Konfucius Posted October 3, 2008 Posted October 3, 2008 It's not that "I don't give a fuck/crap about my carbon footprint" as I do feel somewhat concerned about it, but I don't feel compelled enough to do it except for monetary reasons. I have economic lamps around the house and turn off every one not necessary, and that's about it. I think its stupid everything now is on "Standby" and the companies who make this products should take care of this. Our electricity should come from clean sources in the first place. It's easier to quote you than writing it myself because essentially I'd say the same thing except for the economics lamps (although I encouraged (and failed at it) my parents to get some). I'm actually quite surprised so few on here care about the environment. I mean even if we don't live long enough to be walking around in gas masks we will harm the world and future generations can put up with effects they weren't responsible for.
weeyellowbloke Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Maybe it's just because I'm a big tree hugging environmentalist lefty, but I find this thread a bit depressing. It's pretty sad that third world countries in Africa and central America will be raped by hurricanes and droughts because people here can't be arsed to get up and switch of the telly. I admit though that it only makes a tiny percentage difference compared to industry and government policy on energy generation, but our actions can have an influence on that. For example I get my electricity from Ecotricity who provide only electricity that is locally sourced from renewables rather than large plants. They also make huge investments in renewables and are much cheaper than other companies. I really can't be arsed, what difference is a few bottles being recycled against the huge stations in china, boo, when they turn off everything, I'll do the same. Don't blame China, they're actually pretty good considering their population size and are quickly taking steps to reducing their pollution levels (quicker than the west anyway). If you want someone to blame look at America which produces 5.79 billion tons of carbon dioxide compared to China's 4.15 billion tons. Plus the increase in China's pollution levels can be partly attributed to the west moving their industry out there for the cheap labour. Im same as alot of you, can't give a fuck about this carbon footprint shit and all this carbon is global warming going to destroy the world etc(in fact, I frankly don't believe it 100% having seen that documentary on channel 4 about it not being carbon caused, generally cos they provided me more evidence than I've ever seen from the proponents for carbon induced global warming). Oh yes, that documentary which recently caused Channel 4 to get a bollocking from Ofcom for misrepresenting the people involved and used outdated science already proved wrong from scientists that were often funded by oil and gas companies and whose director had previously been accused of misleading people by the ITC leading to Channel 4 having to do a public apology for him on prime time telly.
Raining_again Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 When I leave the house pretty much everything gets turned off. Computers, TV (not on standby either) consoles etc. Our entire house has energy saving bulbs and we recycle very strictly. My mum is like a drill sergeant, anytime we go near the bin its pretty damn likely she's gonna shout "recycle that!!" at us. Its not the carbon footprint I care about, more the fact that the cost of electricity and the fire hazard of leaving things on... Especially older tvs. Dust gathers inside the back vents of old TV's and if you leave them on sooner or later the thing will become a hazard, and the have been known to go up in flames. I think people would consider not wasting electricity more if they had to pay for it. I'm actually shocked at how many people don't give a toss. Electricity is just going to get more and more expensive, and really its not a big deal to reach over and turn the thing off... Round my way a lot of people use their recycle bins as storage.. Kinda sad really. EDIT: Does anyone use the enviro friendly canvas type bags from the supermarkets? They rock pure and simple. Just simply because you can actually carry heavy things in them without them being destroyed.
Rick Dangerous Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Does recycling count towards the old carbon saving thing then? Yeah it would because you are not having to use more energy extracting and distributing the raw materials. Its still better to reuse it though. Despite not being a firm believer in man made global warming. I do all this stuff anyway, because generally it is common sense and have done so for years anyway.
Pyxis Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Non renewable fuel is going to run out anyway and the faster it does, the sooner we can move over to green renewables like solar and wind power. Harming the enviornment by using up lots of gas and petrol is really not important and economics will manage the problem like its doing now with rising prices due to diminishing supplies.... The same is happening with waste. It's becoming more and more expensive to simply bury our rubbish due to us running out of land and this will push people to recycle more due to economic reasons. People aren't doing this for the environment, but it makes them feel better if they think they are. Humans only care about reducing their carbon footprints because all they care about is themselves. If we actually cared about this world we lived in, we should be far more concerned about the destruction of the world's rainforests or the the land that's needlessly being wasted in this country due to us building outwards instead of upwards with skyscrapers. Imagine how nice and green this country would be if we all lived in super skyscrapers. Look at whats happening now... Affordable homes are being built in cramped housing estates where there arent even any gardens. Trees stand lifeless in new developments with no meaning but to decorate. Global warming really isn't what's going to destroy this world.... Instead of trying to save this world for our grandchildren, the world would be FAR better off if we didnt have any. They are the problem, just like we are. Seriously, who gives a crap about global warming when we are killing off all the life on this planet that we cant eat or make something out of? Yeah it would because you are not having to use more energy extracting and distributing the raw materials. Its still better to reuse it though. Despite not being a firm believer in man made global warming. I do all this stuff anyway, because generally it is common sense and have done so for years anyway. Well, I'd actually like to see figures to show that recycling any paper based products is good for the environment. Trees absorb huge amounts of carbon to grow and surely using non recycled paper is much better for the environment than using recycled paper because recycling paper only causes more pollution.. We get most of our paper from countries like Finland and their forests are amazing and totally sustainable. Finland is 75% forest and if we recycle paper, it reduces the amount of trees we need to grow and if we dont need to grow as many trees, those trees wouldnt exist because humans only keep things they need. I'm a strong believer that recycling paper is actually helping to destroy the environment.
darkcloud Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 I don't give a shit because there is nothing I can do that will offset China...... *shrug*
EEVILMURRAY Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 Well, I'd actually like to see figures to show that recycling any paper based products is good for the environment. Trees absorb huge amounts of carbon to grow and surely using non recycled paper is much better for the environment than using recycled paper because recycling paper only causes more pollution.. We get most of our paper from countries like Finland and their forests are amazing and totally sustainable. Finland is 75% forest and if we recycle paper, it reduces the amount of trees we need to grow and if we dont need to grow as many trees, those trees wouldnt exist because humans only keep things they need. I'm a strong believer that recycling paper is actually helping to destroy the environment. This is a big assumption on my part here, but I'm saying that a tree can absorb more carbon the bigger they are. So instead of cutting down big trees to make paper, we recycle. Because replanting trees means they're replaced by tiny little fuckers which absorb fuck all. Let's just get some reeds and make papyrus.
BlueStar Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 (in fact, I frankly don't believe it 100% having seen that documentary on channel 4 about it not being carbon caused, generally cos they provided me more evidence than I've ever seen from the proponents for carbon induced global warming). Please don't tell me it was The Great Global Warming Swindle by discredited kook Martin Durkin. If you believed that I have some magic beans to sell you. Did you miss the follow up where C4 were fined by the regulators for showing such misleading shit and the people who he showed supposedly supporting his conspriacy theories spoke out against him? EDIT: If I'd read the whole thread first I could have saved the engery of typing that
rokhed00 Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 EDIT: Does anyone use the enviro friendly canvas type bags from the supermarkets? They rock pure and simple. Just simply because you can actually carry heavy things in them without them being destroyed. Think we have a couple kicking about the place somewhere, but generally just take a rucksack or something when doing the shopping, hardly ever use plastic carrier bags.
jayseven Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 Recycling is unusual; it is about saving resources, but it takes a lot of energy to actually convert 'old' material into new. Pyxis: Interesting what you say about humans only keeping things that they need -- more true with animals... but trees? Naw. Plants grow without our help! Also trees only absorb carbon while they're growing, so needing to keep planting trees is a good thing! Sustainability is what it's all about; and that's not just about managing resources but also managing how we live to fit the resources. Which is how we should be anyway. I blame capitalism!
ipaul Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 I do what I can, try to buy organic things wherever possible and I walk to places 90% of the time. I always turn things off when I am not using them and have energy efficient bulbs in my room - tried the rest of the house but my parents hated them. I do need to recycle more however. As for that documentary...
Pyxis Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 Recycling is unusual; it is about saving resources, but it takes a lot of energy to actually convert 'old' material into new. Pyxis: Interesting what you say about humans only keeping things that they need -- more true with animals... but trees? Naw. Plants grow without our help! Didn't the UK used to be a giant forest before humans knocked all of the trees down? When you look out of a plane when flying across Europe, this is what you see: Sadly, tiny little national parks will be all that's left of nature one day and I'm sure humans will eventually start to develop those more and more when they become fascinating tourist attractions. They will build a new road here and a new hotel there... The only future for anything non human that we wont directly consume will be there purely for our amusement, like pets. The Amazon Rainforest is the largest forest in the world and it wont be around forever when 20,000km2 is disappearing each year. Humans will totally destroy this planet one day and it's only a matter of when. Whenever I go to Malaysia, I'm really amazed by what I see! All you will see when you are travelling through rural areas from city to city are palm oil plantations. These are the only trees you will see where there was once beautiful forest: They have actually wrecked their whole country and they've done this in a very short time span... Its unbelievable. Those plantations cant support any wildlife. Third of mammals 'face extinction' Monday, 06 Oct 2008 15:35 The populations of half the world's mammals are in decline and more than a third are facing extinction, a new publication has claimed. The International Union of Conservation for Nature's (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species published today claims that the biggest threat to mammals is the loss of habitat, including deforestation. This year's list looked at 5,487 mammals and found that 1,141 are currently threatened with extinction. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," Julia Marton-Lefèvre, IUCN director general, said "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives." The IUCN says the situation could be a lot worse, as 836 mammals are listed as "data deficient" and with better information more species could be in danger of extinction. "The reality is that the number of threatened mammals could be as high as 36 per cent," says Jan Schipper, of Conservation International. "This indicates that conservation action backed by research is a clear priority for the future, not only to improve the data so that we can evaluate threats to these poorly known species, but to investigate means to recover threatened species and populations." The results show 188 mammals are in the highest threat category of critically endangered, including the Iberian lynx, which scientist believe has a population of between 84 and 143 adults and has continued to decline due a shortage of its prey, the European rabbit. There are also 29 species named as critically endangered possibly extinct, including Cuba's little earth hutia, which has not been seen in nearly 40 years. http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/healthandscience/autocodes/autocodes/iraq/third-mammals-face-extinction-$1243733.htm Global warming isnt the biggest problem that the world has to deal with. The earth has cooled and warmed countless times in the past, but it's now being totally wrecked by us in other ways.
jayseven Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 yeah, the old adage is that you could swing from the coast to london without a struggle centuries ago... The malaysian pictures you post are intersting; man-planted trees are always in linear or cubic arrays, and easy to spot. To be honest, I highly doubt we'd let the amazon ever totally dissapear. Plus, if you imagine, if the forest got a lot smaller then the illegal cutting would be severely reduced... etc.
Recommended Posts