest recorded concentration of co2 in a city that i can find is 388ppm, which is well below the approximately 10000ppm needed for humans to even notice. (this may or may not speak ill of my google fu. if someone can find higher they are welcome to point it out to me. )
and while you claim that plants need nutrition other than co2 is also correct, this nutrition is only a limiting factor in the most dire of circumstances, such as potted plants that have not been artificially fertilized and overused and abused farmland (a rare occurrence in most industrialized nations, fallow ground produces no cash). in most agricultural and natural situations co2 is more of a limiting factor than nitrogen/nutrient content of the soil.
here is a link to a co2 systems provider for greenhouses. i am sure you can find the research behind the claims should you be so inclined: http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm
her is a pertanant quote from the borcure
"Research has shown that in most cases rate of plant growth under otherwise identical growing conditions is directly related to carbon dioxide concentration."
search for that quote to find a wealth of more detailed info.
3. regarding your assertion about breathing from a tailpipe, i agree that this would indeed be bad for your health, but not for the reasons you seem to imply. the emissions from a tailpipe will be noticeably lacking in o2. you will not be so much poisoned as asphyxiated. the fact that there will also be a noticeable level of co will also be of immediate concern to you, as that will speed you suffocation. the co will not last to bother others, however, as it has a tendency to oxidize into co2 on its own in the atmosphere. modern cars burning modern fuels produce little else but h2o and co2. the use of catalytic converters and more pure fuel has reduce most other actual pollutants to manageable levels in most cases, and us emissions regulations are known to be quite strict. this of course does not hold true for developing countries, where there are little pollution control measures. work here to control the emission of nitrogen and sulfur oxides is still important.
4. your observation that the planet is more blue than green speaks wonders for you ability to point out the obvious, but does little to convince me of you inductive reasoning abilities. should you have paid attention to you high school biology class you you'd know that the vast majority of this planets photosynthesis takes place in the oceans. the plants that performs this needed service take the form of single celled plant life called alge. these are little plants form the basis of the oceans food web, and like their land bound counterparts also benefit highly form increased co2.
to conclude this portion of the argument, co2 is not a pollution. production of co2 is desirable for the planet. Greenpeace is stupid for asserting that it is a pollutant.
to address a few more missed point not related to the above, in no particular order:
as to the burning of Yosemite, you do know the difference between a crown fire and a brush fire right? apparently not.
let me lay it out for you. brush fires are a natural phenomena that typically occurs during the dry season, and any given area will burn every other year on average. they benefit forests because they burn grass and fallen branches, returning nutrients to the soil and carbon to the air. in a typical brush fire trees are not usually harmed, as the detritus on the ground is not prevalent enough to ignite the lager live wood.
now for the history lesson: starting in the 70s, according to locals, activist from the flatland's (that is the central valley and the bay area) would drive up to see the beautiful park. these visitors objected to seeing smoke (i would assume) from control burns (artificially started brush fires, in the tradition of the natives). coupled with a rather large influx of new homes built among the trees the forestry department started a policy of very tight fire suppression during the fire season, typically with large control burns at the start of the off season. apparently this was not enough, as the greenies who visited the park during the late autumn still objected to the smoke. or something. I'm an not sure what the stated reasons were, as the signs in the photos simply stated "don't burn the park."
anyway this was enough to convince the California Department of Forest not to do control burns anymore. for about 20 years. for those counting that is about 10 times the amount of detritus on the ground than would be expected in a manged or natural forest. when the tinderbox finally went up there was enough kindling on the ground to easily ignite even the largest trees. that is called a crown fire. they are not very natural, and typically only happen in isolated areas that were unlucky enough to not burn for a number of years. natural crown fire will rarely burn more than a few acres. in this case half of Yosemite burned. it looked just like it was clear cut, only black. no treas, no bushes, only charred stumps. not a typical natural fire at all. it took the park a decade to recover, and you can still tell when you are travailing to the old burn area today.
control burns are now strictly enforced. and the environmentalists keep their mouths shut. the park is recovering, nature always does, but it is a lesson to remember.
be mindful that the above is firs and second hand knowledge. i lived up there when the Yosemite fire happened, and remember discussing the history with the older locals. they are the ones with the photos. take the testimony for what it is worth.
of course the enviro-nuts don't keep their mouths shut about my next topic, which is wildlife management. specifically those damn, yet tasty deer.
California currently has a bit of a crisis brewing (no not the financial one). we have a sever deer overpopulation problem. currently the only predator the deer have are humans. hunters keep the population in check. over the last few years hunting has been curtailed by animal rights activists. less tags are given out and hunting seasons have been shortened. more sickly dear are taken, and herds are often thinned by forest rangers after the hunting season is over to reduce the populations even more. but it is not enough because the only dear that are allowed to be taken are MALE. shooting does is strictly prohibited.
if you don't see a problem with that i will let you in on a secret, bucks are pretty vigorous. it only takes one to get the whole herd of does preggers. hell, one buck is good enough for 10 herds i would imagine. needless to say, the ratio of buck to does is about as good as it can be from the bucks perspective. unfortunately that means that the does are the main overpopulation problem.
this is a big problem.
here is an old new article on the subject of CWD: http://whyfiles.org/156cwd_deer/index.html
on of the triggers for the disease is stress from overcrowding. i will let you come to your own conclusions.
i would talk about "organic" Amish farms, but i think i will just let you look up average output of true organic farms vs. regular farms, and i would also suggest you look up the U.S. food regulations regarding what is considered "organic." i trust you will find it quite. . . modern.
Electronic waste - i.e. left over circuit boards.
Jesus Christ. You're like a little kid who's done half a GCSE, watched Zeitgeist and assumed that he has all the facts to refute any claim thrown at you because you can, most of the time, spell photosynthesis correctly.
There are numerous holes in your arguments, not least of which is an apparently almost wilful ignorance of species co-dependance and the fact that you limit your world view to involving very few fuels without considering the possibilities and facts of new developments on top of the fact that plants need other unpolluted gases to complete photosynthesis. Also, don't forget that the level of plant life on the surface of the earth (the land, I mean) is most insufficient to sustain all biological life and that the majority of Earth's O2 creating plant life are in the form of sea-born algaes that are being steadily destroyed by increased drilling, whaling and fishing boats - all of which are closely tied to the expansion of the oil industries.
It's OK though, because I'm not going to bother lecturing you about this - there's none so blind as those who will not see, afterall.
You had a completely fine argument except... Why are the first two lines lines + the last one needed for your statement? They're just insults and have nothing to do with him and/or his arguments. He stays polite while everybody else is insulting him personally. Why?
I recall:
Seems it's impossible to make a statement without being agressive...
Kinda sad, actually...
Also, all of you seem to have missed the point regarding CO2 and the environment. Higher than current levels of CO2 wouldn't hugely affect people breathing and plants growing. The objection to high levels of CO2 is that it is a greenhouse gas and therefore contributes to climate change. A quick look at the amounts of energy involved shows how it works. If CO2 levels continue to rise, the 33PW and 26PW figures will get bigger. (33+26)/187=31.5% of solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere currently. If the CO2 levels rise by 50%, the amount of energy absorbed will rise pretty linearly (as most atmospheric absorptions are caused by CO2 and methane, but CO2 is much more prevalent), giving 47% of the sun's energy absorbed, which is an enormous amount.
Organic food holds no health or taste benefits and costs far more to produce than fertilized foods, and is unsustainable. If you wanted to feed the world with organic food, you'd have to kill billions of people.
As I have mentioned before, you seem to be totally stuck on CO2, while neglecting all the other ways in which human activity affects our environment. Manufacturing electronics under anything but the strictest conditions is a hugely damaging affair, as is the disposal of said devices. Now, some countries have legislation in place to limit the environmental impact of industry, and some countries don't. Even amongst those that do, the specifics vary greatly and not a single one is a definitive solution. Therefore it is up to companies to prove how much they care by doing more than they are strictly required to by law. As far as I am aware nobody is saying that nintendo should cease production, they are just making a point that it is possible to carry out its operations and be profitable in a much more responsible manner. We do not want to go back to living in caves, we want to continue developing in a sustainable manner. Putting short-term bottom line profits over the long term health of our entire planet is simply not sustainable. Put another way, when there were just a few thousand humans on the planet, it was ok for one to kill a buffalo, cut out its tongue for dinner and leave the rest. However, now that there are six billion of us, such an attitude will surely doom our entire planet.
ad hominem attacks are for people who do not wish to address the meat of the argument. though i must admit that i get snippy as well. i do, however, try to keep my snide remarks directed at the argument, and not at the person. you may be the judge of how well i do on that, and feel free to call me out when i stray to far from the mark.
for clarity my assertion was that co2 is not a pollutant, and that Greenpeace is stupid for claiming it is. if anyone wishes to argue that point then we can continue the debate, but until you are willing to challenge that issue you will continually miss the point.
@eddtox
if you are willing to concede that co2 production is a non issue then i would pretty much agree with your point. there are a lot of nasty things in electronics. we may be in disagreement about what to do about that issue, but at least we would agree on the premise. if you still feel co2 is a pollutant then i am afraid we still disagree on the basic premise of the discussion. until we hash that out we will be unable to proceed further.
and finally @ ch424
you have finally brought us to the core of the "co2 is a pollutant" argument. if it was not for all the fuss about global warming no one would give a rat's @$$ about co2.
unfortunately your assertion that "If the CO2 levels rise by 50%, the amount of energy absorbed will rise pretty linearly (as most atmospheric absorptions are caused by CO2 and methane, but CO2 is much more prevalent), giving 47% of the sun's energy absorbed, which is an enormous amount." shows that you have not the slightest concept about how the theory of anthropogenic global warming is supposed to work.
get your notebook out, i will explain it to you.
the whole theory is founded on the principle that gasses are capable of absorbing electromagnetic radiation and either capturing or re-emitting that energy in another form. higher concentrations of a gas block more of its specific wavelengths in its absorption spectrum. the do not, however, do this in a linear fashion. in fact it is a inverse log function.
if you do not know what an inverse log is allow me to explain. say you have a window blind that blocks 50% of all visible light. if you hang this in front of a window, you will block 50% of the visible light energy entering the room from that window. now what happens if you hang another one of those blinds behind the first one? by your linear scale you would block 100% of the light energy entering the room. if that is your final answer then you fail, because the total blocked energy only equals 75% blocked. if you understand basic math you will know why. what happens if we double the number of blinds again to 4? how much energy are we blocking? grats to anyone who said 87.5%. the next doubling (were up to eight blinds now, for those who are counting. that is like octupling the concentration of a gas, or increasing the distance traveled through the same concentration of gas by eight) brings the total energy blockage to about 94%. you can see that each additional *doubling* is going to have less and less relative effect on the energy blockage, let alone the addition of a single blind.
with a gas, *the amount of energy absorbed is directly related to how much energy is already being absorbed.* to understand the amount of energy a certain gas in the atmosphere absorbs we need to first know the absorption spectrum of that gas, and we also need to know *how much of that spectrum is already being absorbed.*
to know that wee need to pull out a few charts.
here is a nice one:
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif (sorry i cannot find a clearer one)
please note that this graph is a space to ground absorption spectrum. that is the one we are most interested in.
i want to draw your attention to the co2 portion of the graph. not that for the wavelengths co2 is most absorptive in are already at nearly full saturation already. this means that for a *doubling* of atmospheric co2 you can expect *at best* a 1 to 2% increase in absorbed long wave radiation from the planets surface. *double* that new concentration again and you will likely only get a fraction of a percent gain.
which brings us to the real theory of AGW: the positive feedback loop.
the theory states that this rather insignificant 1 to 2% increase in energy retention would cause an increase in atmospheric water vapor. for those of you who are new to this, atmospheric water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas on earth, ever and period. it is responsible for about 96 to 98% of the planets ability to keep in IR radiation. this increase in water vapor would retain even more heat, causing even more water vapor in the atmosphere, etc. etc.
unfortunately for the AGW theory the water vapor spectrum is also nearly saturated. not much room for feedback there.
and then there is that overlooked issue that more water vapor typically leads to more clouds, which actually reflect a lot of EMR before it even gets to the ground(where it will be absorbed and turned into long wave IR when it is re-emitted, thus bringing co2 into play in the first place), so all that atmosphere between the cloud and the ground never even get the chance to absorb any energy at all. so in all likely hood we are looking at a *negative* feedback loop.
couple this with the fact that we did not run into runaway global warming when we left the last ice age, or had the medieval warm period for that matter, and the case for a positive feedback loop falls flat on its face. (for those not in the know, the medieval war period was warmer than today)
and now for everyone who is not so good at identifying the premise of an argument, if you wish to debate the issue yo will have to first establish that AGW theory does not rely on EMR absorption by the atmosphere, and does not rely on a positive feedback loop for said absorption, and that we are not talking about emitted long-wave radiation from the *ground*.
if you do admit that AGW theory is based on those premises, then AGW theory is trounced by logic and facts. and no amount of computer "modeling" is going to be able to change the simple facts either.
remember "lies, damn lies, and statistics" (hint: computer models are just statistics, cleverly disguised as "science." real science does not take place in the computer, it takes place in the real world. the computer is just a tool that can either help us or mislead us)
my special theory on why the earth has climate change? variation in solar output.
that would also explain the shrinking and growing ice caps on mars nicely too, incidentally.
Sorry, TL;DR. Most of your arguments, from what I read, all are based off the assumption that greenhouse gases are not going to increase the temperature.
Ergo, rise in CO2 conc = rise in temperatures = melting of poles = situation FUBAR.
you really need to read my last post. co2 is not warming the planet in any way.
@tsr2
indeed, there is evidence of much higher co2 concentrations in the past. and yes that likely caused more plant growth. if you really want to get technical it looks like co2 levels follow the temperature. that is, when the temperature rises so do co2 levels. and while some of the co2 level rise today is undoubtedly human caused, in all likelihood a significant portion is natural. the earth, after all, has been warming since the 1600s and the end of the mini ice age.
Honestly, I had a commentary typed up already, but seeing your reaction to any and every argument, with your limited capacity to acknowledge that your information is perhaps, not perfect, I decided to just remove it. Arguing with you is like arguing with my mother - tiring, and ultimately pointless, for you never win, because the opponent never knows when to quit.
And another thing - oceanic acidity caused by CO2.
In the end none of these arguments matter, the biosphere and the Earth itself are a lot more resilient than most people seem to give it credit for. The big issue is our own survival. In which case we do need new energy sources (LFTR type nuclear plants being the best current solution) and probably some geo-engineering to cool us off a degree or two. Both of those are independent of any concerns for the "well being of the planet".
These arguments hit a nerve, I guess and I reacted foolishly. You're totally correct however and I apologise. It can be hard to keep perspective when it's something I feel so passionate about, even if it is important to because it's what distinguishes between the proper, well reasoned discourse that should be fostered around these topics and the knee jerk reactions that cause mistrust for political groups like Greenpeace.
+rep for making that extremely salient point and making me see the rashness of my previous comment.
ah yes, yet another personal attack. i was even nice enough to lay out what you needed to attack in my argument. oh well.
as to oceanic acidification, whoooo! a whole fraction of a percent higher ph! how will the coral ever survive! probably pretty easily actually, considering they have survived massively higher ph in the past.
keep in mind we are talking about parts per million here. if natural systems are really so sensitive to slight fluctuations it is amazing they have survived at all. especially since oceanic ph shifts so much naturally, based on temperature, nutrient and mineral content, how many fish are in the area etc.
also, you may wish to actually address my previous points before you bring in new concepts, or were you conceding the prior points?
@Cobalt
i am sorry if i sounded like i supported the AGW theory. obviously i do not. what i meant was that a warmer wetter world would be a huge benefit to the biosphere, not that we are actually causing it. increasing co2 will impact the environment. . . for the better. don't regulate the good stuff we release, regulate the bad stuff better. if we can make burning fossil fuels release pretty much noting but co2 and water, there is no reason we should not use them. western countries have almost reached this goal with most of the fuel we burn. i also agree that nuclear power would be awesome. there are uses for even low level nuclear "waste" that we can research. that would pretty much solve the storage issue as long as society survives. there is no reason we cannot use both.
and yes, the biosphere lasted this long, and has survived far worse than us. actually a purist would point out that we are actually a part of the biosphere, and what we do with it is just part of the natural order.
People like me haven't decided what to believe, but we're slagged off as narrow minded by the ecohippies. Global warming deniers are treated with almost as much contempt at holocaust deniers these days. A typical action of PC groups these days. Try to mock and marginalise those who disagree with you rather than engage them with reasoned argument. Strange really as there is a lot of evidence to support the argument that man is responsible for climate change, but no, mock and marginalise is the narrow minded way they choose to go.
I believe I am one of these purists.
The effects of religion and "We are the shepherds of this world" mentality, gives me the chillies. Really.
If the cows were the dominant species on this planet and were the same in number as we are, their farts alone would've easily surpassed us in CO2 emissions...
(Yes, i'm using a stupid example to point out that "the climate" is defined by what lives on this planet, not the other way around.)
We are the course of nature. If we go about this "conserving" or "using" is up to us.
Thank you for some very enlightening points re CO2. I would like to remind you however, that CO2 is only a very small portion of the overall environmental effect of technology, especially when manufacturers don'r go out of their way to reduce their impact. Therefore saying "hey, time to go buy a wii" on the strength of one argument will still, as I said, end badly.
So, not supporting the development and creation of weapons which if deployed would probably lead to the end of the world as we know it makes one an idiot? Ask yourself how many resources the human race has diverted towards these projects and tell me if it was the best possible use of said resources. In short, was it worth it? Is it worth it? Could no better use be made of the limited resources available to us?
Lets not bring religion into this. There's nothing religious about saying that if you don't take care of what you have, chances are you will lose it. It is almost a universal constant. We have a whole industry devoted to handling our sewage because if we didn't, we'd be swimming in it. The same goes for rubbish etc. Point is, if we don't "clean up after ourselves" in all senses of the word, we will regret it. Reducing the amount of waste we produce in the first place is just an extension of that.
Yes, it is. Just as it is up to each one of us to choose whether to commit murder or not. But that doesn't mean there arent consequences to our actions. It is our choice whether we take care of our world or not, and the consequences af that choice will be ours to bear.
We are not responsible for nor do we have a "destiny" for preserving our planet AS IS.
It has been like this for ages, and all creatures had a severe impact on the environment they live in. For better or for worse.
If we are responsible for the extinction of another species due to our progress, so be it.
If we are responsible for this for our "sport" or just because we can be, we are wrong.
If we are responsible for our own deaths, due to our progress. So be it.
If we are responsible for our own demise as a species, "just because we could". We are idiots and deserved it.
Really now, if we were to be classified by advanced aliens as a "Parasitical Organism".
Would you care and change your life?
Didn't think so.
(Oh, and btw, I do believe we all have to clean up after ourselves... But i'm also pretty sure that even if we do, there are just too many people on 1 planet to be sustained. You can't have a society where everything works at 100% efficiency.
Altough Nature itself is a 100% recycling process, it takes anything from a few days(organic materials) up to a few centuries(nuclear waste) )
Of course, if you can suggest a better use of money that would have a similar effect, I'm all for it.
@eddtox
@nilesfoundglory
@l3v1ck
Are any of you even qualified in science or the respected field on which a lot of you seem to know so much on lol
and we really do not need more CO2 that would be a crazy thing to start doing.
you seem to be neglecting the fact that a lot things in nature are linked and as a result of what we are doing we are approaching a no returns zone that would not only kill us but most other species on the planet. sometimes it can only take a little cause a hell of a lot.
yes climate change happens and yes it would with or without us. but the way in which it would change and the affect of its change on planet is another question and one which we are definitely involved with.
i am well aware of the other impacts of manufacturing, i have stated so already. we are talking about co2 now though, because that is the substance in contention. the comment on the wii was a flippant remark, and not the foundation of my argument. it bears no further attention.
weapons development is likewise irrelevant to this argument. it is mostly a moral argument, and while i generally agree with tsr2's sentiment on the subject further discussion would best be discussed in another thread. leave a link here if you want me to respond there.
@C0nKer
if you follow Greenpeace's definition of green, then that statement is correct. that is why i prefer the term conservation. the general meaning of my use of that word means we use nature, but try to keep it healthy and growing. individual species, while worth some effort to save, are not worth jeopardizing the lives of our own. there are species that are simply unviable through no action of our own. let them die (in the wild), as nature intended.
@biebiep
+1
@s1n1s
science is not a religion, and scientists are not our priests, to be trusted no matter what. the whole idea of science is that it can be understood by the "common man." credentials have nothing to do with the argument. that is the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority."
your statement that "we really do not need more CO2 that would be a crazy thing to start doing" is based on nothing more than this appeal. i would challenge you to back up your argument with actual facts, instead of just blindly believing.
For example: Yes we have more CO2 now, but the current temperature pattern has been repeated several times before. Try looking into scientific research before you slag people off.
http://www.fcpp.org/images/publications/ME036%20Graph%201.jpg
I don't know either way, there is evidence for both sides, but I refused to be marginalised by one side just for looking beyond the headlines and keeping an open mind.
on topic: i'm with biep biep; one of those purists who think we are as much part of the ecosystem as the plants in our garden, and that whatever we do is up to us, but in the end, the earth does not give a damn about anything we do.
I understand that there are many schools of thought regarding what that actually entails, but that is a different argument, and one that is somewhat premature, considering that there are still many people who do not accept that anything needs to be done. Once again, I'm not suggesting that we stop living, just that we try to reduce our impact on the environment, where possible.
For example, while dumping chemical waste in the nearby river might be the easiest and cheapest thing for a factory to do, more environmentally responsible alternatives should be sought, regardless of whether there is a law about it in that area or not. As things stand, even in countries which do have strict regulations regarding the disposal of waste, some companies still try to find loop holes and ways around the legislation. It is this kind of irresponsible and mercenary behaviour that is our biggest problem, imo.
Most 'Enviromentalists' are just self serving pseudo intellectuals who want to let everyone know they are righteous, some have other agendas, i.e they make a boat load of cash from spreading the 'word'. Like Al Gore and tools like Bono.
no one is debating that we should take care of the environment. what we are debating is the labeling of co2 as a pollutant. this is a gas that has only known positive effects on the environment, and only theorized negative effects. theories which don't hold up under the weight of facts and logic i might add. the problem is people (government) are talking about spending *hundreds of billions of dollars* "solving" the "problem" of co2 emissions. that money should go towards something else with proven (or at least reasonably plausible) effect. something like leach-proof dumps, or noX regulation. but as long as you operate under the assumption that co2 is worth regulating we are fundamentally at odds with each other, hence my insistence that we focus on this point of contention.
@cybergenics
quite true. Gore stands to make *billions* if cap and trade is passed in the U.S.
that speaks of somewhat less than pure motives to me.
@alpaca
i concur with your assessment of the situation ;-)
and I'm not blindly believing, I'm currently studying science so I sort have idea on this matter. plus I did hint that CO2 on its own is not too much of a problem and there are other things involved and the temperature rises that could be caused by CO2 would possibly cause a chain reaction of events that could not be stopped.
so if I'm understanding you correctly on what you are, is that the majority of scientists in the world are making this all up can't really see what they would gain from that tbh but thats just me.
so yes more CO2 would be crazy.
P.S why risk taking the chance anyway its not like we can just move to another planet now is it.
when has anyone not had other motives in what they say or do to benefit themselves.
sound the same as saying the oil companies are only saying oil doesn't affect the planet so they can make billions and billions of money actually wait I think they done that already.
and I'm sure I did say climate change does and will happen regardless of what we do but we will affect the level of change.
I think they're confusing Nintendo for someone who cares.
Nintendo is probably the most profit driven company in video games. They don't care that the quality of their games has slipped. They don't care that their fanboys are falling away. As long as they don't have to break out the red ink, they won't change a thing.
a lot of people disagree with the AGW theory as well, and while we can fling accusations about motivation all we want they do nothing to help resolve the issue. Gore may have nothing but the purest motivations at heart, and his position to make money off cap and trade may have nothing to do with his push to get it passed. i cannot say for sure, but i can say it looks remarkably suspicious, and i am sure that no honest ethics comity would let such a conflict of interest fly either.
*but even that* has no impact on the facts of the matter. AGW is either happening, or it is not, and it is either worth doing something about or it is not. i believe the later for both cases, and i don't care what your credentials are, unless you can refute my above arguments then AGW, as it is currently theorized, is not happening. any climate change (warming or cooling) must be caused by something else.
*if* you can refute my arguments then please do so, and i will mend my ways. i do not think you can, and the staunch refusal of Gore, Mann et. al. and the rest to engage in open public debate, or release there core data and methodology, is evidence that they cannot either. *in fact* the recent climategate scandal provides a ton of evidence that points to why they will not release their core data or methodology. but, again, that points to motivations and does not actually address the argument or the truth of the matter.
my argument stands, and whoever is capable is free to dissect and either uphold or refute it. "credentials" are irrelevant.
look all I'm trying to say is that the planet warms and cool naturally anyway however you can't deny the fact that we are at speeding this up and/or Worsening its affects. you to only take in what you want from what I'm writing or at least not link my statements together.
"it is not worth spending any effort whatsoever, at all, regulating co2. regulating co2 in any manner is pointless."
until we agree on that statement we still have something to discuss on the matter.
if you do agree then we can talk about something else, if you do not agree maybe you could try explaining again, because i am obviously missing something. try bullet points?
i agree that the planet warms and cools naturally, of course.
as to our "speeding up and worsening the effects" i actually have issue with that, because it implies a noticeable difference. humans theoretical maximum impact for energy retention is only about a 3% increase at most, though all available channels. that is less than background noise in most cases, and drastically less than annual changes. we can never be sure how much of an impact we are having on warming, because is is to small to measure, and there are a lot of activities that we engage in that have theoretical cooling effects. our net impact may be to cool the planet. we just do not know, and it is too small to worry about even if we did know. that much i am certain about.
secondly, even if we could warm the planet a noticeable amount, i would make the argument that we should do so, because a warmer, wetter world is better for the biosphere across the board. it would mean more farmable land and an expansion of environments that have a high biodiversity. there are, of course, going to be casualties, but there always are when the climate shifts. if we can actually manage to impact the climate, i would argue we should do so in a way that benefits the most. warmer and wetter would do that.
also, even if we raised temperatures at the south pole by 20 degrees (or reduced its melting temperature by 20), it would take that ice cap thousands of years to thaw. look up the concepts of specific heat and latent heat to find out why.
i know why bit keeps posting "Greenpeace says" articles. look at the amount of discussion they generate.
bit tech be trollen ;-)
b. salts and minersals continually washes to the ocean from the land naturally.
c. the oceans are big.even if we wanted to make them saltier we could not measurably do so.
d. minerals in the ocean naturally forms mineral deposits, trapping salt, and the higher concentration of salt the more gets trapped. (grammar on that? i think i failed. . . )
mans biggest impact on the oceans is the leaching of chemicals that are toxic at the parts per billion level. and even then we really only have a regional impact.
We're practically built out of carbon lego's and it's our own number 1 waste product.
I'm not supporting wild deforesting or immense "we don't care"-mentalities. But the way we're caring now is IMHO wrong.
As I&LucusLoC said earlier: we live on this planet and we define it by living as our species sees fit, not the other way around. We as a species do not have the "destiny" to preserve this planet AS IS. Even if we call it "Mother Earth"
Species dying, sea levels rising. We'll adapt and make do, and there will be a lot of new opportunities for industries after this happens as well. Global climate change is not the end of the world and certainly not the end of mankind. (Since it has happened multiple times before)
I do agree on the fact that it will never have happened this fast though. But I'm also thinking that this "climate change" started way back when the industrial revolution started and not just recently. So over the course of 200 years, the climate changed. If you put it in that perspective, it's a "normal" cycle.
I think that is the heart of the matter here. There are still many people and companies who care much more about their bottom lines than they do about doing the right thing.
we should care about the planet, we should persevere it as we are not the only species than depends on this planet.
we also have a duty to do so for the generations to come.
the planet won't just simply get wetter and warmer, there will most likely be extremes of both quite alot of landmass would go and not enough of it to sustain food production or population growth which both are on the increase.
we face enough problems even without climate change I personally think if we can cross a problem of the list then its good.
we will not feel the affects but are descendants will, it not like we haven't got the solutions out there.
also if we can make a cleaner more efficient lifestyle why shouldn't we, make sense to if you ask me.
plus why take the risk because if does then what would you say my bad everyone sorry for killing you and all the life on the planet I didn't think we needed to cut down on our emission, I mean I couldn't stop myself using fossil fuels just loved erm
@ eddtox
very true and it's quite sad all because the threat is not immediate and people can see it what's the point to money if the whole planet is ****ed up. sometimes people should try and realise exactly what we have here the only planet that we know of in the universe that can sustain life and we can't just get up and leave from it either.
you are taking the cautionary principle to a damaging extreme. you are talking about spending *trillions* of dollars world wide "just in case" co2 causes a problem. those trillions could easily be spent on something with a know impact, or just to better the human race in general. we will never be able to cross climate change off our list of "problems." climate is going to change, and the money would be better spent adapting to that change than trying to "fix" it.
how can you justify that kind of expenditure if you cannot even support the reasoning behind it?
as soon as we agree that "fixing" climate change is not worth our effort as a species then we can talk about other conservation efforts, and their cost/benefit annalists.
how about compact florescent light bulbs? well, since we seem to have hashed out that co2 is not a problem, the argument in favor of CFLs gets remarkably weak. they have a high degree of heavy metals in their construction, and are difficult to recycle. good old incandescents, while they use more energy to run, are almost inert in comparison to CFLs, environmentally speaking.
i guess my point is that the environmental movement has based so many of their arguments around co2 that they miss the more important arguments, like heavy metals in the manufacturing of "green" goods. and while i readily admit that there are many industries that are environmentally damaging i would not list the modern oily industry anywhere near the top in terms of net impact. i would also like to point out that many companies and industries are attacked by environmental groups on the basis of their carbon footprint alone. that is just plain silly.
You are already only thinking about yourself. Sorry to burst your bubble there mate.
Following arguments apply:
1) The planet is already unable to sustain 6.5billion people with food the way Americans/Europeans eat it.
2) Define "Caring" about the planet.
3) Sorry, biodiversity is nice for a biosphere that does not have a dominant species like us. Nature is rich and oh so beautiful and all that,but we'll need all that jungle for intense&sustainable agriculture (see #1).
4) There is no reason why we couldn't become a recycling "green" society without actually going: "Hmm, this planet is our responsability." You're going to need more of a "I clean up after myself."
5) Our descendants are already screwed, due to reason #1 and rising African/Asian economies.
6) Thinking you're going to kill all life on the planet, and that the human race is going to be responsible for that is just plain cockyness. Even when we nuke the damn place(Plz don't) there will still be certain lifeforms.
I'd like to know what "other" substances you are talking about.
Because as LocusLoc said: the only substance invoking a "Climate Change" is everyone's favourite greenhouse gas: CO²
And substances that ARE dangerous to the environment are (in most countries) very strictly regulated.
All other impacts we have (killing other species, mowing down trees for farming) are for the better of us and generations to come. (when done with a brain, not like african farmers cutting rainforest and leaving some more desert after they are finished cultivating)
i pretty much agree with the rest.
also, i like to think of dumps as resource storage for our children. just as long as they are relatively leach proof (and all new dumps are mandated to be by law) then they are ripe and ready to be mined for whatever is in them. we already tap a number of them for methane, it is only a matter of time before they are tapped for other things as well.