Hey gang, CNGchat needs your help!

For over a decade we have enjoyed providing this little corner of the Internet for folks to discuss all things natural gas vehicles. It is the largest forum of its kind: with some 70,000 posts on over 11,000 topics. But with continued low gasoline & diesel prices and strong automaker support for electric vehicles, consumer interest in CNG has dropped considerably, and with it has visitor traffic here. As a result, Google ad revenues no longer cover hosting fees.

If you find CNGchat to be a useful resource then please consider making a modest donation to support keeping this remarkable pool of knowledge available to the alternative fuels community. Thanks!

See more
See less

A tree-hugger's dilemma

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A tree-hugger's dilemma

    This is totally irrelevant to this site, but I thought some of you might be entertained to hear about a dilemma I was recently discussing.

    I asked some friends, "which is more important to you, maintaining world peace or saving the environment?" The answer we came up with was saving the environment. This immediately lead us to the following question:

    Would you be willing to go to war to save the environment?

    Imagine if, 10 years from now, we conclude decisively and quantitatively that global warming is real and will kill most human life if not counteracted. Further assume that all the industrialized nations agree, but that without the agreement of the emerging nations (primarily China, India, and Brazil) we cannot succeed. That is, if the emerging nations don't agree to curb their global warming byproducts, we'll all die. Would you start (essentially) a world war to save humanity?

    This question occupied many hours of discussion among my friends.
    Robert '07 GX

  • #2
    Re: A tree-hugger's dilemma

    I support the global warming discussions only because I agree with the conclusions, not with the logic tree. We need to conserve and develop alternative energy resources that do not deplete finite resources, BUT NOT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT HARMS OUR ECONOMY UNFAIRLY or HARMS THE WORLDS FOOD SUPPLIES!

    Global warming is real, and temperatures are very near the top of what appears to be a normal long term temperature cycle. In fact, temps have plateaued and slightly fallen each of the last 10 years, since it peaked in 1998 (I believe); it had a big drop last year. FWIW, CO2 levels are still high with the falling temps; the effect is therefore not likely causative.

    The data situation looks worse than it really is because the "experts" use data that began in the early 1800's. when the industrial age began and worldwide records were reported better than before. Problem, the early 1800's is also known as the little ice age- it was an unusually cool period in the normal cycle.

    In spite of Gores' nonsense and the BS that eminates from the UN politicians, there is no data that even suggests man is at fault for the temperature increase- it is assumed that a coorelation with temps and CO2 concentrations is a causative relationship. Truth, the CO2 rise happened 800 years after the temps rose. The best correlation so far explains that the temp cycles are related to solar activity cycles though there are likely a bunch of factors involved, including volcanic activity, deforestation of our tropical rain forests, wildfires related to bad environmental science and forestry practices, and data recording bias.

    CO2 is a very minor gas in our atmosphere and man is responsible for less than 0.3% of the CO2 gasses emitted; far more are emitted by natural sources, particularly from the oceans. CO2 is not nearly as effective as a greenhouse insulator as are methane, water vapor, and airborne particulates that reflect and scatter sunlight.


    • #3
      Re: A tree-hugger's dilemma

      Thanks rtry9a, I couldn't have said it better myself.

      I'm tired of hearing all of the overly-popular pseudo-science on global warming. The true science is much less fantastical. All the true science I've ever seen points more to cyclical solar activity, but proving a cause-effect relationship for anything is virtually impossible in such a complex system.

      Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the "greenhouse effect" according to most sources, leaving somewhere between 10% and 25% for CO2. So we're supposed to believe that our 0.3% increase in CO2 levels has an effect? Seems like it should be a cumulative effect of about 0.075%!

      The Kilauea volcano emits more than 700,000 tons of CO2 each year, this is about the same amount of CO2 as is emitted by 132,000 sport utility vehicles. It is one of the cleanest of the thousands of active volcanoes today.

      The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines ejected enough particulate matter and sulfate aerosol into the atmosphere to block some of the incoming solar radiation from reaching the Earth's surface. This effectively cooled the planet from 1992 to 1994. Is it any wonder that temperatures in metropolitan areas (where data is collected) have increased since the industrial revolution when the amount of particulates being released into the atmosphere by industrialized nations was staggering. Anyone hear of the 1952 London Smog disaster? It has been well documented that in the early part of the 20th century, smog particulates peaked in this country. We made tons of dirty smoke and relatively little CO2, but by the 1950's we began trying to control particulate matter. This helped curb the artificial cooling caused by particulates in the atmosphere. Very few "scientists" take this into account when reviewing the historical temperature records.

      All that being said, I still want cleaner air and less pollution, and I tend to agree with most environmental legislation. The real question on my mind lately though is this; Is the EPA helping us achieve cleaner air? Are the current laws encouraging alternative clean-burning fuels? Just a thought, and I'll stop rambling now. (I attached a pic of the london smog of '52)

      Attached Files


      • #4
        Re: A tree-hugger's dilemma

        The London smog pic looks like present day Beijing... or a good SLC winter inversion...

        Seriously, our modern environment has never been cleaner than it is today, largely due to the Clean Air Act and RCRA legislation from the 60/70's and widespread cooperation with Industry. The radical environmental lobby has not accomplished much positive since those early days, but they have accomplished their goal of destroying the US nuclear energy industry, blocking most of the petroleum field exploration and processing, increased the costs of manufacturing (which has transferred jobs and factories elsewhere), and transferred our energy state from one of independence to near total dependence on foreign sources.

        We have managed to fall 20-30 years behind most of Europe and many other countries while having some of the world's richest resources and technology.
        Last edited by rtry9a; 08-08-2008, 02:00 PM.


        • #5
          Re: A tree-hugger's dilemma

          OK my .02 cents those of us who live in Utah an area known as the Wasatch front are sometimes quite amazed,well at least myself. We live in what is known as the GREAT BASIN (you know a little bowl). This area as early as 9-K yrs ago was Lake Bonneville an inland lake with no outlet the size of Lake Michigan and over 1,200 ft deep and guess what it disappeared all by its self without mankind. All of a sudden this area went from cold and wet to desert so much for my buddy Al.................................
          Last edited by rocketmanpete; 08-08-2008, 11:13 PM.


          • #6
            Re: A tree-hugger's dilemma

            We can lower the temps by making the ozone hole bigger for a while. Since it has been getting smaller, the warming seems to be the big worry. Simply let out a bunch of Freon to make the ozone hole bigger until we reduce the Co2


            • #7
              Re: A tree-hugger's dilemma

              If you look at the history of the planet, there have been many shifts in the tempurature, and atmosphere. A volcano errupts, and we enter 1000 year cooling cycle, sulpher dioxide in the air, a lot of things die off, other species flourish.

              During these times, as Darwin has told us, things that can survive and adapt will, and those species that cannot adapt die off. We as humans have been throught a number of global events, and survived. Its the nature of things. Even if the planet warms, and it will, are we so stupid not to figure out how to survive? Hell no, thats why we are so prolific on the planet today. Will things change? Yup. Will we adapt? Sure. Will species die off? Yup! and others will appear.

              Claiming that we in 100 years have doomed humanity, and the planet is the most arrogant statement that we as humans can make. Lets talk 1000 years, then you can say something, or maybe a million.

              Your car wont kill us, Yellowstone errupting will definitly challenge us.


              • #8
                Re: A tree-hugger's dilemma

                Another challenge will be when "The Big One" hits California and the rest of the US falls into the Atlantic


                • #9
                  Re: A tree-hugger's dilemma

                  Something to think about if Yellowstone and the San Andres fault go at the some time, there won't be many of us to worry about it.


                  • #10
                    Re: A tree-hugger's dilemma

                    Originally posted by rocketmanpete View Post
                    Something to think about if Yellowstone and the San Andres fault go at the some time, there won't be many of us to worry about it.
                    Heaven help us if it does, but UN/ALGORE will be proven wrong as we enter several years of "nuclear winter".


                    • #11
                      Re: A tree-hugger's dilemma

                      Those that predict disaster due to global warming presume answers to the following questions:

                      1. The planet is warming un-naturally. Yes it is warming, but it has always warmed and cooled- no one argues with this.

                      2. That warming is a bad thing. Tough one to prove, easy just to presume. To say that warming or cooling is bad is to say that you know what our ideal average temperature is....hmmm in all the UN/Gore hype, I have never heard a word about an ideal temp. Only an arrogant fool would look at the changes in world temps over the last thousand years and point to one temp and say that it is the best for the whole planet.

                      3. That we (humans and our production of CO2) are causing this bad warming. Other posts have dealt with this nonsense quite well. Scientists have known for a very long time that the sun is the major (like %95+) provider of energy in our climate system. Greenhouse gases are non- players.

                      4. and finally that we can do something about it. Kyoto requires that the developed world use %60 less energy to get a few tenths of a degree reduction in warming. This will trash developed world economies and environments (as taking care of the environment costs $) and really put the hurt on those at the bottom of the economic pyramid for the sake of a possible nominal change.

                      The arrogance that says that the climate is changing and that somehow we are to blame is mind blowing. I'm waiting for Al Gore to call for virgins to volunteer to be thrown in a volcano to appease the climate gods...that aught to do it, especially now that he is the self declared high priest of environmentalism.....we are in your hands oh wacky one!


                      • #12
                        Re: A tree-hugger's dilemma

                        Originally posted by Matt Hopkins View Post
                        Kyoto requires that the developed world use %60 less energy to get a few tenths of a degree reduction in warming.
                        Yes, Kyoto does mandate a reduction on greenhouse gases, but the US Senate has not ratified that treaty. Absent ratification, we're not obligated to meet the standards established in the agreement.

                        On the other hand, California has adopted its own regulations, over the objections of the EPA. We'll see whether CA leads the way . . .


                        • #13
                          Re: A tree-hugger's dilemma

                          Yet another reason I'm starting to regret moving back to California. Now must be the PERFECT time to waste government and private funds in an effort to make our local economy worse, and drive the few remaing large businesses out of the state.
                          1997 Factory Crown Victoria w/ extended tanks ~~ Clunkerized!
                          2000 Bi-Fuel Expedition --> ~~ Sold ~~ <--


                          • #14
                            Re: A tree-hugger's dilemma

                            by forcing more of the economic engine out of California there will more choice land for the Hollywood idiots to by,when this is done we can sever all ties to the state from the Union.Thus allowing the idiots to live amongst themselves. In there own make believe world. They just need to figure out who is going to run the West Wing now.................................Al Gore or Sean Penn?


                            • #15
                              A couple of notable natural sources of methane release into the atmosphere - except that in the Turkmenistan crater, it was inadvertently lit and now can never be extinguished:



                              A new geologic formation is undergoing study in the permafrost of Russia. 30 July 2017 - In the case of Siberia, one theory suggests that the holes are created when trapped gases explode. Carbon dioxide and methane, both greenhouse gases, are released in the process.


                              Dane Wigington reports here: