×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

What do the Greens want?
17

What do the Greens want?

What do the Greens want?

(OP)
I was searching the net today and found this article on wind energy.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=466372005

On the one hand you have Green parties all over Europe saying we must switch to alternative flues soucres such as wind energy and on the other their saying what a blight they are on the country side.

What way do the Greens they want it?

I live near two power generating stations one coal one oil which both spit out tonnes of gasses each day, recently a wind farm went up near them say ten miles.

On a clear calm days you can see the trail of smoke for miles and then you look at the wind mill turning gracfully.
I can not think of a better image to promote the use of wind energy.


RE: What do the Greens want?

"We can have wind energy without decimating imperiled wildlife populations""Altamont Pass is the most lethal wind farm in N. America for raptors"  I say we make the propellers out of large feathers....Every industry is faced with groups, individuals, or government officials that dislike a certain technology but what I've read is none of them can offer any practical alternative.


http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/bdes/altamont/altamont.html

http://www.wind-farm.org/
http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/
http://www.bwea.com/

RE: What do the Greens want?

5
Perhaps if we start using DDT again, there wouldn't be so many raptors getting whacked by wind turbines.

RE: What do the Greens want?

Check out this link for  one view of the problem.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html
Now one wind turbine may not be such a problem, no more than one car, one anything. It's when you need a mass of the things that life gets messy.
As you will see from this report, wind energy seems the least damaging of the "green energy" solutions; that doesn't seem to be saying much.
There is a great deal of hype about "green energy" not least the costs and the costs of wind power aren't cheap. They are especially not cheap when you take them offshore as Europe proposes. Of course, in the UK they propose to install a few hundred (thousand?) of these things in an area of low population and high winds.... the Lake District.

One of the prime motivators for these wind farms is the "global warming" issue.
However, despite the perception fostered by the popular press, and now it seems also the scientific press, that there is almost universal agreement that man is responsible for global warming there are voices raised in opposition including:
http://www.lomborg.com/articles.htm
There are suggestions that there have been attempts to supress this voice.
Yesterdays British Sunday Telegraph claims "Leading scientific journals "are censoring debate on global warming"".
Journals cited include "Science" and "Nature". One article in question was about the degree of concensus on man's contribution to global warming: apparently a December edition of Science claims complete agreement among climate experts that not only is global warming a reality but man is to blame (article by Dr Maomi Oreskes).
No point in regurgitating the whole argument, i will simply refer you to the thread on this site re the dangers of Dihydrogenmonoxide (DHMO) and i will stand by my comments there with the addittion that I now don't know who to trust.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: What do the Greens want?

2
I'm sure the climate experts completely agree that their funding is dependent on further studies of global warming!

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: What do the Greens want?

Back to the original question, "what way do the greens want it?" The answer is very simple, they want all industrialization to disappear, 99% of the human population to disappear, and they want the small population that is left to go back to living in caves, cooking over an open fire, peacfully farming a small bit of land, and living in harmony with nature.

RE: What do the Greens want?

sms,

They'll want that right up until they understand just how much hard work farming really is.  Then there'll be another industial revolution...


RE: What do the Greens want?

sms:
Maybe so, but associated with the idyllic concept of the pre-historical lifestyle was routine crop failures or droughts, followed by the need to immediately invade a neighboring clan , and to  kill or enslave all opponents following an elaborte torture protocol. Makes video games seem tame.

RE: What do the Greens want?

Um..., we still have droughts and crop failures today. The summary above reflects parts of urban life today.

RE: What do the Greens want?

4
We greens want change that will not create change.  You cannot put in a dam, because you will destroy the existing aquatic area ecosystem.  You cannot remove the dam because you will destroy the aquatic ecosystem that adapted to the dam installation.  Use wind energy, but don't block my view.  Use wind energy, but don't take the wind out of MY sails.  Use solar energy, but don't take up my land. Use oceanic wave energy, but don't disrupt the coastal ecosystem.  Use oceanic wave energy, but don't disrupt the Gulf stream.  Use geothermal energy, but don't cool down the earth.

ChemE, M.E. EIT
"The only constant in life is change." -Bruce Lee

RE: What do the Greens want?

I think the Greens, like most liberals, mostly just want a good fight.

RE: What do the Greens want?

(OP)

A star for you aspearin1 you have sumed up Green policy so aptly.

RE: What do the Greens want?

2
Americans bashing left wing political parties.

Isn't this an interesting posting.

What are we talking about again?

Did anyone read the article?

It is about a walking club that says that the wind turbines are wrecking the view.

Did this same walking club protest for alternative energy?

This thread is ridicules!

By "Green Parties" you meant "Walking Clubs".

Those darn walking clubs - they are the definition of evil!

RE: What do the Greens want?

I believe that the Rambler's Association is labelled as being green because of the colour of their wellies, oh and they take walks in the countryside, though I'm sure that the right wing conservative Sunday Telegraph will label them as being to the left of the marxist Tufty Club. It's sad the way the right wing press has become so laughable.

corus

RE: What do the Greens want?

1) If we start using DDT again, there will be less ticks.
2) If you really like DDT, maybe eating all the produce imported from Mexico and South American countries can satisfy that urge.
3) Davefitz, that sort of scenario is still going on. Causes a lot of wars. Not necessarily for food crops, but resources in general, such as oil. The main reason for the old USSR's invasion of Afghanistan was to secure an oil pipeline route. After 10 years, they gave up. It seems no one ever learns from past history.
4) I never get into liberal vs. conservative arguments, because I am neither. But I am glad the Ramblers Association hasn't attacked Holland's windmills yet.
5) Finally, I never engage into a battle of wits with an unarmed person. That is why I never argue with 51% of the USA's population.

RE: What do the Greens want?

Maybe I should back off just a little from my stance.  It is based only on my interaction with the Greens I know personally.

My interest and participation in the local folk-music scene has brought many interesting people into my life.  Lots of old hippies with a mile-wide anti-establishment streak.  Most of them are spoiling for a fight with "the man".  They like to go to where the action is.  Most of them are Greens.

I was somewhat drawn to the Greens when I first learned of them.  I was turned off by the attitude of many of the active members.  I would like to work toward a solution.  I was disturbed by how many seemed to get jazzed by the fight, not by the prize.

RE: What do the Greens want?

Lighten up just a tad, SacreBleu.  Your sense of humor could make a German seem Irish.

RE: What do the Greens want?

Please don't confuse ramblers with environmentalists, nor let us get into the "right to roam" debate.
Like many another group they may enjoy the countryside but do not all contribute to it. Indeed, too many ramblers are a nuisance and do actual damage to the environment. Much of the rights of way maintenance is to make good the wear and tear due to ramblers.
Of course, some may be environmentalists and some who do not appreciate "greens" are not anti-environment.
As to wind turbines, the articles cited above say it all and it is not all about spoiling the view though this is a serious consideration, i would suggest, in an area such as the English Lake District and in other national parks.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: What do the Greens want?

The Greens are idealists. It doesn't make them bad people, but they do not, collectively, understand the concepts of compromise or of the 'least of the evils', and this makes them dangerous when they are allowed to set energy policy. Those with less blinkered views will see that a first-world economy can't be left to the vagaries of the weather, a natural phenomenon which is not fully understood and can't be modelled other than simplistically by our best supercomputers.

Reliable generation with capacity to underwrite the green generation on the days when it isn't available is still essential. Established generation comes from a variety of sources: coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro. The greens have one commercially viable option: wind. Until a more diverse portfolio of green alternatives reach larger scale and become commercially viable without subsidy, green energy for the first world will remain an expensive pipe dream.

----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

RE: What do the Greens want?

Tick,
That's my sense of black humor. I try to be nice otherwise. I agree, many Green groups have questionable motives. On the topic of the OP, I don't see why wind turbines are so terrible. What does bother me is the smog in the air at the Grand Canyon of Arizona, for example. It is noticeably increasing.

RE: What do the Greens want?

SacreBleu: consider peace made on my end.  Also, don't get the impression that I'm that fond of conservatives, either.  I voted for Badnarik. <http://www.badnarik.org>

re: DDT:
Part of my drift was that raptors are much more abundant than they were when I was younger.  Not everything in the environment is in decline.  There are now falcons, ospreys, and eagles in Milwaukee!

We are not squatters or guests on this planet.  We live here.  We are free to change things and make ourselves at home.  Expecting the human race to live without leaving a trace of its existence is ludicrous.  While we're at it, why don't we legislate against beaver dams, coral reefs, and deer trails!

RE: What do the Greens want?

"Greens" seems like a more politically correct term than the one I most often hear - "Granolas". For those of you who are not familiar with this term, it refers to the nutty snack food that is favored by many ardent environmentalists.


Maui

RE: What do the Greens want?

"Greens" is pretty PC.  I've never heard "Granolas."  I have heard of them referred to as "Crunchies,"  which comes from the noise they make while eating granola.  I, like many of you, have a great love for the Green ideals. I even married a "crunchy."  But I'm also an engineer.   

ChemE, M.E. EIT
"The only constant in life is change." -Bruce Lee

RE: What do the Greens want?

Scotty UK
If your not a real idealist you're not an engineer, just another technologist.
Engineers are the ultimate economist and idealist.  The birkenstock crowd may want a hybred vehicle but who's going to make it for them,  a bunch of lawyers working in a cave?
Money is the measure of efficiency, people will buy what cost least.   The way things work now a lot of cost are never reflected in the cost of goods or energy.  Enviromental cost are moved Bangladesh or someother third world country, a cost you don't see in your Nikes.

I just read that a wind turbine in ND will kill 3 birds per year. Are we oging to live with that or can we (engineers) put LEDs or whilstle in the blades? we needa n engineer and an ornathologist for that.
Nothing is perfect or undoabel, giving up is fatal.

RE: What do the Greens want?

Just to clear up one thing:

Granola - Rolled oats mixed with various ingredients, such as dried fruit, brown sugar, and nuts, and used especially as a breakfast cereal.

Nutty snack food - hee hee.

OK - back to:

"On the one hand you have Green parties all over Europe saying we must switch to alternative flues soucres such as wind energy and on the other their saying what a blight they are on the country side.

What way do the Greens they want it?"

Is it so bad to have pros and cons to new energy installations.

I would like a new energy source that is green and has no cons but that is not going to happen.

I think that most people would agree that reduced emissions are a good thing.

So how do we get reduced emissions?

By adding cleaner fuel supplies.  Hydro and wind have helped in many areas to reduce emissions caused by burning fossil fuels but of course they have other environmental issues.

I personnal believe that the more power generated by wind and hydro the better.  It reduces burning fossil fuels and I personnally think it is better for the environment.  I also understand that in many, many places hydro and wind can not supply 100% of the power need.  I understand that we need to burn fossil fuels.  I understand that wind is intermitent and that you need a constant supply from other sources.

Wind power has been developing at an amazing pace.  Noise and bird fatalities, two of the main complaints of wind power have for the most part been reduced.  I hope that improvements in this technology continue and that it can supply a larger part of the energy mix.  Wind farms with 100's of 250kW units are in the past.  The new wind turbines can produce up to 5 MW and the max output has been steadily increasing.  I also hope to see improvements in this.

As far as complaints on the visual landscape.  I think that the units should be placed as best as possible to reduce landscape tarnishing.  However I would rather see wind turbines then a coal fired power station in my backyard.

RE: What do the Greens want?

SacreBleu-
Maybe not the ramblers club, but a number of other groups in Holland have been protesting the "horizon, and noise pollution" of the wind turbines in Holland. At least they were a couple years ago when I lived in Rotterdam.

RE: What do the Greens want?

==> However I would rather see wind turbines then a coal fired power station in my backyard.

I'll bet the Greens would rather see the wind turbines in your backyard too.  That would be much better than seeing them in their own backyards.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

RE: What do the Greens want?

Perhaps if the ramblers organized a boycott of electricity...

RE: What do the Greens want?

"If your not a real idealist you're not an engineer, just another technologist."

Engineering is almost always a compromise: we strive for perfection, but it is never attained. The engineer adjusts the balances to achieve the optimum result, whatever the criteria it may be judged by, trading one ideal against another in search of the best fit to the specification at hand.

I'm puzzled that by advocating a compromise which balances the needs of our society against the desire for clean energy I become a 'technologist' and no longer an engineer? Practical and realistic, certainly, but those are things I associate with engineers. I've always considered that the researchers pursuing dreams and ideas that may one day bear fruit were idealists, pursuing a what may be but a dream. I admire their dedication and am frequently in awe of their talent, yet I'm also glad that they are not running the country.

----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

RE: What do the Greens want?

"What are you rebelling against?"

"Whaddya Got?" (from Rebel Without a Cause)

It can't harm the environment (air, land water, flora or fauna), can't be in my backyard, can't cost too much, can't restrict my sense of freedom or esthetic.  That's all I want.

Hopefully I did not miss anything in terms of what a "Green" wants (less I offend).  The statement "You want it good, fast cheap (choose 2) does not seem to exist for Greens, they want it all.

Lest I sound anti-Green (I am not), I do consider and attempt to minimize my impact on the environment and try to support rational (In my view) green initiatives.

RE: What do the Greens want?

Interesting to compare the writing style of the pro-windfarm and anti windfarm groups e.g. the link i provided to the latter.
In some of the articles pro wind farms, I note they are strong on emotive rhetoric and "sound-bites" while the article I cite is very analytical and factual.
At this time there is new legislation being introduced to impose sulphur caps on marine fuels (MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 18). This despite the fact that some environmentalists say that SOX actually acts to block some of the heat recieved from the sun.
If you visit the European Green Party website you will see that that claim that marine fuel contains 500 times the amount of sulphur in fuels used for road transport.

That's it.
Nothing further.
They don't say that marine fuel is one of the most economical fuels around and compares extremely favourably with road fuels on a Kg/kilometer/litre of fuel basis nor that most SOX is absorbed harmlessly.
To find a more balanced view you need to visit the SEAT website.

We should not discount nuclear energy. Too many people have been convinced by the propaganda that every nuclear reactor is like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl despite the fact that modern nuclear plant is far more advanced and significantly safer. Of course, it would be nice to have fussion energy some time but fission energy is probably the best of the fuels available.
Finland has quite a program for new plants, i'm told, while other countries are cutting back.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: What do the Greens want?

With its 5.4 million inhabitants, Denmark also proudly tops world consumption of wind power, with 21.1 percent of its total electrical consumption produced in wind turbines in June 2004.

Before Denmark depended on 90% of it's energy from foreign oil.  Even in Denmark it is cheaper to burn oil then use windpower.  I have a feeling that the price of oil will go up before the price of wind as a fuel for the power.

jmw,

I'm not really sure how someone can be antiwindpower from an engineering point of view.  OK so it is not the most economical and it kills birds but really antiwindpower.  I also don't see how putting a wind turbine in a field and getting power without paying for a fuel supply can be more expensive then buying fuel to burn to spin your turbine.  We just havn't tried hard enough yet.

Jeez what do you want a power supply that has no environmental impact?

I'm ok with nuclear power.

RE: What do the Greens want?

Killing a few birds in a few isolated areas (wind farms) is a non-issue. Every day, vast numbers of people are killed by murder, war, starvation, neglect, etc.

jmw,
Exactly how is SOX absorbed harmlessly? Does it cause acid rain?

RE: What do the Greens want?

SacreBleu

To some groups, those birds are more important than the loss of people.  They are among the same types that will pound nails and spikes into trees in hopes of destroying the lumberman's chainsaw (and potentially the lumbermen themselves).

No solution on power generation will please everyone.  My personal preference would be migration through the obsolescence of inefficient plants over a scheduled time frame.  As technology advances so that the amount of pollutants/megawatt decreases, the limit lowers accordingly as to what now becomes an inefficient plant.  A utility would be given the chance to upgrade a "non compliant" plant or to decommission it, raze it, and start over.

Regards,

RE: What do the Greens want?

QCE, what do the Danish build windmills from, wood?

RE: What do the Greens want?

My comments were directed at marine fuel and not land based fuel utilisation and I was realy concerned with misinformation which abounds.

So the first fact is that SOX is not a greenhouse gas contributor:

Quote:


But don't knock SOx too hard. A study by Camegie Mellon University last year showed ships are the world's worst polluters per ton of fuel. It's long been known that SOx pollution can slightly reduce the greenhouse effect and ships are emitting so much sulphur in the north Atlantic, they may be having an effect - the add rain response to global warming.
http://www.m-a-g.fsnet.co.uk/misc/fuelling_the_fire.htm

"The[y] add rain response to global warming."
Which means what?

Try this:

Quote:


SOx emissions produce sulphate aerosols in the troposphere. These aerosols cool the climate in two ways: directly by scattering and absorbing radiation, and indirectly by providing seeds for cloud formation.
http://www.e-m-a-i-l.nu/tepi/oldmeth/CC6.htm
and from the same source:

Quote:


Sulphur oxides are mainly emitted by fossil fuel combustion (especially power stations). SOx emissions are the largest anthropogenic source of aerosols. Over heavily industrialised regions, aerosol cooling may counteract nearly all of the warming effect of greenhouse gas emissions.

It isn't clear, is it?

"Sulphur oxides are mainly emitted by fossil fuel combustion"

Hmmm.
Investigation reveals that two thirds of all sulphur dioxide entering the atmosphere is from natural sources. I guess this is the average figure though my sources don't say, and i have always been led to understand that when a volcanic eruption occurs that is rich in sulphur, we face the prospect of climate cooling.

SO2 is oxidised to SO3.
40% is returned to earth as dry precipitate so, apparenlty, the term acid rain is misleading.
The principal concern about Sulphur emissions is the impact of health and vegetation.
In the context of marine fuel, most is burned at sea and, so the argument goes, has little impact on the marine environment.

None the less, the figures are impressive if presented in a particular way. Hence my comment regarding the Green Party declaration that marine fuels have 500 times as much sulphur as road transport fuels.

What is lacking is any useful data from the site about the relative amounts of marine fuel compared to road fuel used or any indication as to the % of the total sulphur emissions they contribute, over land or sea.

In any event, there is a policy to reduce sulphur emissions from marine fuels. There is a global cap of 4.5% (which, curiously, is higher than the typical sulphur content on marine fuels, so don't expect any ebenefits from this aspect of marine pollution legislation just yet, we need to wait for the revised limits as and when enacted.) In Sulphur emission control areas (currently the Baltic sea though the North sea and the Mediterranean are expected to be added soon) the cap is 1.5% sulphur. This will reduce to 0.8% in 2008, maybe.
In ports and harbours the limit is very much lower indeed.

In some land based installations the limits are already much lower. PREPA, for example, (Puerto Rico Electric Power Association) has been limited to low sulphur fuels already and has targets of 0.75% set for the next couple of years and can avoid a further reduction to 0.5% if they use exhaust gas scrubbing.

The net effect?
increased global warming.
Increased cost of goods.
Fuel accounts for over 70% of a ships operating cost and the premium for low sulphur fuel is around a 30-40% increase. We will pay this in increased transport costs though, because of the efficiency of marine freight fuel usage this may not be too onerous.

The key concern i have is that if we take steps to control pollutants or change any behaviour, we should know that it will cost us money. We should know that that money is well spent and produces effective results.
We want no surprises.

On the question of wind power, as i was always told, there is no such thing as a free lunch; the wind may be free but Wind energy is expensive simply becauses it costs money and resources to design, build, install and maintain wind turbines.

I don't say more, the reference I cited in an earlier post should be sufficient and you will discover that it is to do with more than the impact on the raptor population.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: What do the Greens want?

jmw:

Does a nuclear or fossil fuel burning plant not cost money and resources to design build, install and maintain?

Some questions that would be better asked:

1. Is it possible to design windpower that is more econonical then fossil fuel burning plants?

2. Is it possible to reduce the bad environmental aspects of windpower?

3. If you include the emissions from building the windfarms is it greater then the emissions from building a fossil fuel powerplant plus the fossil fuel burning of said plant?

4. Would peple pay 10 - 20% more for their electricity if it was generated in an more environmentally way?

My opinion:

1. I'm not sure if it is possible at the moment but in 50 years if the fuel prices keep going up I think it is possible.  I think it is always possible to design something better, I'm an engineer after all.

2. It has been happening over the last couple of years I see no reason for it not to continue.

3. No

4. People do it, so who am I to argue.  I don't have the option but if I did i would consider it.  I currently have all of my power supplied by hydropower.  It is the cheapest I believe in North America.  My power bill is currently $30/month.  I was paying $100/month when I lived where the electricity can from coal.     

Epoisses

To answer your question - No.

RE: What do the Greens want?

"as i was always told, there is no such thing as a free lunch"

True - no free lunch but I'm looking for a better lunch at half the price!

RE: What do the Greens want?

Free lunch is at home.  To paraphrase George Carlin paraphrasing Bodhisattva: "The food is not the lunch."

RE: What do the Greens want?

jmw:
one reason for reducing SO2 emissions from marine diesels at port is to reduce local SO2 levels, and another reason is to promote the use of ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel , which would allow the use of an exhaust catalyst to reduce NOx and another oxidation catalyst to reduce unburned particles. IN the US, the 15 ppm S diesel is mandated for 2006  land based diesels, and similar requirements are already in place for marine diesels in some EU countries.

The SO2 aerosol effect on net earth albedo, or net transfer of solar heat to the earth's surface, is significant but smaller than effect of particulate matter which is exhausted by coal fired plants and by volcanos.  I recall when mt. Pinataubo ( Philipines) erupted in the 1990's, it was claimed that the volcanic ash effect on world  solar heat gain would easily offset any presumed heating by added CO2.

There is also some concern that if we succeed in convincing China to scrub and filter  its coal fired gases, the reduction in particle matter to the atmosphere will cause a step increase in net solar heat hitting hte earths surface.

RE: What do the Greens want?

Back to "what do the Greens want":  

I have absolutely no patience for anyone who makes public policy decisions on the basis of religion.  I don't care what religion you're talking about, regardless whether the supernatural force being worshipped is a god or an ecosystem.  "Environmentalism" too often is a religion, full of absolutes and lean on reason.

All of life is about compromise and choices amongst various options with benefits and harm associated with each one.  When "absolutes" are brought into the decision-making process on public policy, and the "public" doesn't have a uniform, shared set of beliefs and values, the process is really tough and some people's feelings are going to get hurt, period.  But we have to make decisions, and we have to do that as rationally as we can.

Engineers have to be pragmatists.  Being a pragmatist doesn't mean that you assign a zero value to an unobstructed landscape, an old-growth forest or a planet with a mean temperature not affected significantly by human activity, merely because these things are "hard" to assign a monetary value to them.  That too is a mistake that has been made far too often in past.  Rather, it means that we have to assist in pointing out the costs and benefits of ALL options, including the "do nothing" option.

In the case of wind power versus fossil fuel consumption, clearly wind power is the hands-down winner if you value human health and net environmental harm.  But conservation wins against BOTH of these.

Pragmatically, we humans have to figure out how to live here on this planet without consuming finite resources in the wasteful, wanton, addicted way we currently do.  Is that a value judgment on my part?  Yes!  But it's not based on some abstract notion of "absolutes"- it's simple arithmetic.  There are nearly two billion people in China and India, and if they start consuming fossil fuels and similar resources at the rate that we do in the so-called "developed world", the emissions from this consumption will have us drowning in our own filth.  Enormous human misery will result.

RE: What do the Greens want?

I think "Antienvironmentalism" has also become a religion.

"Enormous human misery will result."

I agree with you but would add that it is more likely

Human misery greater then the current human misery will result in parts of the world that the "developed world" doesn't see.

RE: What do the Greens want?

Davefitz,
nice answer but I wouldn't worry about the effect of China reducing emissions if I were you, don't forget all the slash and burn operations in the Amazon and of corurse, Indonesia.

However, I believe I must have slept the day they figured out that burning wood is "green". I'm not sure that I believe this even now. Still, it's aplausible enough to hear it explained that CO2in equals CO2 out and hence Greenhouse gas neutral.

Of course, the massive quick growth tree crops required will certainly lead to nitrate run-off issues, over-forestation etc etc.

As for "nothing is free". The environment isn't either. If we want a clean environment they it will cost money. I am all for paying fair and reasonable fees. My problem is that i don't trust governments abilities to deliver the right solution at an acceptable price. I have never fully been convinced by the catalytic convertors on cars approach as being the best or only solution. Still, I'm no expert on this.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: What do the Greens want?

I think it is absurd to require catalytic converters and also give a tax break to those who buy Hummers (speaking of USA)

RE: What do the Greens want?

QCE:  We agree that there are some out there who assign zero value to everything in the environment, and feel that it's their god-given right to exploit the world in any way they can imagine, without concern for the consequences for later generations, people living in other parts of the world etc.  I too think it's fair to call this viewpoint a religion, because facts and reasoned argument cannot change these people's "values" or lack thereof.  They're every bit as dangerous and unproductive in the debate as the so-called "environmentalists" with similar "values".  I'd like these two groups with opposing, closed-minded views to simply go away and fight one another in a closed room somewhere.  The rest of us rational human beings would be left to sort things out by the only means that actually works:  discussion, reason, comparison of benefits and harms, and compromise.

As to the expansion of human misery, don't worry:  if China and India even attempt to consume fossil fuels at a significant fraction of the per-capita rates that we in the so-called developed world do, there'll be misery enough to go around the entire world.  It won't just be localized to places we don't see.



 

RE: What do the Greens want?

So now that we have boiled it down to left wing environmental crazies and right wing environmental crazies what is next.  For me this thread has lived out it purpose but what ever happened to Roadbridge the person that started this poorly reasoned thread.

Walking Clubs = Left Wing Environmental Crazies

What a riot!

RE: What do the Greens want?

Has he gone for a walk?

corus

RE: What do the Greens want?

(OP)


QCE.

Thats a bit unfair of you.

Maybe my question was a bit on the broad side for some, but from where I see it the Greens are never happy, be they hill walkers, treehuggers, ecowarriors or what ever banner they march under, no solution is ever right.


RE: What do the Greens want?

Not only are the Greens never happy, the anti-Greens are never happy either <chuckles>. I think any debate about religion, politics, and now environment, will soon become an endless cacophony of dissenting opinions, just for the sake of argument.

RE: What do the Greens want?

Roadbridge, you just proved QCE's point by demonstrating you have no idea what "Green" means and haven't bothered to find out the meaning of the words you use.  If you lump together anyone who has any postive feeling for anything having anything to do with something outdoors, isn't that just another version of extremist viewpoint?

Hg

Eng-Tips guidelines:  FAQ731-376

RE: What do the Greens want?

(OP)


That's why I asked the question.

RE: What do the Greens want?

You didn't ask the question of what Greens are.  You created an erroneous assumption and then asked a different question based on that assumption.  Not very scientific.

Hg

Eng-Tips guidelines:  FAQ731-376

RE: What do the Greens want?

I had an Env. Eng. professor in college who used to be a statistician AND a "tree-hugger" (as he called it).  Because he was SO passionate about his beliefs, he left his old profession and got a PhD in Env E because he wanted to make a difference, not complain and yell at everyone else to try and change things.  

Because of this new perspective, his views TOTALLY evolved; he is still a hippy at heart, but he is more realistic and can see what is possible, what is not, and how to balance conflicting sides.  This is how he profoundly stated it, "I never realized how many needs people have."

RE: What do the Greens want?

Raptors are becoming over populated and over protected.  They are decimating game species such as quail.  I never thought of allowing wind turbines to be put up on my property to legally manage the over population of raptors.

Where do I sign up?  All natural resources need to be managed, including raptor populations.

RE: What do the Greens want?

My girlfriend is a Green Party member and a city council member of the U.S. city which has maintained a Green majority longer than any other. She is currently in Ireland at an "international bicycle conference."

In short, the green party is falling apart. It must be replaced by a more effective party. My girlfriend has given up on the party and will not be a member when her term limit is up.

The green party doesn't know what they want. It is an ineffective organization and the question is pedantic for this reason. The question would be better posed by "what do we want." Everyone wants to be "for the environment," but not everybody agrees on how we should protect it.

RE: What do the Greens want?

stabmaster,

I like your comment, "Everyone wants to be "for the environment," but not everybody agrees on how we should protect it."  The problem is we are trying to protect it from ourselves.  At times I wonder if we can find a balance between those who want to consume resources at any time and those who want to try conservation.

I am reminded of kids at either easter or halloween fighting against or giving into the urge to either consume all that candy at once or to spread it out over a few days/weeks.  Commonality is that those who consume all at once tend to get sick.  A possible lesson there for us.

Regards,

RE: What do the Greens want?

I note that Proffessor David Bellamy (http://www.speakers.co.uk/Retro/5138.htm)is likely to be chucked out of a number of posts because his views on global warming and wind farms do not accord with the "popular" view (with at least one challenge to his figurs):
(http://www.nationalcenter.org/2005/05/david-bellamy-challenges-global.html)
(http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2005/Bellamy-Junk-Science10may05.htm)
The latest is said to be the Centre for Alternative Technlogy (http://www.cat.org.uk/news/news_release.tmpl?command=search&db=news.db&amp;eqSKUdatarq=22810&amp;home=1)
In other words, pariah status awaits any who try to test, refute or challenge the global warming message, but don't ask me who is right.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: What do the Greens want?

we need pariahs to balance out the zealots

RE: What do the Greens want?

Nothing like a call for reason and facts and truth to make one a pariah.

RE: What do the Greens want?

Actually, my real point is that it is in the nature of scientists to disagree, especially since they deal so much in theory and it is the disagreements that help bring out the next level of "truth".
Take any four scientists and you'll probably get five opposed viewpoints.

So my suspicions are most aroused when I am told that Scientists are "unanimous" where "unanimous" is media speak for the fact that disenting voices are supressed. In this case the media, regretably, includes some leading scientific journals who are proving more media like than scientific. One peer reviewer notes that his unpopular viewpoint has caused him to be excluded from the peer review process.

I am not a climatologist. So for me to try and make an "informed" decision about global warming on the evidence is futile since even climatologists, or aat least, "scientists" appear to disagree. SO the best i can do is to apply some logic.
My own observations are that meteorologists (sp? aka weathermen) seem to be moderately successful predicting that it will rain tommmorow, less successful at predicting sunshine tommorow (it will probable still rain, unles syou live in the desert in which case this should be reversed) and increasingly less accurate at forcasting the weather as we go forward a day or two.

Despite a long long history of military investment in weather forcasting they aren't that much better than the guy who looks to see how far up the hill his cattle are.
Weather prediction is notoriously complex because the weather is complex.

Now we have scientists predicting that the earth is warming up and that man is to blame. Now since we don't have a decent computer model to tell us if it will rain tommorow, just how much more reliance are we expected to place on a global warming computer model?

The problem is that once the media siezes hold of a scientists utterings (especially with the contrivance of the scientists who now have to chase the big bucks more than ever before) we can expect that good news is no news, good news is, paradoxically, bad news. World ends tommorrow is headline news. World does not end tommorrow doesn't even mak e it as a filler, they'd rather publish a jiss and tell from Dilbert.
Of course, once the public is thoroughly panicked, enter the baby kissers.

I find it ironic that all the "scary" hollywood films are of the "Jaws" variety where society (the Mayor) won't listen to the solitary scientists doom and gloom while the reality is that the worse the doom and gloom is and the least verifiable it is the more the baby kissers get involved.

The thing is, like most everything else, the only way we will ever know if the scientists are right is if it happens.

The closest analgy to this is the story of the man who every evening got on his comuter train and proceded to tear up his newspaper into tiny squares and arrange them all around himself on the floor. Finally another passenger, having watched him do this day in and day out for several months (he was British and hadn't been introduced) asked him why he did it?
"Oh," said the man, "It's to keep the elephants away"
"But there are no Elephants"
"I know, effective, isn't it?"

In other words the baby kissers are quite comfortable getting on this sort of bandwagon. If they invest millions and nothing happens it's because those were wisely spent millions(the first in political history) and if it all goes pear shaped anyway, it's because it was too little and too late and blame the oponents. It's a win win situation and the media can sell more papers.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources