# Grand Solar Minimum - Is a mini ice age upon us?



## RFarm (Jun 5, 2017)

Experts told the UK Daily Star on May 19, 2017:

"Planet Earth is on course for a “Little Age Ice” within the next three years thanks to a cocktail of climate change and low solar activity.

Research shows a natural cooling cycle that occurs every 230 years began in 2014 and will send temperatures plummeting even further by 2019.

Scientists are also expecting a “huge reduction” in solar activity for 33 years between 2020 and 2053 that will cause thermometers to crash.

Both cycles suggest Earth is entering a global cooling cycle that could have devastating consequences for global economy, human life and society as we know it."​I have been monitoring UV-B levels for a couple months and have noticed a strong increase, possibly due to the earths weakening magnetosphere as we enter into the grand solar minimum.  The last time we were in this setup was the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715 also referred to as The Mini Ice Age.  

This sounds like good news to me, besides the famine and plague aspects, the longer burning seasons would be a welcome change!


----------



## jetsam (Jun 5, 2017)

That's old rehashed spam.

http://www.snopes.com/2015/07/16/solar-glower/


If you hadn't noticed from reading it, the Daily Star is not a news source.  It's about like the National Enquirer here in the US.


----------



## begreen (Jun 5, 2017)

There is a huge disinformation campaign happening.There are memes on global cooling, false volcano CO2 release reports, cfact reporting cherry picked data and made up science etc.. The EPA, NASA and about 97% of the world's climate scientists disagree, but that doesn't stop the massive campaign to sow seeds of doubt.

 It's an easy sell. Permanent climate change is scary stuff. It will change the course of human history. We'd all rather it wasn't happening or would miraculously reverse course, but that's not going to happen. When in doubt, it's good to follow the money and look at who is funding these disinformation campaigns.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jun 5, 2017)

Right?  Lol, cause scientists following govt money would never falsify data.


----------



## bholler (Jun 5, 2017)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Right?  Lol, cause scientists following govt money would never falsify data.


Not 97% of them across the globe no.  But I guess can tabloids pass for reliable sources for scientific data at this point why not.


----------



## RobbieB (Jun 5, 2017)

Well they are the best source of information on the activities of extra terrestrials according to MIB


----------



## Squirrely (Jun 5, 2017)

RFarm said:


> Experts told the UK Daily Star on May 19, 2017:
> 
> "Planet Earth is on course for a “Little Age Ice” within the next three years thanks to a cocktail of climate change and low solar activity.​





The Sun has been blank except for one spot.

http://www.spaceweather.com/

The last little ice age was preceded by successively colder winters in higher latitude areas with draught in lower latitude areas. California has had droughts that have lasted as long as 200 years.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/...ve-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/




.​


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jun 6, 2017)

What?   The sun you say?   Climate has changed in the past?  

Are you getting paid to spout this stuff?


----------



## Squirrely (Jun 6, 2017)

EatenByLimestone said:


> What?   The sun you say?   Climate has changed in the past?
> 
> Are you getting paid to spout this stuff?



I know it's heresy...   but the climate has changed in the past.  

And even worse... people didn't cause it.


----------



## Squirrel1410 (Jun 6, 2017)

EatenByLimestone said:


> What?   The sun you say?   Climate has changed in the past?
> 
> Are you getting paid to spout this stuff?



But Al Gore told us in 2006 that the arctic ice cap would be completely gone, and many coastal cities would be under water by... now?  

Looks outside...


----------



## peakbagger (Jun 6, 2017)

When I was going to University of Maine in the eighties, the Institute of Quaternary Studies was discussing global cooling due to the current unexpectedly long interglacial period that we are in right now.  By long term studies from ice cores and other long term indicators  we should have gone into the next glacial period up to several hundred years ago to meet the average interglacial period. There has been a few more recent studies indicating that global warming may delay the transition to the next glacial period. Other more recent studies say that all the ice core and sediment data was interpreted incorrectly and the next glacial period could be as much as 10 thousand years out.

The scientific community and the media now have a script on what they do and don't report and those expressing ideas opposing the popular drumbeat are lumped in with the overwhelming majority of paid climate skeptics. If I search for the historical references to the IQS studies they appear to not have made the transition to the on line world and therefore must be invalid as they aren't in a PDF file somewhere on the web.

We unfortunately are in new territory, there hasn't been such a long term dumping of carbon into the atmosphere for a very long time climatologically and therefore the results are going to be a science experiment on global scale. Hind sight will be 20/20, at some point in the future someone will be able to point when things went wrong and things went right as they will be living with the consequences. Nothing wrong with grand experiments except when you are living in the test tube


----------



## jetsam (Jun 6, 2017)

RobbieB said:


> Well they are the best source of information on the activities of extra terrestrials according to MIB



They are also pretty much the only way to keep tabs on what Elvis and Bigfoot are up to, so they have that going for them.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jun 10, 2017)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Right?  Lol, cause scientists following govt money would never falsify data.



I see you fell for the disinformation campaign! I always thought they were laughable and that nobody really believed them. I know a lot of scientists and they all take their work very seriously. Usually money is the last thing on their mind.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jun 10, 2017)

Squirrel1410 said:


> But Al Gore told us in 2006 that the arctic ice cap would be completely gone, and many coastal cities would be under water by... now?
> 
> Looks outside...



Actually, no, he didn't. Where do you get this stuff from?


----------



## Squirrely (Jun 10, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Actually, no, he didn't. Where do you get this stuff from?




*Al Gore claim: *_“I went down to Miami and saw fish from the ocean swimming in the streets on a sunny day. The same thing was true in Honolulu just two days ago, just from high tides because of the sea level rise now.”_

*Reality Check:* Analysis Debunks Absurd Sea Level Rise Claims About South Florida – Sea level rise in the Miami area is not accelerating and it is rising at a rate of about 1 foot per century.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/06...nland-sea-levels-extreme-weather-on-fox-news/


----------



## Ratamahattayou (Jun 10, 2017)

They can't predict when a hurricane is going to hit landfall tomorrow but can predict the earths temperature a hundred years from now.

Sent from my HTC Desire 512 using Tapatalk


----------



## Squirrel1410 (Jun 10, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Actually, no, he didn't. Where do you get this stuff from?



An Incinvenient Truth. I watched it.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jun 10, 2017)

Squirrel1410 said:


> An Incinvenient Truth. I watched it.



I watched An Inconvenient Truth also. Al Gore never said the Artic ice cap would be completely gone by now and that many coastal cities would be underwater by now. But the ice cap is shrinking at an accelerated rate and causing the sea level to rise. You don't have to watch An Inconvenient Truth to know that beyond any reasonable doubt.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jun 10, 2017)

Squirrely said:


> *Al Gore claim: *_“I went down to Miami and saw fish from the ocean swimming in the streets on a sunny day. The same thing was true in Honolulu just two days ago, just from high tides because of the sea level rise now.”_
> 
> *Reality Check:* Analysis Debunks Absurd Sea Level Rise Claims About South Florida – Sea level rise in the Miami area is not accelerating and it is rising at a rate of about 1 foot per century.
> 
> http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/06...nland-sea-levels-extreme-weather-on-fox-news/



Seriously? You are using a link to climatedepot.com to offer scientific support? Do you even know who climatedepot.com is and who they are supported by?

What is this world coming to?


----------



## Ashful (Jun 10, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> I watched An Inconvenient Truth also. Al Gore never said the Artic ice cap would be completely gone by now and that many coastal cities would be underwater by now. But the ice cap is shrinking at an accelerated rate and causing the sea level to rise. You don't have to watch An Inconvenient Truth to know that beyond any reasonable doubt.


To be clear, the Antarctic ice cap is growing, while the Arctic is shrinking.  Those with an agenda never seem to notice that, though.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum


----------



## Squirrel1410 (Jun 10, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> I watched An Inconvenient Truth also. Al Gore never said the Artic ice cap would be completely gone by now and that many coastal cities would be underwater by now. But the ice cap is shrinking at an accelerated rate and causing the sea level to rise. You don't have to watch An Inconvenient Truth to know that beyond any reasonable doubt.


I'll have to dig up the ol' VHS and have another look, but I recall some pretty fantastic predictions. 

I also recall a bunch of global temperture graphs in one of my high school text books presented as fact rather than theory, depicting what is now the present (this was 1999), only if we look back, the predicted trends were totally false. But if I said: "hey that's not going to happen", I probably would have been told that they were created by scientists and how dare I question what's in a textbook.  

It's like the saying goes: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jun 10, 2017)

peakbagger said:


> When I was going to University of Maine in the eighties, the Institute of Quaternary Studies was discussing global cooling due to the current unexpectedly long interglacial period that we are in right now.  By long term studies from ice cores and other long term indicators  we should have gone into the next glacial period up to several hundred years ago to meet the average interglacial period. There has been a few more recent studies indicating that global warming may delay the transition to the next glacial period. Other more recent studies say that all the ice core and sediment data was interpreted incorrectly and the next glacial period could be as much as 10 thousand years out.
> 
> The scientific community and the media now have a script on what they do and don't report and those expressing ideas opposing the popular drumbeat are lumped in with the overwhelming majority of paid climate skeptics. If I search for the historical references to the IQS studies they appear to not have made the transition to the on line world and therefore must be invalid as they aren't in a PDF file somewhere on the web.
> 
> We unfortunately are in new territory, there hasn't been such a long term dumping of carbon into the atmosphere for a very long time climatologically and therefore the results are going to be a science experiment on global scale. Hind sight will be 20/20, at some point in the future someone will be able to point when things went wrong and things went right as they will be living with the consequences. Nothing wrong with grand experiments except when you are living in the test tube



Even in the 1970's-1980's the scientific literature of the day was dominated by studies showing global warming (not global cooling). However, the same big-money interests that today promote climate change denial, were in the 1970's-1980's promoting global cooling as a way to obscure and confuse the reality of the situation. If the threat is global cooling, maybe a little warming is just what we need, eh? It also helped create the perception that the whole thing was just a wild-ass guess. And the same big-money interests are still using their fake global cooling hype of the 1970's to discredit real scientific thought today. They are probably laughing at how easy it was to sow confusion and doubt.

When an otherwise educated politician says he's not convinced fossil fuels are causing global warming, it's just a wink and a nod to the oil companies (acknowledging that he's on their side). Or to his constituents who may either be employed by the fossil fuel industry or possibly just easily fooled by existing global warming disinformation campaigns. This is more common than you might realize, especially in poorer and more rural areas.


----------



## begreen (Jun 10, 2017)

Ashful said:


> To be clear, the Antarctic ice cap is growing, while the Arctic is shrinking.  Those with an agenda never seem to notice that, though.
> 
> https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum


Wonder how that correlates to the massively more industrialized northern hemisphere?


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jun 10, 2017)

Squirrel1410 said:


> I'll have to dig up the ol' VHS and have another look, but I recall some pretty fantastic predictions.



Yes, take another look. Because it doesn't say what you're claiming.



> I also recall a bunch of global temperture graphs in one of my high school text books presented as fact rather than theory, depicting what is now the present (this was 1999), only if we look back, the predicted trends were totally false. But if I said: "hey that's not going to happen", I probably would have been told that they were created by scientists and how dare I question what's in a textbook.



When I went to high school there was no global warming content in the textbooks. But that would be pretty irresponsible if yours had a global temperature graph prediction presented as fact. Because, even now, there is enough uncertainty as to how fast and how much the globe will warm. Take another look, I bet the graphs were not presented as fact. 



> It's like the saying goes: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.



Are you saying you feel like the global scientific community has fooled you with regard to global warming? I don't feel that way at all.


----------



## questarthews (Jun 10, 2017)

Seems to me, we should focus on being as conservative with our resources as we can, and as clean in our collection/usage of them as we can, and learn how to live with a warmer or colder planet.
Changes will come and go, and we can spend time and energy arguing over who's right and who's wrong, or we can be good stewards of our planet and learn how to live on it while causing as little damage as possible.


----------



## Squirrel1410 (Jun 10, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Are you saying you feel like the global scientific community has fooled you with regard to global warming? I don't feel that way at all.


I see it as a means of control over you, me and various induesties - a means of potential regulation and needless taxation. I believe it's political science and nothing more. I see no problem in letting markets dictate the type and rate of fuel consumption, except in certain localities where smog is a problem. 

When coal and fossil fuels become depleted, we'll switch to solar or nuclear for some applications, and the market will drive that change. 

As technology progresses, we'll be able to explore the solar system more, discover additional fuel sources, and hopefully develope into a type 1 civilization. Earth will still be here, and we can be responsible with it; but I don't consider climate science to be science in the broader sense, as those envolved with it seek only to prove their hypothesis, even if it means altering data do so.


----------



## bholler (Jun 10, 2017)

Squirrel1410 said:


> I see it as a means of control over you, me and various induesties - a means of potential regulation and needless taxation. I believe it's political science and nothing more. I see no problem in letting markets dictate the type and rate of fuel consumption, except in certain localities where smog is a problem.
> 
> When coal and fossil fuels become depleted, we'll switch to solar or nuclear for some applications, and the market will drive that change.
> 
> As technology progresses, we'll be able to explore the solar system more, discover additional fuel sources, and hopefully develope into a type 1 civilization. Earth will still be here, and we can be responsible with it; but I don't consider climate science to be science in the broader sense, as those envolved with it seek only to prove their hypothesis, even if it means altering data do so.


So we should wait till other recources are gone to develop the alternatives?  Why not work on them now so they are ready when we need them?  And we can pollute as much as we want every where but where there is smog?  How do you propose car companies do that?  And how bad does the air have to be to require regulations?  What if you live up wind of a smog area?  

So your theory is dont worry about anything we will be able to find solutions to all of our problems in space.  That sounds like a great plan.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jun 10, 2017)

questarthews said:


> Seems to me, we should focus on being as conservative with our resources as we can, and as clean in our collection/usage of them as we can, and learn how to live with a warmer or colder planet.
> Changes will come and go, and we can spend time and energy arguing over who's right and who's wrong, or we can be good stewards of our planet and learn how to live on it while causing as little damage as possible.



I'm all for that but the definition of what it means to be a good steward of our planet changes depending upon what the best available science tells us is the result of various human activities. So it's important to understand what the results of our actions are so we can be good stewards. Fortunately, heating with wood is carbon neutral and affects our climate in the same way as if the wood was left to rot where it fell. So, in terms of global warming, wood heat is far superior to gas, oil, propane, etc. At least if you listen to what the best available science has determined.

Surprisingly, there are still people who have been fooled by people with a money agenda but who think it's actually the scientists who are fooling them. Because the science is good and has a very high level of confidence. The uncertainties are to how fast and how much the effect will be.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jun 10, 2017)

Squirrel1410 said:


> I see it as a means of control over you, me and various induesties - a means of potential regulation and needless taxation. I believe it's political science and nothing more. I see no problem in letting markets dictate the type and rate of fuel consumption, except in certain localities where smog is a problem.



The science of global climate has nothing to do with politics until the results are published and then those with a political agenda jump in with a vengeance. But if a scientific study took into account political leanings, it would be discredited by other scientists. It sounds like you don't have a very extensive scientific background. 

Currently, fossil fuels are the most highly subsidized industry in the world. From oil exploration tax credits to some of the lowest capital investment tax rates of any industry, oil is more heavily subsidized by taxpayers than alternative energies. So, I would be in favor of eliminating all oil subsidies and letting the market dictate. 



> When coal and fossil fuels become depleted, we'll switch to solar or nuclear for some applications, and the market will drive that change.



It's highly likely that market forces will cause the switch to mostly renewables long before coal and oil are even close to being depleted. That's due to the falling cost curve of technologies like solar, wind and rechargeable batteries. Costs are falling like a rock.



> As technology progresses, we'll be able to explore the solar system more, discover additional fuel sources, and hopefully develope into a type 1 civilization. Earth will still be here, and we can be responsible with it; but I don't consider climate science to be science in the broader sense, as those envolved with it seek only to prove their hypothesis, even if it means altering data do so.



There is no evidence there has been any significant fudging of data to fake climate science. If there was, those studies would no longer be relied upon by the rest of the scientific community. You appear to have a very dim view of scientists, as if they are the trouble, not the solution.


----------



## Squirrely (Jun 10, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> There is no evidence there has been any significant fudging of data to fake climate science.



*"The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database."
*
[E denotes estimate]






https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/


----------



## jetsam (Jun 10, 2017)

Squirrel1410 said:


> I see it as a means of control over you, me and various induesties - a means of potential regulation and needless taxation. I believe it's political science and nothing more. I see no problem in letting markets dictate the type and rate of fuel consumption, except in certain localities where smog is a problem.
> 
> When coal and fossil fuels become depleted, we'll switch to solar or nuclear for some applications, and the market will drive that change.
> 
> As technology progresses, we'll be able to explore the solar system more, discover additional fuel sources, and hopefully develope into a type 1 civilization. Earth will still be here, and we can be responsible with it; but I don't consider climate science to be science in the broader sense, as those envolved with it seek only to prove their hypothesis, even if it means altering data do so.



The market is already in mid-shift.  This is why the big oil companies have wet their pants and started PR websites like climatefacts.org to prop up their short-term profits.

It's too bad- If only RJ Reynolds had been able to do that back when they were funding "doubt" about the "debate" whether cigarettes were great for your health or not, all the climate change deniers would currently be smoking themselves out of the gene pool, which would be good news for future generations on several levels.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jun 10, 2017)

Squirrely said:


> *"The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database."
> *
> [E denotes estimate]
> 
> ...



I can't believe you go to realclimatescience.com for your "information".


----------



## questarthews (Jun 10, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> I'm all for that but the definition of what it means to be a good steward of our planet changes depending upon what the best available science tells us is the result of various human activities. So it's important to understand what the results of our actions are so we can be good stewards. Fortunately, heating with wood is carbon neutral and affects our climate in the same way as if the wood was left to rot where it fell. So, in terms of global warming, wood heat is far superior to gas, oil, propane, etc. At least if you listen to what the best available science has determined.
> 
> Surprisingly, there are still people who have been fooled by people with a money agenda but who think it's actually the scientists who are fooling them. Because the science is good and has a very high level of confidence. The uncertainties are to how fast and how much the effect will be.



Good points, but I'm referring more to the idea of global warming fact/fiction, or are we facing an ice age vs a warming planet.  It becomes such a hard line in the sand for so many, that they are often willing to forget about the fact we all want/need clean air, clean soil and clean water and would rather spend effort trying to win the global warming argument than to work towards implementing policy that achieves those common goals.

Funny enough, the things it takes to achieve cleaner air, soil and water are often the very same things that will help achieve the goals those who worry about the climate would like to do.

Not to mention, I believe they help to improve our national security, energy security and lower the costs of our healthcare by improving our health.


----------



## Ashful (Jun 10, 2017)

jetsam said:


> It's too bad- If only RJ Reynolds had been able to do that back when they were funding "doubt" about the "debate" whether cigarettes were great for your health or not, all the climate change deniers would currently be smoking themselves out of the gene pool, which would be good news for future generations on several levels.



Wow... that's taking it a little far, ain't it?  I was enjoying the debate from both sides, always enlightening and educational.

I particularly enjoy peakbagger and woodgeek's contributions on such threads, even though some might assume I'm typically on the other side of the proverbial fence.


----------



## Squirrely (Jun 11, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> I can't believe you go to realclimatescience.com for your "information".



(shrug...) Believe whatever you want. It's fine with me.


----------



## peakbagger (Jun 11, 2017)

The concept of waiting until running out of readily available fossil fuels to make the transition unfortunately isn't a good option. Even if no new reserves are located, just releasing the carbon from the current reserves will bump the CO2 levels where climate impact is catastrophic.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jun 11, 2017)

I think there is ample evidence that the climate has changed for as long as life has been on this rock.  It would be foolish to believe that it won't happen in the future.  So it's reasonable to believe it's changing now.  Is it something to be worried about?  Maybe, maybe not.

Global warming has been the focus of considerable debate.  Let's say it is warming.  What is the cause?  I think if we establish that with certainty, we can decide if there is anything that we can do about it.  Because if it turns out to be something like the sun, it won't matter how much money is thrown at the problem, we won't solve it.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jun 11, 2017)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html


I think the earlier call for conservation is a wise one.  If we use less energy in our lives, not only will we be wealthier, but our world will be cleaner.


----------



## tarzan (Jun 11, 2017)

I'm not grasping how burning wood is carbon neutral. Sure, burning wood amounts to the same emissions as letting it rot but if I cut down a tree in the forest it leaves an opening in the canopy that quite a few saplings compete to fill and eventually one or two will, choking out the rest. 

Now the world has the carbon emissions from the tree that died prematurely (because I cut and burned it) and whatever took its place plus the ones that died trying .


----------



## jetsam (Jun 11, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Wow... that's taking it a little far, ain't it?



Maybe.  Your great-grandchildren could answer that question for certain; nobody here can.

From where I'm standing, it looks like a large pool of people have been (once again) duped into standing for short term profits for huge companies instead of thr welfare of their kids- because the huge companies frame it as a confusing argument between political group A and political group B.

Same as the smoking "debate".  Tell group A that group B is out to get them and oh yes by the way group B is against your patriotic lovely industry, and sit back and watch human nature do your work for you. Doesn't matter what groups you pick. :/


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jun 11, 2017)

As farm fields revert to Forest, more trees grow.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jun 11, 2017)

Could be the other way too.   You want me to be taxed because the sun is shining.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 11, 2017)

At one point we had 97% of the media telling us the election was going 98% one way and they turned out to be wrong so yes, can 97% of scientist influenced by Govt money carry the bosses orders. I guess its possible to have fake news scientists as well as reporters if there is an agenda involved.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 11, 2017)

I think the planet is always in a warming trend until an unless some event interrupts it.
Its not perfectly balanced EVER.


----------



## bholler (Jun 11, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> At one point we had 97% of the media telling us the election was going 98% one way and they turned out to be wrong so yes, can 97% of scientist influenced by Govt money carry the bosses orders. I guess its possible to have fake news scientists as well as reporters if there is an agenda involved.


Yes but all of the "scientific evidence" refuting human influence on climate change is funded by the energy companies.  So we know their benefactors are heavily influenced against changing the status quo.  So why do you trust that small percentage of scientists funded by heavily biased donors over the others some of which are funded by our govt part of which is biased?


----------



## bholler (Jun 11, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> I think the planet is always in a warming trend until an unless some event interrupts it.
> Its not perfectly balanced EVER.


Yes the climate will always be changing but by no means always warming.  But that does not mean we are not affecting it.


----------



## begreen (Jun 11, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> At one point we had 97% of the media telling us the election was going 98% one way and they turned out to be wrong so yes, can 97% of scientist influenced by Govt money carry the bosses orders. I guess its possible to have fake news scientists as well as reporters if there is an agenda involved.


Media reporting is not science-based. There is a very big difference. Science doesn't care about opinion. It cares about truth and is self-correcting as it pursues the truth.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jun 11, 2017)

tarzan said:


> I'm not grasping how burning wood is carbon neutral. Sure, burning wood amounts to the same emissions as letting it rot but if I cut down a tree in the forest it leaves an opening in the canopy that quite a few saplings compete to fill and eventually one or two will, choking out the rest.
> 
> Now the world has the carbon emissions from the tree that died prematurely (because I cut and burned it) and whatever took its place plus the ones that died trying .



Wood burning is carbon neutral because trees absorb just as much carbon in life as they release after they die.

On the other hand, if we burn all the known fossil fuel reserves, the planets climate reverts back to an earlier time period and is uninhabitable. Planet earth is a wonderful place for humans precisely because so much carbon was sequestered (locked up) over billions of years. You don't want to undo that in 200 short years. The science on this is solid and, contrary to disinformation campaigns designed to maintain the dollar value of those reserves, even the uncertainties with the current science are miniscule in terms of the bigger picture. Specifically, these reserves took billions of years to sequester so much carbon, whether the climate takes 20 years, 100 years or even 200 years to completely transform, that is irrelevant. It is an unacceptable change for the human species (which is adapted to live in our current climate).

If it is impossible to consume all known petroleum reserves without creating a planet that is uninhabitable by humans, then what is the true economic worth of those reserves? Currently they are being valued at many billions of dollars and, when you buy stock in an oil major, those reserves (and the future income streams from those reserves) are what you are paying for. But if they can't be burned without eliminating most or all humans, than the bulk of those vast reserves are literally worthless and the oil companies annual statements that value those reserves at many billions of dollars are essentially fraudulent. By using disinformation to discredit that global warming is even an issue, the value of those reserves is supported. And oil has created a major part of the wealth that exists today. So, by believing and supporting those disinformation campaigns, and by electing people who say they aren't convinced GW is due to burning of fossil fuels, people are actually supporting the wealthy families who became wealthy through oil and still have major portions of their wealth in oil. To sell it all would trigger huge capital gains liabilities so they must transfer the wealth slowly and sell it off as fast as they are able to create matching tax credits to balance the capital gains. With wealth this large that can take decades. They are hoping that by the time it is widely realized those reserves can't be consumed (which makes the estimated future worth of those reserves fraudulent) they will have unloaded their vast oil empires onto the people via pension funds and the like. As long as they can plausibly claim their is no problem with burning all their known reserves, it is not fraudulent to value them as if they can be used.  So, yes, help them sow their doubt and spread their seeds of disinformation and see how that helps you, the common man. They have you fooled that, by being a GW skeptic, you are sticking it to "the man".

Currently, they only have the most gullible 35% supporting them. But that is enough to help them unwind their oil interests in a more profitable manner and avoid a lot of tax that would be due if they unwound their positions at once. It really is all about money yet some can't see it.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 11, 2017)

begreen said:


> Media reporting is not science-based. There is a very big difference. Science doesn't care about opinion. It cares about truth and is self-correcting as it pursues the truth.


But if its paid for by people who are looking for a certain outcome ,results can be skeewed any way you want. Im just saying a certian amount of skepticism  is not always a bad thing. No doubt the planet is warming ,but how much of it is human caused and can we realistically do anything to make a significant difference.  I feel the debt bomb and overpopulation will affect out way of life far sooner than global warming and neither seem to get as much attention.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 11, 2017)

bholler said:


> Yes the climate will always be changing but by no means always warming.  But that does not mean we are not affecting it.


IF we are in a prolonged period of low solar output that in the past led to a mini ice age, we may be stabilizing the climate and not even know it.


----------



## bholler (Jun 11, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Wood burning is carbon neutral because trees absorb just as much carbon in life as they release after they die.
> 
> On the other hand, if we burn all the known fossil fuel reserves, the planets climate reverts back to an earlier time period and is uninhabitable. Planet earth is a wonderful place for humans precisely because so much carbon was sequestered (locked up) over billions of years. You don't want to undo that in 200 short years. The science on this is solid and, contrary to disinformation campaigns designed to maintain the dollar value of those reserves, even the uncertainties with the current science are miniscule in terms of the bigger picture. Specifically, these reserves took billions of years to sequester so much carbon, whether the climate takes 20 years, 100 years or even 200 years to completely transform, that is irrelevant. It is an unacceptable change for the human species (which is adapted to live in our current climate).
> 
> ...


Burning wood is absolutly not carbon neutral  it is closer than burning fossil fuels without a doubt but when left to decompose a very large percentage of the carbon goes into the soil not the air.


----------



## bholler (Jun 11, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> IF we are in a prolonged period of low solar output that in the past led to a mini ice age, we may be stabilizing the climate and not even know it.


The idea that low solar output caused the last ice age has been completly disproven many times.  It is a myth.


----------



## begreen (Jun 11, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> But if its paid for by people who are looking for a certain outcome ,results can be skeewed any way you want. Im just saying a certian amount of skepticism  is not always a bad thing. No doubt the planet is warming ,but how much of it is human caused and can we realistically do anything to make a significant difference.  I feel the debt bomb and overpopulation will affect out way of life far sooner than global warming and neither seem to get as much attention.


Science should always be skeptical and self-examining. On the other hand, cherry picked data, deflection and deception is not science. When paid for to obscure or distract from the truth it is agenda driven disinformation.

Currently, overpopulation and critical climate change appear to be on concurrent paths and due to collide. One scenario could be that pandemic disease caused by climate change may bring about notable population decline.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 11, 2017)

bholler said:


> Burning wood is absolutly not carbon neutral  it is closer than burning fossil fuels without a doubt but when left to decompose a very large percentage of the carbon goes into the soil not the air.



Yep.


----------



## begreen (Jun 11, 2017)

Insight from 1912


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jun 11, 2017)

bholler said:


> Burning wood is absolutly not carbon neutral  it is closer than burning fossil fuels without a doubt but when left to decompose a very large percentage of the carbon goes into the soil not the air.



What percentage of the carbon goes into the soil? Because soil microbes actually release the carbon over time. Where I collect wood it happens very quickly because it's a rainforest. Sure, there are lot's of ways one could nit-pick that wood heating is not quite carbon neutral because it depends on whether you're cutting live trees or downed trees, whether you use a chainsaw or bowsaw, etc. etc. etc. A solaar panel is not carbon neutral either because raw materials must be mined, panels must be transported, the installers must get to the job site, etc. etc. etc. But the bottom line is a tree absorbs exactly as much carbon as it releases. The carbon a decaying tree releases into the soil is also liberated eventually. Growing trees absorb carbon from the forest floor too. After my wood is burnt, I put the ashes back into the forest floor.

Your not going to spoil the carbon neutral smile I get every time I have a fire that easily.


----------



## bholler (Jun 11, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> What percentage of the carbon goes into the soil? Because soil microbes actually release the carbon over time. Where I collect wood it happens very quickly because it's a rainforest. Sure, there are lot's of ways one could nit-pick that wood heating is not quite carbon neutral because it depends on whether you're cutting live trees or downed trees, whether you use a chainsaw or bowsaw, etc. etc. etc. A solaar panel is not carbon neutral either because raw materials must be mined, panels must be transported, the installers must get to the job site, etc. etc. etc. But the bottom line is a tree absorbs exactly as much carbon as it releases. The carbon a decaying tree releases into the soil is also liberated eventually. Growing trees absorb carbon from the forest floor too. After my wood is burnt, I put the ashes back into the forest floor.
> 
> Your not going to spoil the carbon neutral smile I get every time I have a fire that easily.


Like i said it is close but you cant claim neutral if it isnt.  It is inaccuracies like that that give fuel to the climate deniers


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jun 12, 2017)

RFarm said:


> Experts told the UK Daily Star on May 19, 2017:
> 
> "Planet Earth is on course for a “Little Age Ice” within the next three years thanks to a cocktail of climate change and low solar activity.
> 
> ...


pretty good read on what ended the last one. http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/


----------



## Squirrel1410 (Jun 12, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> I can't believe you go to realclimatescience.com for your "information".


Well did they or didn't they? I was aware of this as well.


----------



## Squirrel1410 (Jun 12, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> It's highly likely that market forces will cause the switch to mostly renewables long before coal and oil are even close to being depleted. That's due to the falling cost curve of technologies like solar, wind and rechargeable batteries. Costs are falling like a rock.


Good then what's the problem? For someone accusing others of lackling scientific knowledge, you should know that renewables are not YET as efficient.


And yes NOAA did alter historical temperature data.


----------



## begreen (Jun 12, 2017)

Renewables are already more efficient, but it depends on the sector and location. Solar production is now at $.045/ kWh and is continuing to get cheaper every year. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/06/03/this-is-the-biggest-news-in-electricity-since-the.aspx
This is causing some areas to rethink future investment in fossil fuel or gas plants.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-93497988/
Other studies show renewables holding their own.
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Ene...are-more-Efficient-than-Traditional-Ones.html
This is an interesting collection of thoughts by a number of experts:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324485004578424624254723536

But the cheapest efficiencies are often found not by alternative energy sources, but by reducing consumption. We still have a long way to go there too.


----------



## Squirrely (Jun 12, 2017)

Belief in catastrophic human caused global warming is a secular political religion, where only the believer's god of government can save the Earth through taxation regulation and litigation.


----------



## begreen (Jun 12, 2017)

Squirrely said:


> Belief in catastrophic human caused global warming is a secular political religion, where only the believer's god of government can save the Earth through taxation regulation and litigation.


 forgot plagues, pandemics and pestilence.


----------



## Squirrel1410 (Jun 12, 2017)

begreen said:


> Renewables are already more efficient, but it depends on the sector and location. Solar production is now at $.045/ kWh and is continuing to get cheaper every year. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/06/03/this-is-the-biggest-news-in-electricity-since-the.aspx
> This is causing some areas to rethink future investment in fossil fuel or gas plants.
> http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-93497988/
> Other studies show renewables holding their own.
> ...





begreen said:


> Renewables are already more efficient, but it depends on the sector and location. Solar production is now at $.045/ kWh and is continuing to get cheaper every year. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/06/03/this-is-the-biggest-news-in-electricity-since-the.aspx
> This is causing some areas to rethink future investment in fossil fuel or gas plants.
> http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-93497988/
> Other studies show renewables holding their own.
> ...



It really depends where the plant is, if we're talking about a solar farm.

The third article you posted talks about efficiency in terms of energy lost as heat during conversion to electricity. That's a little misleading when a solar plant of 100 acres can only power about 2,400 homes at 12 megawatts (on a sunny day). The grand coulee dam puts out 6,809 MW per year in comparison! But there's only so many places hydroelectric can be used, and the same with solar. Even if roughly half of the energy is lost as heat relating to coal / nuclear, the overall amount converted to energy far exceeds that of solar for a similar sized plant.

So in terms of efficiency, I was referring to overall energy production, not energy lost during conversion to electricity.

Here's a fascinating article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...ants-in-america-not-what-everyone-claims/amp/

As for cost (that first article), sure, it can and will save money once all these solar farms are developed. I'm not saying don't build some of them, but they do take up a tremendous amount of space and are not efficient everywhere (places with lots of rain etc). And windmills lining mountains like they do now up near North Conway NH, is pretty ugly.


----------



## begreen (Jun 12, 2017)

Agreed, as noted :
_


begreen said:



			Renewables are already more efficient, but it depends on the sector *and location*.
		
Click to expand...




Squirrel1410 said:



			And windmills lining mountains like they do now up near North Conway NH, is pretty ugly.
		
Click to expand...

_Yes, compared to a pristine landscape, they may be unattractive, but plunk a large coal or nuke plant there and it wouldn't be too pretty either.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 12, 2017)

begreen said:


> Insight from 1912
> View attachment 198002


The last line is telling "in a few centuries"  I would think by that time we will have figured the whole thing out. Im all in favor of solar ,we will get there eventually.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 12, 2017)

bholler said:


> The idea that low solar output caused the last ice age has been completly disproven many times.  It is a myth.


That would leave volcanic eruptions and asteroid strikes to reverse the warming trends. Volcanic eruptions seem to be the most frequent with the super volcano eruptions every few hundred thousand years.  One of these will be a lot worse for the population than the warming trend itself.


----------



## bholler (Jun 12, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> That would leave volcanic eruptions and asteroid strikes to reverse the warming trends. Volcanic eruptions seem to be the most frequent with the super volcano eruptions every few hundred thousand years.  One of these will be a lot worse for the population than the warming trend itself.


Yes it would be much worse.  But we cant do anything about that we can change our habits that contribute to the problem.  And you are wrong there are many other natural factors that effect our climate.


----------



## begreen (Jun 12, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> The last line is telling "in a few centuries"  I would think by that time we will have figured the whole thing out. Im all in favor of solar ,we will get there eventually.


The author did not calculate the dramatic effects of population growth, world wars, energy consumption nor transportation and agricultural changes.


----------



## begreen (Jun 12, 2017)




----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 13, 2017)

I agree with all that BG but with unchecked population growth and an economy built on a mountain of debt, it will be hard to achieve all that without addressing the things that are making it worse at a faster pace. Global warming may be the biggest problem we have in 50-100 years but we will have bigger problems before that.  That list is a good goal with or without warming.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jun 13, 2017)

I can get on board with that list.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 13, 2017)

One elephant in the room of pollution is the ocean quickly  filling up with plastic .That plastic slowly breaking down into smaller pieces and showing up in almost every marine creature ,a lot of which wind up on our dinner table. We really  need to do something about this NOW .  Put deposits or taxes on plastic bags or just plain find degradable substitutes quickly. We could prevent a lot of new plastic from entering the waterways and any money raised from this should only go to cleaning up what is already in the waterways ,and not siphoned off into someones pension plan.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jun 13, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> One elephant in the room of pollution is the ocean quickly  filling up with plastic .That plastic slowly breaking down into smaller pieces and showing up in almost every marine creature ,a lot of which wind up on our dinner table. We really  need to do something about this NOW .  Put deposits or taxes on plastic bags or just plain find degradable substitutes quickly. We could prevent a lot of new plastic from entering the waterways and any money raised from this should only go to cleaning up what is already in the waterways ,and not siphoned off into someones pension plan.


Do you part to clean it up.  No one is stopping anyone from picking up trash in the street, organizing cleanup campaigns and educating the ignorant.

Waiting for regulation is a silly way of getting results on an issue you are passionate about.


----------



## bholler (Jun 13, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Do you part to clean it up.  No one is stopping anyone from picking up trash in the street, organizing cleanup campaigns and educating the ignorant.
> 
> Waiting for regulation is a silly way of getting results on an issue you are passionate about.


Yes and many of us do that.  But that is not going to clean up what is in the oceans already.


----------



## begreen (Jun 13, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Do you part to clean it up.  No one is stopping anyone from picking up trash in the street, organizing cleanup campaigns and educating the ignorant.
> 
> Waiting for regulation is a silly way of getting results on an issue you are passionate about.


Yes, get proactive. Organize or get together with community groups that are working towards greater environmental responsibility. Action starts at home. Buy local and try to avoid overly packaged goods and single-use plastics. 


bholler said:


> Yes and many of us do that. But that is not going to clean up what is in the oceans already.


And get political. Advocate for a ban on single-use plastics. There are new options that can replace sectors without additional cost or retooling. Support businesses that employ alternatives. Advocate for cradle to grave responsibility for manufacturers.


----------



## RFarm (Jun 13, 2017)

When posting this bit of (dis) information I was holding out hope that a nice prolonged cooling trend might be around the corner and the wood burning season may get extended.  Making wood burning even more economical and possibly even a brilliant investment. Being non political I take no sides in the global warming/climate change debate..  You would have to blind not to see the profound change man has had on the landscapes, waters, and creatures of the world, some for the betterment of man kind, but most for the detriment. With the recent advent of cleaner energy alternatives (solar, Wind, GeoTherm) we still insist on fracking around population centers and drilling all along our seaboards.  Follow the money as one poster mentioned and it all leads back to the fossils.

It appears that the sunspot activity has really slowed down and that means a weaker magnetosphere due to less solar radiation to power it.  When the magnetosphere weakens, more cosmic rays get through as well as other things.  Cosmic rays influence clouds and storm on earth.  As well as loosing its shielding properties, periods of  weaker magnetosphere  seem to correlate with increased volcanism.  During the Maraunder Minimum (1645-1715) , the Little Ice Age as it is now called, sunspot activity was very low, less than 50 spots during a 28 year period.  To put this into perspective, during the past 8 year 2009-2016 we have had 2,574 days with spots.  As of today we have gone 4 days without a spot. Also during the Maraunder there were 4 large sulphur rich volcanic eruptions that affected the global climate.  It is also speculated that freshwater from melting glacial sheets during the medieval warming period may have slowed the thermocline circulation of the worlds oceans.  Though too early to tell for sure, it appears the setup now is eerily similar to the setup back then.  Am I promoting living in fear? No, quite the contrary.  I am looking forward to it if it does materialize and if it does not well that is fine too.  I just brought this up to spur the imagination a bit during the lull in the burning season. 

As far as science goes you only need to know one thing - in science there are no certainties.  The very nature of science is to challenge every notion, every law,  every finding.  Science like history is re-written all of the time.  The basis of all science is the notion that the atom is the smallest constituent unit of ordinary matter.  Could this be proven false one day as we encounter unknown forms of matter?  Possibly.   When it comes to earth science - it is like the wild west.  Models and theories change daily, so to base any credence in what scientists are saying in news articles or even scientific journals is ridiculous.  it is all a great unknown.

As far as wood being as dirty as fossils - that is complete nonsense.  Trees are stored solar energy, fossils are stored carbon energy.  That is all you need to know and to argue it is a waste of time.   I like burning wood.  It is good exercise rounding it up and even more fun sipping a bourbon next to the stove while the weather turn nasty outside.  I dis-like pumping gas, it is a P.I.T.A. and it cost me a lot of money and you cannot legally sip a bourbon while burning it!


----------



## Ashful (Jun 13, 2017)

RFarm said:


> When posting this bit of (dis) information I was holding out hope that a nice prolonged cooling trend might be around the corner and the wood burning season may get extended.  Making wood burning even more economical and possibly even a brilliant investment. Being non political I take no sides in the global warming/climate change debate..  You would have to blind not to see the profound change man has had on the landscapes, waters, and creatures of the world, some for the betterment of man kind, but most for the detriment. With the recent advent of cleaner energy alternatives (solar, Wind, GeoTherm) we still insist on fracking around population centers and drilling all along our seaboards.  Follow the money as one poster mentioned and it all leads back to the fossils.
> 
> It appears that the sunspot activity has really slowed down and that means a weaker magnetosphere due to less solar radiation to power it.  When the magnetosphere weakens, more cosmic rays get through as well as other things.  Cosmic rays influence clouds and storm on earth.  As well as loosing its shielding properties, periods of  weaker magnetosphere  seem to correlate with increased volcanism.  During the Maraunder Minimum (1645-1715) , the Little Ice Age as it is now called, sunspot activity was very low, less than 50 spots during a 28 year period.  To put this into perspective, during the past 8 year 2009-2016 we have had 2,574 days with spots.  As of today we have gone 4 days without a spot. Also during the Maraunder there were 4 large sulphur rich volcanic eruptions that affected the global climate.  It is also speculated that freshwater from melting glacial sheets during the medieval warming period may have slowed the thermocline circulation of the worlds oceans.  Though too early to tell for sure, it appears the setup now is eerily similar to the setup back then.  Am I promoting living in fear? No, quite the contrary.  I am looking forward to it if it does materialize and if it does not well that is fine too.  I just brought this up to spur the imagination a bit during the lull in the burning season.
> 
> ...



Amen.  Beautiful post.


----------



## bholler (Jun 13, 2017)

RFarm said:


> When posting this bit of (dis) information I was holding out hope that a nice prolonged cooling trend might be around the corner and the wood burning season may get extended.  Making wood burning even more economical and possibly even a brilliant investment. Being non political I take no sides in the global warming/climate change debate..  You would have to blind not to see the profound change man has had on the landscapes, waters, and creatures of the world, some for the betterment of man kind, but most for the detriment. With the recent advent of cleaner energy alternatives (solar, Wind, GeoTherm) we still insist on fracking around population centers and drilling all along our seaboards.  Follow the money as one poster mentioned and it all leads back to the fossils.
> 
> It appears that the sunspot activity has really slowed down and that means a weaker magnetosphere due to less solar radiation to power it.  When the magnetosphere weakens, more cosmic rays get through as well as other things.  Cosmic rays influence clouds and storm on earth.  As well as loosing its shielding properties, periods of  weaker magnetosphere  seem to correlate with increased volcanism.  During the Maraunder Minimum (1645-1715) , the Little Ice Age as it is now called, sunspot activity was very low, less than 50 spots during a 28 year period.  To put this into perspective, during the past 8 year 2009-2016 we have had 2,574 days with spots.  As of today we have gone 4 days without a spot. Also during the Maraunder there were 4 large sulphur rich volcanic eruptions that affected the global climate.  It is also speculated that freshwater from melting glacial sheets during the medieval warming period may have slowed the thermocline circulation of the worlds oceans.  Though too early to tell for sure, it appears the setup now is eerily similar to the setup back then.  Am I promoting living in fear? No, quite the contrary.  I am looking forward to it if it does materialize and if it does not well that is fine too.  I just brought this up to spur the imagination a bit during the lull in the burning season.
> 
> ...


Very good post overall.  But i have to say there are absolutly certainties in science  .  There are many cases where what you say is correct but not always by any means.  

And no one here said burning wood was as dirty as fossil fuels.  Infact the exact opposite was said. It was just said that burning wood was not carbon neutral.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 14, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Do you part to clean it up.  No one is stopping anyone from picking up trash in the street, organizing cleanup campaigns and educating the ignorant.
> 
> Waiting for regulation is a silly way of getting results on an issue you are passionate about.


Im doing exactly  that.  I started recycling all my plastic for the first time. But i know its a drop in the bucket without some kind of regulation change.  ALl the talk about global warming  is sucking the oxygen out of all the other serious problems.


----------



## tarzan (Jun 14, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Im doing exactly  that.  I started recycling all my plastic for the first time. But i know its a drop in the bucket without some kind of regulation change.  ALl the talk about global warming  is sucking the oxygen out of all the other serious problems.



Allot of times it seems to me that people tend to be more passionate about issues they can debate than problems they can fix.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 14, 2017)

tarzan said:


> Allot of times it seems to me that people tend to be more passionate about issues they can debate than problems they can fix.


We certainly CAN do something about filling up all the water ways and the ocean with trash ,we could almost cure that 100%  ,If we try! Global warming  maybe 5% if we try.


----------



## tarzan (Jun 14, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> We certainly CAN do something about filling up all the water ways and the ocean with trash ,we could almost cure that 100%  ,If we try! Global warming  maybe 5% if we try.



That's my point! We can all agree that filling the waterways with trash is bad, therefore it loses its appeal. People are more passionate about things they can argue than things they can fix.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jun 14, 2017)

Squirrely said:


> Belief in catastrophic human caused global warming is a secular political religion, where only the believer's god of government can save the Earth through taxation regulation and litigation.



Actually, it's science.

Religion is believing in something without any supporting evidence.


----------



## begreen (Jun 14, 2017)

Solutions need to be global, but we can start by developing and refining them at home. The developing world looks up to the western world as an example and goal for the live they want to lead. Right now a massive volume of single use plastics comes from the third world where they are often unregulated. Plastic bags, clamshell packaging and plastic water bottles are ubiquitous. There are rarely effective recycling programs in place and most poor people do not have trash pickup so plastics fill their streams, rivers and waterways. It's a gigantic problem but at least if these items were biodegradeable they wouldn't end up breaking down to microplastics in giant plastic gyres in the oceans. We can and should develop and foster this technology.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jun 14, 2017)

bholler said:


> And no one here said burning wood was as dirty as fossil fuels.  Infact the exact opposite was said. It was just said that burning wood was not carbon neutral.



Yes, but to be fair to wood, it should be pointed out that there is no source of energy that is carbon neutral when the entire process is accounted for.


----------



## begreen (Jun 14, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Yes, but to be fair to wood, it should be pointed out that there is no source of energy that is carbon neutral when the entire process is accounted for.



Mostly true, though with some exceptions. The water power that was used for old mills was pretty close to carbon neutral. Solar heated water can be considered carbon neutral if using an animal skin for a bladder?

Biomass used on a large scale has some serious implications for the environment.
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/08/18/is-biomass-really-renewable/


----------



## bholler (Jun 14, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Yes, but to be fair to wood, it should be pointed out that there is no source of energy that is carbon neutral when the entire process is accounted for.


Absolutly and I was not saying anything bad against heating with wood.  Just pointing out a common mistake.


----------



## peakbagger (Jun 14, 2017)

Wood is just really inefficient solar but unlike many other renewables its dispatchable, IE cut it when you want to and burn it when you need to.

Large scale ponded hydro has some issues also, the large Hydro Quebec system is in large Boreal forest region that has large amounts of trapped methane. The damming of rivers in that region forming large lakes release a very large amount of methane for a very long time. Of course warm up the climate and the permafrost starts melting and the same thing happens


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jun 14, 2017)

After this thread, I'm going to make a change.  I'm going to burn all my plastic  bottles in the stove so I can save the trees AND keep the bottles out of the oceans.   Win-Win!


----------



## tarzan (Jun 15, 2017)

According to Wikipedia almost 90% of the plastics in the ocean originated from ocean going vessels dumping there waste into the ocean.


----------



## Ashful (Jun 15, 2017)

tarzan said:


> According to Wikipedia almost 90% of the plastics in the ocean originated from ocean going vessels dumping there waste into the ocean.



While I try not to put any faith in anything in Wikipedia that goes against common sense or intuition, I have to ask, do they postulate over what years that occurred?   It seems more likely a habit of the past, than current practice.


----------



## tarzan (Jun 15, 2017)

Ashful said:


> While I try not to put any faith in anything in Wikipedia that goes against common sense or intuition, I have to ask, do they postulate over what years that occurred?   It seems more likely a habit of the past, than current practice.



Well, it's Wikipedia.... so a hodgepodge of data from different studies at different times but the average date seems too be 2012.

The article also states that 10% of all plastic on beaches are nurdles that fall from cargo ships.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 15, 2017)

tarzan said:


> According to Wikipedia almost 90% of the plastics in the ocean originated from ocean going vessels dumping there waste into the ocean.


I  think its an almost impossible task to monitor every ship in the ocean to stop that practice.  And unless forced i highly doubt many would comply.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 15, 2017)

*Single clothes wash may release 700000 microplastic fibres, study finds* . Were flushing a lot of pollution into the watererways!


----------



## begreen (Jun 15, 2017)

tarzan said:


> According to Wikipedia almost 90% of the plastics in the ocean originated from ocean going vessels dumping there waste into the ocean.


Yes, there is an out of sight, out of mind attitude at sea. You would think that people that make their livelihood from the ocean would treat it with greater respect. Since the epa study there have been others. The problem is growing very rapidly. There are other major sources. Henderson Island is an indicator of how bad the problem is. 
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...dise-island-is-now-a-plastic-junkyard/526743/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150212-ocean-debris-plastic-garbage-patches-science/
"Jambeck’s 2015 study concluded that 8 million tons of trash flow into the ocean every year, enough to fill five grocery store shopping bags for every foot of coastline on Earth."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/henderson-island-pitcairn-trash-plastic-pollution/


----------



## begreen (Jun 15, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> I  think its an almost impossible task to monitor every ship in the ocean to stop that practice.  And unless forced i highly doubt many would comply.


Many is a dirty, greedy and careless animal. The only one that sh!ts in his own bed. All the more reason to eliminate single-use plastics from the marketplace. They were not in existence 60 yrs ago.

https://www.ecowatch.com/these-5-co...f-plastic-pollution-in-oceans-1882107531.html


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 16, 2017)

begreen said:


> Many is a dirty, greedy and careless animal. The only one that sh!ts in his own bed. All the more reason to eliminate single-use plastics from the marketplace. They were not in existence 60 yrs ago.
> 
> https://www.ecowatch.com/these-5-co...f-plastic-pollution-in-oceans-1882107531.html


Which is why overpopulation is such  a big problem.  And exacerbates all the other problems. Problem is there is no easy solution to it.  One easy fix for the US to control our own border and stop the runaway excess migration to this country both legal and illegal. Probably mostly due to visa overstays at this point.  Some progress lately.


----------



## begreen (Jun 16, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Which is why overpopulation is such a big problem. And exacerbates all the other problems. Problem is there is no easy solution to it. One easy fix for the US to control our own border and stop the runaway excess migration to this country both legal and illegal. Probably mostly due to visa overstays at this point. Some progress lately.


That is quite a long stretch, especially when it's the American lifestyle that is the most energy intensive and wasteful on the planet. This has been a good thread so far. Let's keep politics out of the discussion. 
https://sites.google.com/site/iilyear4/top-10-countries-that-produce-the-most-waste


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 16, 2017)

overpopulation =politics?  Just saying we may be able to solve our own population problem but not the worlds, No politics needed. Need to look at the problem like  scientist would.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 16, 2017)

[QUOTE="begreen, post: 2178480, member: 5"any is a dirty, g]All the more reason to eliminate single-use plastics from the marketplace. They were not in existence 60 yrs ago.
l[/QUOTE]
I agree ,either change back to paper or some other biodegradable material . Plastic bags only part of the problem. Look in the average refrigerator and what % of items in a plastic container ,plastic wrap  99% ?


----------



## begreen (Jun 16, 2017)

Single-use plastics include water bottles, clamshell to-go and produce containers, styrofoam packing, plastic bags, spoons, forks, etc.. Some good biodegradable substitutes are either coming on the market or already here. It should be a global effort. Some markets like bottled water are often contrived. In our region there is little to any reason to pay $8 or even $4 per gallon for water which is what it comes to for most vending machine water. A lot of bottled water is just filtered city water. Buy a decent stainless steel water bottle and bring your own.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jun 16, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> [QUOTE="begreen, post: 2178480, member: 5"any is a dirty, g]All the more reason to eliminate single-use plastics from the marketplace. They were not in existence 60 yrs ago.
> l[/QUOTE]
> I agree ,either change back to paper or some other biodegradable material . Plastic bags only part of the problem. Look in the average refrigerator and what % of items in a plastic container ,plastic wrap  99% ?


Shrink wrap packaging helps eliminate waste, not create it.  It prevents a much larger mass plastic (like a container) from being used.  The weight and volume of plastic to cover 5lbs of chicken breasts is very low and very inexpensive.


----------



## tarzan (Jun 16, 2017)

begreen said:


> Single-use plastics include water bottles, clamshell to-go and produce containers, styrofoam packing, plastic bags, spoons, forks, etc.. Some good biodegradable substitutes are either coming on the market or already here. It should be a global effort. Some markets like bottled water are often contrived. In our region there is little to any reason to pay $8 or even $4 per gallon for water which is what it comes to for most vending machine water. A lot of bottled water is just filtered city water. Buy a decent stainless steel water bottle and bring your own.



I can remember seeing bottled water for sale in a convenience store around 1990. Boy did I have a laugh about that.


----------



## begreen (Jun 16, 2017)

Yes, once CocaCola and Pepsi bottling got involved marketing took off like crazy.


----------



## Ashful (Jun 17, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Look in the average refrigerator and what % of items in a plastic container ,plastic wrap  99% ?


Good example.  Refrigerators are trending toward becoming single-use plastic containers.  The house where I grew up still has a 1953 GE refrigerator running in the garage today.  My childhood kitchen refrigerator lasted 25 years.  But in more recent years, they seem to need replacement them every 3 - 8 years.  I don't think I've gotten 10 years out of a refrigerator since before 1995.


----------



## tarzan (Jun 17, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Good example.  Refrigerators are trending toward becoming single-use plastic container.  The house where I grew up still has a 1953 GE refrigerator running in the garage today.  My childhood kitchen refrigerator lasted 25 years.  But in more recent years, they seem to need replacement them every 3 - 8 years.  I don't think I've gotten 10 years out of a refrigerator since before 1995.



The refrigerator in our kitchen is 18 years old and still going strong (probably a fluke) although the pressure from the wife is mounting.

For some reason we need a four door fridge and the ability to take pics of the contents  from the grocery store? Why can't we just do that before we leave the house?

Heck, those little old ladies with the change purses carry a hand written grocery list and they are the ones that can always let you borrow a cup or bowl of whatever you forgot on your trip to the the grocery store.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 17, 2017)

Iv recently started recycling plastic bottles for the first time in my life. Not to save the planet , but to reduce my waste stream as i no longer get trash pickup.  Found i dont really need it. Without some kind of govt intervention and a consensus among nations the plastic problem  will only get worse. Im NOT optimistic!


----------



## begreen (Jun 18, 2017)

Back to climate science.. Cliff Mass's (UW scientist) June 17th blog provides a measured view on the harm of exaggerating climate change evidence. 
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/  I respect Cliff Mass. He is not a climate change denier, but he believes in truth in science and sticking to the facts and evidence, understanding that enormous changes will have to occur in infrastructure and lifestyles in order to cope with climate change.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jun 18, 2017)

If you guys believe that modern life as we know it is destroying the environment and causing massive heating of the climate..why don't you stop consuming resources like fossil fuel, plastic, cars...ect?
How can you complain about everyone else while being part of the problem?  Refuse to fly.  Take your bike.  Live in a tiny home..how many of you are doing this?


----------



## begreen (Jun 18, 2017)

True, and many at least locally have chosen to keep vehicles longer, recycle better and create less waste. We go to the dump only 2-3 times a year with no garbage pickup. On the other hand we go to the recycling center about 4 times a year in a 23 yr old pickup truck and drive an electric car for about 80% of our total mileage. Grocery shopping is with cloth bags and bringing our own containers. But for big societal change it takes larger systems to make products available the are inherently less wasteful. Cities that have excellent municipal recycling programs make a difference. The LED bulb and greatly increased fuel mileage of most vehicles makes bigger differences than my wife washing out plastic produce bags for recycling to the food bank, but it all helps if we are more mindful of our impact on our one and only home.


----------



## begreen (Jun 19, 2017)

Here is one option developed in Poland that uses wheat bran to create biodegradable cutlery and plates. They claim to stand up to heat and liquids and will store for years if kept dry, yet break down in 30 days 
http://biotrem.pl/en/


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jun 19, 2017)

begreen said:


> True, and many at least locally have chosen to keep vehicles longer, recycle better and create less waste. We go to the dump only 2-3 times a year with no garbage pickup. On the other hand we go to the recycling center about 4 times a year in a 23 yr old pickup truck and drive an electric car for about 80% of our total mileage. Grocery shopping is with cloth bags and bringing our own containers. But for big societal change it takes larger systems to make products available the are inherently less wasteful. Cities that have excellent municipal recycling programs make a difference. The LED bulb and greatly increased fuel mileage of most vehicles makes bigger differences than my wife washing out plastic produce bags for recycling to the food bank, but it all helps if we are more mindful of our impact on our one and only home.



Good job Begreen! I too like being a part of change for the better. And I'm proud to be part of a State which has a long and storied history of standing up for the common worker's right to fair pay, safe working conditions and clean air and water. Now they are leading the charge along with California and others who are creating the new energy economy. Things always weren't good for the amazing people who built the railroads, milled the lumber and cut the giant trees.  Yes, I still gather wood in a gas powered pickup (but my daily driver gets twice the MPG and we have a deposit on a Tesla Model 3). Sometimes there are not great options available or they are unaffordable. Real change happens when those options become so affordable and practical that the majority are taking advantage of them without even considering there is another way to do it. 

There are always silly arguments against those trying to create change for the better. My favorite is "If you really think consumption of fossil fuels is causing global warming that will eventually be catastrophic for humans, then why don't you quit driving and heating your home with fossil fuels while I go about my life not worrying about it (because I choose to believe the science is just plain wrong)." Silliest argument ever because there will always be ignorant people who don't accept science or reality or believe that a magic deity in "the heavens" will take care of everything so we don't have to worry. Oh, the folly of mankind. I understand how that kind of backwards thought could have prevailed in the dark ages but, in the age of instantaneous communication and information? We know that mankind's biggest challenges are not solved by a few who voluntarily sacrifice for those who are selfish. It takes a concerted effort to improve the world.

I guess some people just want to sit back and be critical of those who are taking the youngest generation into consideration and work towards making the world a better place. Some things never change. There were freeloaders even in ancient times.


----------



## RFarm (Jun 19, 2017)

bholler said:


> And no one here said burning wood was as dirty as fossil fuels. Infact the exact opposite was said. It was just said that burning wood was not carbon neutral.



After making my post a few days ago, I have been thinking about what I posted and how I may have took a leap without properly explaining the thought process.  Burning wood is carbon neutral and this is supported by science.  Even the smokiest smoke dragon is carbon neutral, a forest fire is carbon neutral.  What you say?  Well, look at it this way - carbon on the surface of the planet is fixed, meaning no new carbon is created without an equal amount of carbon being consumed.  Wood for example is stored carbon from the air and soil, when we burn it, the carbon returns back to air and soil.to be absorbed by plants again. This goes on and on forever. This is the carbon cycle.  this is the same for the hydrologic cycle, no new water is ever created on earth.  The same water from primordial earth is still being used today.  The water cycles from the ground to air over and over and over.  No new water comes in from space or from the core of the earth.  

The rub occurs with carbon when we introduce fossil fuels into the argument.  Liquid and gaseous petro fuels are not native to the surface of the earth and are not from dead dinosaurs or plants. Oil and gas are Abiogenic, formed by inorganic means rather than by the decomposition of organisms. Oil and gas did not originate from fossil deposits, but have instead originated from deep carbon deposits, present since the formation of the earth Additionally, it has been suggested that hydrocarbons may have arrived on Earth from solid bodies such as comets and asteroids from the late formation of the Solar System carrying hydrocarbons with them.  Now burning liquid and gaseous petroleum products is disrupting with the carbon cycle by adding new carbon to the mix.  Is this good or bad - who knows.  But it is a man made phenomena and like any disruption - there will be consequences of some kind.


----------



## begreen (Jun 19, 2017)

That's a new one on me. Geology seems to back up ancient sediments pretty well. No dinosaurs maybe, but decayed organic matter sediments seems well supported. That's not so say that there aren't abiogenic deposits too, but this is a new field with lots of hypothesis. In the meantime there's a lot of coal to account for that strangely often has fossilized plants in it. 
https://www.livescience.com/33087-how-oil-form-petroleum.html


----------



## bholler (Jun 19, 2017)

RFarm said:


> and are not from dead dinosaurs or plants.


What source says that?  Pretty much everything I have read says it was formed by organic matter.  And yes there are lots of sources that claim burning wood is carbon neutral.  But there are just as many if not more that say it clearly is not.  Most define it as carbon lean because as I said it is much better than burning fossil fuels but not truly carbon neutral.


----------



## begreen (Jun 19, 2017)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 19, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> how many of you are doing this?


 Probably the average wood burner is doing more than the average person when it comes to conservation. Were certainly not consuming  the amount of fossil fuels to heat our homes as the average person is. I used to have 12 garbage bags a week. Now i recycle 80 % to 90% . Only other person i know doing this is you guys and my son.  So we're trying to live in the modern world but not be as wasteful and resource dependent as most people.


----------



## bholler (Jun 19, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> If you guys believe that modern life as we know it is destroying the environment and causing massive heating of the climate..why don't you stop consuming resources like fossil fuel, plastic, cars...ect?
> How can you complain about everyone else while being part of the problem? Refuse to fly. Take your bike. Live in a tiny home..how many of you are doing this?


Well I use very little fossil fuels to heat my house.  We both have fuel efficient vehicles.  I also have ones that are not but they get limited use.  Other than the work trucks but not to much option there.  I have recycled my whole life it is much easier now than it used to be though which is great.  No I dont live in a tiny house and I am not about to do so.  But I do my part with in reason.  Where we live biking everywhere simply is not a feasible option.  When we lived in the city I did ride my bike allot because it was feasible.  Not everyone is going to be perfect but if more people went as far as those like me did we would be in allot better shape.  I am very impressed with what begreen does but at this point in my life I cant go that far with it.  But we are getting better and better every year.


----------



## begreen (Jun 19, 2017)

Every small bit counts. Lots of small steps can add up to giant strides. Now that I am retired I have joined a local zero waste movement to be more effective. This weekend we will be holding a fix-it workshop where we put fixers together with folks that need things fixed. Last time we looked at over 70 items and fixed over 50 of them. That's 50+ items that will not end up in the landfill and will have an extended life. All repairs are free labor, the fixee just provides the parts if necessary with a quick run to the hardware store.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jun 20, 2017)

So is it enough?  If everyone lived like you, (still vacationing, still living in a normal house, still burning fossil fuels, still using plastic, still consuming consumer goods, still driving, still using electronics for pleasure/information) and living a modern 1st world existence...would climate change be reversed?


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 20, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> So is it enough?  ?


 No its not.
due to several factors. Increasing  population , amount of greenhouse gas already in the air and no way will everyone do this. Most will not.  Put me down as not optimistic at all but trying to do my part,plus there is a financial reward.  Recycling saves a good deal of cash with very little effort.


----------



## Ashful (Jun 20, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Recycling saves a good deal of cash with very little effort.


'splain this, please.  From my perspective, recycling may be the only activity that is less financially sensible than processing your own firewood.  Now, I do both, but not because they're financially beneficial to me.


----------



## begreen (Jun 20, 2017)

If you are paying for garbage hauling then recycling can reduce the quantity of garbage and thus may drop the rate, particularly if the service is tiered for quantity or frequency of pickup.


----------



## begreen (Jun 20, 2017)

Interesting read here. 
https://climateandsecurity.org/epicenters/


----------



## bholler (Jun 20, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> So is it enough? If everyone lived like you, (still vacationing, still living in a normal house, still burning fossil fuels, still using plastic, still consuming consumer goods, still driving, still using electronics for pleasure/information) and living a modern 1st world existence...would climate change be reversed?


Did I say it would be enough?  No I don't know if it would be enough but it would be a step in the right direction.  And if like me they worked to get better and better then eventually it might be enough.   And by the way we are looking to down size to a house where we will not have to burn fossil fuels at all.  I will be working off of that property so I will no longer be driving to work.  I will still be driving for work but it will cut down on the driving.  And you can have very energy efficient normal houses.   They may not be quite as efficient as a tiny house but I am sorry I am not willing to pack my whole family into 500 sq/ft.   We recycle almost all of our plastic.  And I fix any products that can be fixed even when it may not make financial sense. 



Ashful said:


> 'splain this, please. From my perspective, recycling may be the only activity that is less financially sensible than processing your own firewood. Now, I do both, but not because they're financially beneficial to me.



It saves me money personally because I pay for trash removal and recycling is free.  That is not why I do it but one bag of trash a week some times every two weeks doesn't cost much at all.  If I was paying to dispose of everything we recycle also it would cost allot more


----------



## Ashful (Jun 20, 2017)

Interesting.  I never related recycling to saving money, and still really don't, as the scale is too small to even consider a real factor in my life.  But, I hate waste, which may sound surprising to you regulars.

I don't mind spending resources on things that bring me joy, like sports cars bearing obscenely large internal combustion engines, but seeing full garbage cans brings me no joy.  Neither does leaving lights and televisions on when no one is in the room, the bane of my existence in this house.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jun 20, 2017)

As landfills fill up, packaging will have to change.  I'd be fine seeing packaging reduced.


----------



## bholler (Jun 20, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Interesting.  I never related recycling to saving money, and still really don't, as the scale is too small to even consider a real factor in my life.  But, I hate waste, which may sound surprising to you regulars.
> 
> I don't mind spending resources on things that bring me joy, like sports cars bearing obscenely large internal combustion engines, but seeing full garbage cans brings me no joy.  Neither does leaving lights and televisions on when no one is in the room, the bane of my existence in this house.


We only pay 3.50 a bag so saving a bag a week if that certainly is not a big financial gain.  But it is still money saved


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 21, 2017)

Ashful said:


> 'splain this, please.  From my perspective, recycling may be the only activity that is less financially sensible than processing your own firewood.  Now, I do both, but not because they're financially beneficial to me.


Iv eliminated my trash man. So about  $130 every 3 months. Not a fortune but probably worth about $30 an hour or more for me to eliminate it.  And i know it dont cost me more than a few dollars to haul the bottles ,cans, paper and plastic to the recycle center a few times in that 3 month period. Im going there anyway to dispose of brush and pick up compost. Once in awhile i have things that cant be recycled like old carpet. The local landfill will take it for $3 a bag ,and i use 55 Gal drum liners so i get my $3 worth .


----------



## semipro (Jun 21, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> If you guys believe that modern life as we know it is destroying the environment and causing massive heating of the climate..why don't you stop consuming resources like fossil fuel, plastic, cars...ect?
> How can you complain about everyone else while being part of the problem?  Refuse to fly.  Take your bike.  Live in a tiny home..how many of you are doing this?


While these things are important the single most impactful thing that any of us can do is to limit our family size.  We chose to have 2 kids knowing that if all childbearing couples did we'd have a net population decrease.  Yet we still live with tax codes and religions that incentivize more.  
And yes, I'm sure many of us here do some of the things you mention but that net benefit is quickly overwhelmed by those that do nothing, their motivations likely based on misinformation of apathy. 
I think its arguable that we have done more collectively, through environmental regulations (federal but based on CA), than the sum total of our individual efforts.(and seeing today that 1200 at EPA are about to lose their jobs makes this supposition particularly relevant).


----------



## tarzan (Jun 21, 2017)

I'm beginning to realize that not all trash bills are created equal.  Mine is picked up weekly with a limit of 8 bags per week for 17.75 a month. This is loosely enforced as an occasional extra bag or two or an appliance now and then is picked up without issue.

So no incentive too recycle as a money saving prospect.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 21, 2017)

semipro said:


> While these things are important the single most impactful thing that any of us can do is to limit our family size.  We chose to have 2 kids knowing that if all childbearing couples did we'd have a net population decrease.  Yet we still live with tax codes and religions that incentivize more.
> .


US population already in decline except for immigration, Just like europe.  The agriculture industry,mostly meat producing is extremely wasteful. Uses 2500 gallons of water to produce 1 Lb of beef. Also animal herds claimed to produce more greenhouse gasses (Methane) than all transportation combined. Alarming !


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jun 22, 2017)

bholler said:


> Did I say it would be enough?  No I don't know if it would be enough but it would be a step in the right direction.  And if like me they worked to get better and better then eventually it might be enough.   And by the way we are looking to down size to a house where we will not have to burn fossil fuels at all.  I will be working off of that property so I will no longer be driving to work.  I will still be driving for work but it will cut down on the driving.  And you can have very energy efficient normal houses.   They may not be quite as efficient as a tiny house but I am sorry I am not willing to pack my whole family into 500 sq/ft.   We recycle almost all of our plastic.  And I fix any products that can be fixed even when it may not make financial sense.
> 
> 
> 
> It saves me money personally because I pay for trash removal and recycling is free.  That is not why I do it but one bag of trash a week some times every two weeks doesn't cost much at all.  If I was paying to dispose of everything we recycle also it would cost allot more



My only point is that it is really easy to say man made climate change is real.  We are destroying the earth through our pollution.  And it is the rest of you, not me.  Every time I have a deep conversation to someone about man made climate change, I'm talking to someone who lives life exactly as it do, and I think it is all baloney.  If they have been more financially blessed, they usually travel much more, drive more and have a larger house.
What does that say about the movement?  

I'm not sure what to think of your guys comments.  If you aren't willingly doing enough yourself to reverse man made climate change, that you believe is real, how can you ever say that another regulation or tax should be imposed on all of us?


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jun 22, 2017)

semipro said:


> While these things are important the single most impactful thing that any of us can do is to limit our family size.  We chose to have 2 kids knowing that if all childbearing couples did we'd have a net population decrease.



If you already have a house.  Already heat it.  Already have a car that goes to the same places if 1 or 4 people are in it. Already have clothes.  How does having another really impact the environment?


----------



## semipro (Jun 22, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> If you already have a house.  Already heat it.  Already have a car that goes to the same places if 1 or 4 people are in it. Already have clothes.  How does having another really impact the environment?


Then they leave home and go out get all the same that you have now except 50% more if you have 3 kids instead of 2. 
https://www.livescience.com/9701-save-planet-kids.html


----------



## bholler (Jun 22, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> I'm not sure what to think of your guys comments. If you aren't willingly doing enough yourself to reverse man made climate change, that you believe is real, how can you ever say that another regulation or tax should be imposed on all of us?


Who said we weren't willingly doing enough?  I said I didn't know if I was but I am working to get better all the time.  Is your argument that because we cant change it instantly we shouldn't bother to even try?


----------



## jatoxico (Jun 22, 2017)

I don't agree with this "if you don't walk the walk you can't talk the talk BS" within the context of the current state of climate change and the environment. As an individual I could go to a zero carbon footprint and it would have no effect on anything.


----------



## begreen (Jun 23, 2017)

Moved the posts on how to waste fuel real quickly to the pony car thread.


----------

