This thread is for discussing any environmental issues. It can include global warming, deforestation, desertification, what I've suggested as sustainable development (which includes anything about resources, certain environmental-safe building programs...I'll go more in depth on that), recycling.

Basically anything you see thats either damaging the environment and the future environment or possibly trying to save it or hold the damaging at bay (or just slowing it down ) Feel free to include any programs as well concerning the environment as well as current news.

Please remember to follow the rules and be curteous to others theories, ideas, etc.

Wow, this topic could go in a lot of different directions!

I've read a lot about peak oil. I don't know if that's such an environmental concern as it is a survival concern though. Having us run out of oil, which is supposed to happen in the next 50 years, is going to solve a lot of environmental problems...

One thing that blows me away is garbage. I've read that in America, 20% of the garbage we produce is just from fast food wrappings. Twenty percent! And there was all this flack against new moms back when I had my son, people wagging their fingers about how disposable diapers create 2% of the garbage in America. Yet how many McDonald's waxy hamburger papers get thrown out everyday?

Another recent article that shocked me is the bottled water industry. It made me vow to not buy it again, but that's not realistic. I can see having a bottle of water on a road trip or something. But, here's what I read:

1. The crude oil required each year to make plastic bottles for water could run 100,000 cars for a year.

2. Health standards for bottled water are actually lower than they are for tap water.

3. Minerals are sometimes added to bottled water to enhance the flavor, but they have no affect of health. Most bottled water IS tap water, just from someone else's tap!

4. Coca-Cola, not too concerned with human rights as it is, has basically drained the water from 50 villages in India, siphoning it off for their Dasani product. Bad!

I guess the reason for this article is that bottled water just wasn't something people used to be able to buy, and now it's very popular. But we don't often think about the effect we individuals have on the environment, through the choices we make. Soda pop bottles are even worse of course, they are part of the 20% of garbage in America that comes from pre-packaged food items that we buy at the grocery store.

Anyway, that's the most recent environmental article I've read.

What originally got me interested in the environment was the movie 'Super Size Me'. I know it was mainly about the health effects on the body after eating McDonald's straight for a month...but it also talked, briefly, about the environment. It mentioned, as you said Aethonon, about the trash. In another movie, it primarily talked about health, the treatment of farm animals (in the other thread), as well as farm animal effects on artisian (sp?) wells.

What happens is that the waste from cows gets drained into the sewer, as well as gets absorbed into the ground. Artisian wells are underground water supplies, where a lot of our what water in America...believe it or not...comes from (not sure of the percentage but its a lot). Kind of makes you think about you're really drinking.

Oil is very detrimental to the environment, or the byproduct of its use is. It is true that its estimated that we as humans will run out of oil in the next 30, 40, 50 years. Thats bad, and good at the same. Good because we're no longer using it to add more harmful stuff to the enviroment. Bad, because we still haven't come up with a reliable alternative energy for automobiles sake. There has been talk about using corn...but think about how many corn crops there would have to be to sustain the US alone. Likewise with any organic form of fuel. No matter what form of energy, it will still need to consume energy from elsewhere to be made.

Water bottles are another story. They didn't used to be that popular, as you also mentioned Aethonon. Along with what you said, plastic is made from petroleum.

I guess I'll get a move on with my original interest in this. Sustainable Development is the use of present resources without compromising the use of future resources (resources as in fuel, wood, etc.). What this means is with present uses of resources, the future will have trouble sustaining themselves...which is why we have to do this in the present. It includes all aspects: housing, highways, roads, technology, oil, energy, transportation, manufactering...all that and more...dealing with how we can use what we have now in terms of recycling and reusing.

I'll go more into all of that later...don't want to make ya'll bored or anything As well as other stuff...

Oh, in a class I took, we had to do this thing called Earth Score or something like that. As it turned out, if everyone lived the way I did, we'd need 2.6 Earths! I mean...I use public transportation, when I do use a car I'm usually not by myself...and other stuff...I even put the lowest possible answers and it we would still need 1.3 Earths. Kind of funny how one of the questions asked me if I was American of not I am, just in case you thought otherwise...

Speaking of that, I remember reading that we Americans are something like 4% of the global population but we consume 26% of its resources....

This was my main reason for wanting to start this thread. To spread the word on how we can change the environment for the better for the future. There are a lot of environmental conferences all around the world, but the general public...at least here...doesn't hear what goes on there...wouldn't it be in the best interest for the world if the general public did hear without having to go and investigate? Like I said, they can have all the environmental conferences they want, but they have to inform all if they want something significant done.

crsdba, I think it's 'artesian.' You got it close!

I've not seen "Super-Size Me" I should rent that! The cover made me laugh, I remember seeing it.

And you are so right to be concerned about oil! I have read quite a lot about it. You had asked, wouldn't it be better if the world knew what was really going on? Yes, it would! But at the same time, it will cause a full-scale panic. Our governments don't want a full-scale panic, so they don't tell us what's really going on.

Today, officially, the Earth reached a human population of 6.5 billion people. That is just way too many. It's why, when natural disasters occur, so many people die. There are just so many people in every place now! And when the oil runs out, people are going to die. LOTS of people. We simply cannot maintain our present population without oil, and that's that.

"Peak" oil just means that if you took oil use and made a graph of it, there would be a point where it peaked--where we are taking as much oil out of the Earth as she can produce. And then the amount taken out would start to decline. Peak oil is here. Some say it'll be next year, some say it happened last year. Either way...

What it means is, if the year 2007 is the year of Peak Oil, then by 2027, the Earth will only be producing as much oil as it did in 1987. Which wouldn't be so bad if we didn't have an extra two or three billion or so people to feed, and so many more countries competing for the oil than there used to be.

Couple that with the fact that most of us don't have the skills needed to make it without oil, and yeah, we're in deep.

My suggestion to young people is to learn the old skills. Learn how to do some things by hand. Learn about natural medicines, because modern meds will be out the window.

Sorry to scare people, but it is coming. As you said, learn about sustainable fuels. Secure some land.

Yes, education is key...but just like learning history, it has to come in increments as our learning is different by age.

And you're right, it would spark a global or national panic when people hear about all this...but imagine how bad it would be when there is no more oil. Although there are hybrid vehicles, there has to be more in production to make the transition better...and after that...something even better.

The global population is huge I'll admit, at 6.5 billion yesterday (how do they figure that out?). But you have to remember that 99% of that is due to the industrial revolution which sparked a wide spread movement to the cities (urbanization). They had a scale that showed the global population from something like 1300 to 1700, which was relativley low, then after 1700 it suddenly shot up. Also, a lot of people are confined to cities. If everyone moved out of the cities, or if everyone dispersed and say had their own land of 1100 square feet, the world would still have a an immense amount of land (its just where it is and the weather, etc.). But theres also food, which already isn't enough as many are starving in underdeveloped and even developed countries.

I can send anyone who's interested the power point presentations from my classes.

Such a huge topic but I think we can have a rolling discussion touching on enviromental issues one at a time.

To address Darcy's statement earlier.

Sorry that I haven't kept interest in this thread. I guess thats the problem with environmenta issues is that it gets too boring or nobody wants to talk about it because it means changes...

In an article by Billy Bryson called "The Waste Generation" (my teacher passed this out) he says, that 5% of all the energy used in the united states is consumed by computers left on all night!
That is outright ridiculous! America uses a lot of energy, and we live a very comfortable life style, so comfortable that we can take advantage of our energies and not bother to just press on little button on our computer. Also my teacher said that if you unplug your TV when it's not in use your electirc bill will reduce now since I am not in charge of bills I can't confirm this but it's worth a shot

I think if American's who run the water while they bursh their teeth or leave their computers on all night because it takes 2 whole minutes of their precious time, would just stop being so lazy then we would have a good start.

I also think that people need to be aware of the shortage of oil. I think that if more and more people knew about this issue we would begin to plan for what we will do when we run out!

Just a few things fjkrs, what souce was you author referencing for the 5% figure? That is an enormous amount of energy to be attributed to computers left on at night. Computers use very little energy and the majority is used by the monitor. New monitors for at least the last five years power down after a period of inactivity cutting their power consumption to almost nothing.

I also think your teacher is overstating the power comsumption of tv's turned off. Yes they do keep the circuits active for the infrared sensor but that is it and it uses very little power. I have not seen any figures for this but I bet that if you unplugged you TV each night for a year, you savings would be less than a dollar.

I don't think spending money on rebuilding New Orleans and the surrounding area would be a waste of time. However, perhaps less people should live there, or not as many residency areas. The city is...or was...a major port exporting and importing many things from South America. Oil goes through there from the Gulf of Mexico as well. It has a huge amount of natural gas in the state, enough to supply the whole south (though I don't think its necessarily New Orleans that has this). I know this may or may not be considered, but it has a long history in the US and has history elsewhere in Europe. There is a diverse population...

Perhaps one of the main reasons Hurricane Katrina was the mass amount of land displacement or soil erosion via sediment from the Mississippi River up north, starting from its source. I'm not entirely sure about that, but my environmental science teacher last year told us about it. I can back this up if you all would like...

I think that us humans are showing way too much disregrad to the envrioment, this is the only earth we have and we are totally messing it up.

Theres that new movie about global warming coming out sometime this summer, "A Inconveneint Truth, a Global Warning" I not sure if it's gonna be good, may put things a little out of proportion, but maybe not..... either way it will hwlp educate people about global warming, but it could cause some big scare kind of thing.

EDIT:I just realizied that that movie came out on May 24, just a few days ago

What really concerns me is the state of the oceans. I was just reading about the "dead zones' in the Gulf of Mexico, parts of the water were nothing at all can live beacuse it is so dirty and polluted. The oil spills are terrible too. Its makes me want to cry when I see all those little ducklings all covered in oil.

I don't think running out of oil is such a big problem, but the price is a little disturbing. But on the other side, just a few days ago, some business guy knocked on my aunts door, asking her about this program that actualy drills for oil in peoples bacl yards. This company gives you a ton of money, but they leave your yard just like a total mud pit. My aunt told them no, but just goes to show you....

It concerns me more that we are seem to be making very little progress in finding an another way to power our cars beside oil, and eventully, in the next week or the next ten years, we are going to run out of oil.

In all honesty, if our fuel supply is gone in fifty years I'll be prepared to eat my walking cane. Where are these figures coming from? The same people who said all the earth's forests where going to be destroyed by 2010 back in the 1960's? It seems like such a short way off, fifty years, but I think it's just a number that's supposed to scare people, giving them a reason to question (aka bash) the governement. Lo and behold the goverment has responded to these inquires and fears of people by doing the only thing they can-- funding hundreds of projects and experiments that use an alternate fuel source. There are solar and electrically ran cars now, even cars with absolutely brillant gas milage but what are Americans still buying? Escalades and SUVs that drink up oil like it's going out of style. So I ask you what more is there to do?

What an excellent question, Chris!
I disagree with building up New Orleans again. It's like building a city in a toilet bowl just waiting for the next hurricane to flush it down and away. Nonsense. I appreciate the history and culture of the French Quarter, and I love the food, but wouldn't it just be smart to set roots on the rocks instead of sand? Deary me...

New Topic:
One of the easiest things to do to feel good about doing your part for helping the environment along is to recycle. Most of our neighborhood recycles newspaper and it just doesn't get any simpler, they company picks it up from your driveway (though I suppose they're wasting gas in the process of taking it*gasp* ). I found this really cool news article for the girls out there... Aren't they cute? Does anyone else recycle regularly?

I'm not entirely sure where the fuel figures are coming from but they are for real...whether 10, 20, 50, or 100 years from now...the oil will be gone...or at least gone over its peak of use and begin to decline, which raises the price and all that. I don't agree with all alternative fuel sources...things like corn (ethanol?). Imagine how many crops it would take just to fuel one car, how much soil would be used...even if one portion of a crop is used 3 months out of the year. Would there be enough corn left to eat? I like solar, wind, and hydroelectric power as alternative fuels...even hydrogen if it can be used to make its byproduct water (but what happens after that? The landscape of the world might change with more water, as well as the climate). All alternative fuels have to be viewed at different angles and be able to be used in an efficient and reliable way. But hey, at least we're making steps in the right direction.

I personally think (as a past Louisiana resident) that New Orleans and the metro area should be rebuilt. Its one of the most important ports in the US and maybe North America, it supplies 98% of the world's crawfish (hey, gotta eat right?), a majority of the United States' natural gas comes from the area, sediment from the Mississippi River's starting point all the way in the north contributed to all the loss (I can go into that if you all like)...the list can go on. I know it would be tough to rebuild and only have it destroyed a year later, but if there is something in place that can prevent all the damage...such as better levies...then there would be as much destruction. I won't go into funding for the past and present because thats been talked about in the news... I lived Kenner, Louisiana for two years...which is about 20 minutes from New Orleans...

I now live in Tempe, Arizona...20 minutes or so outside of Phoenix...what if a giant sand storm or some monstrous monsoon consumed the city? Its the same thing...its built in a non-livable area since its the desert (similar climate to the Sahara), and saps the Colorado River for water (as well as California, Nevada, etc.). I also used to live in California (born and raised till I was 16), and there was always talk of a destructive earthquake, or the continental shelf breaking off and making Las Vegas beach front property. I guess in the end, humans build wherever they want to and accept the consequences...only some don't have a choice and aren't able to get away.

My family doesn't recycle, and I try to tell them every so often about things like that. The only place I manage to recycle (because the bins are labeled) is at school, which has become where I spend most of my time now (architecture, what can I say?). Theres places for used blades, papers, cardboard, chipboard...everything that can be recycled. I suppose we can never win, since it requires a truck that uses fuel to get everything out of a building...which is what Urban Planners and others try to make more efficient...

Alright, I've rambled long enough! ...haven't slept in a couple days

About six years ago, the city gave everybody recycling bins and now we have garabge pick up one week, than the next week, recycling, and so own. My aunt and uncle, who live in Ohio, put out five bags of garbage every week. And it's only the two of them. To recycle anything, you have to pile up all your stuff and take it to the recycling center. My grandma brings her papers and stuff to the center, but I don't think that many people want to go out of there way to recycle stuff.

Last month they had this show downtown and it was all recycled art, and the hostess was wearing this dress made out of Dortio bags. It was really cool. They had all this found art kind of stuff, like bags made out of those little metal tags that come one from cans of soda and belts made out of seatbelts, which were extremely cool, but sadly very expensive. They had those little dresses that had been cut out of envolpes with that pattren that they put on the inside so people can't see whats inside the envolpe, and they were like little dresses for paper dolls.

When I was in elementry school we did this thing called "Scrounge Art" were the parents would bring in old milk cartons and stuff like that and then we could make art out of it. I was actually really fun.

I remember doing that too And I think we did something with egg cartons, but I don't really remember!

I live in the desert (Tempe, AZ), but I have to admit that its getting pretty bad with the water supply. If someone can back me up on this, or give more information, then that would be...good, I guess We, just like Nevada, and southern California tap into the Colorado River (which is already low in supply, but high in demand)...so thats not necessarily a good thing. We do have underground water in the northeren Arizona, but its contaminated from grazing (or the poor conditions thereof, if that makes sense), or from other human activity. What can a city as big as Phoenix or Los Angeles, or in need of resources like Las Vegas, do about the water supply? Should people have even built anything in the desert? If no, then why build in the swamps (Chicago, New Orleans)? In cold regions? Etc...

Hmm,my first post in The Duelling Club Area,(yes i have been approved )
I don't think we are doing quite enough to protect the environement.Here in Australia we have a day called "Clean Up Australia Day",where obviously,you help clean up.But the thing I dont like about this is that all the garbage you do pick up on this day,goes through the same old process as every other day,and eventually into the dump where it will rot for several hundred years.I wonder why we do this only once a year,and not every day.I mean,every little bit helps right?But when I think about where the rubbish goes,its just either underground or where we can all see.Soon enough,we won't have enough holes to dig for rubbish,and will have to think of alternative sources.
And think about the workplaces that do process the plastic bags from the recycable items,how much gasses are they spitting inot the air?If we can find a solution for one thing,we can find other solutions for other things.

A few months ago here in Arizona, United States...there was a big push for "Going Green". I also believe it was a nation-wide event that for those who didn't yet know (I suppose outside of design, planning, science majors...and those professionals, among other). The major thing was introducing things that are environmentally friendly, thus going green. However, when someone, say, got an environmentally friendly refrigerator...guess what happened to their old refrigerator? It wound up in the city dump (not exactly the dump, since refrigerators and other things can't go there, so they're put in separate areas). So, many refrigerators and other appliances that could be used or donated to someone were put in the dump causing a larger problem than there already was.

What do you guys think of that?

Wow, with all that's happening these days about climate change, I can't believe the last post in this thread is from June!

So, let me throw out a question: Should there be government involvement with and subsidies for the extensive development of renewable energy-generating technologies, with mandates as to how much energy has to be produced in these manners by specific dates? I personally don't see any way we will shift from an oil economy quickly enough to avert imminent national disaster unless this path is taken, given contemporary geopolitics. And THEN when you add on the consequences of climate change, it seems rather compelling that we need this kind of initiative. What some have called an "energy new deal" or "green new deal".

The world is not doing enough to curb global warming. I saw a thing on tv the other day about how people can make their houses more "green" and "eco friendly". I got really excited about it all, and what they were saying was good stuff, but hardly earth-moving. Things like changing ordinary light-bulbs to those eco ones that only use 20% of the power of the old ones, and making sure that the hot water cylinder is power efficient. So what??? I appreciate that every little bit counts, but turning the switch off at the wall after I boil the kettle is hardly going to secure a healthy future for my children is it? 'Going Green' is more than just the little things. Drastic action really needs to be taken. We are in a rapidly changing world and the amount of people who aren't looking to the future in such matters really annoy me. People are building great big monstrosities of houses with no eves! No eves means no shade in the summer, no shade means that it's going to be hot, heat means the air conditioning goes on. If you put eves on your houses, it's going to be good!

People are also moving to places with the good weather and heat. Well those places don't tend to have all that much water, do they? I'm sorry, but I'll have to use an example. The amount of people permanently migrating to Brisbane, Australia is quite phenomenal. Now, from what I can make out, Australia has really big issues with their water supply. People know about global warming, they know the effects and consequences, so why don't they think? I really don't want this to be taken offensively, but why would someone move to a place with obvious water problems? It just doesn't make sense to me. And to all Australians reading this, please don't take offence! It's not a slight against you or your country...

I'm sick of people living in denial. And I'm also sick of politicians making pledges to stop global warming and reduce carbon emmisions, then doing absolutely nothing, because anything radical would upset people's day-to-day lives wouldn't it? That means a disruption in voters... Something has got to be done now. People need to realise that driving a great big shiny 4WD in town to go to the local shop is not good! People need to stop being so dependent on the shops to have their best interests at heart and to always provide them with food. What happens when the oil runs out? Grow your own food. Take Jamie Oliver's lead! Our way of life will change with global warming, let's stop pretending it won't!

So yes, in reply to pumpkinjuice, there absolutely should be government involvement with research etc into renewable energy. People need to sit up and do something!

I appreciate this is a passionate post Make the most of it, it doesn't happen a lot!

EDIT: On rereading, I've figured that this post is a little, um, forthright () to perhaps continue on a conversation. So I shall ask a question (or two): What measures do we want to see governments make to help reduce carbon emissions etc, and what should the individual be doing? Are we too late to curb climate change? I hope this helps!

I'm getting a little bit off-topic now, but have you guys seen a presentation about water going around the internet?

In this presentation, there is a hypothetical letter sent by a guy from 2000...something, who says that where he lives now, there is no water, people shave their heads to keep them clean, the air is polluted, there is no green, and that water has become the most valuable thing on Earth. Do you believe something like that is possible? When I saw it, I felt depressed. If that's the future we're heading towards, then I think that we should actually do something about it.

A few days ago, on March 22, we were celebrating the day of the water. I was out that day and I went to a store to buy something, so the salesman told me that the news had been talking all day about water and how urgent the situation is. They said that if it doesn't rain soon, we're going to have huge problems during summer. It rains today but I wonder if this is going to be enough.


About other sources of energy, I skimmed through an article that said that if we manage to install the appropriate technology in Sahara, in Africa, then we will be able to send energy to the whole world, by using the light coming from the sun. This is a very positive thing. However, it costs a lot of money and taking in consideration the political issues in Sahara, it is doubtful whether this will be a reality any time soon.

I really hope that we'll be able to do something to help the planet, especially if we are the last generation to save the environment. Let's keep our fingers crossed!

I am going to slightly change the topic but it does have a bearing on environmental issues.

In the UK if you live in the country but not on a farm you are made to feel guilty for owning a 4x4. In fact, you are less frowned upon if you live in London, after all you need to sit high above the trffic to spot the decent parking spaces and manouvre around the bus lanes so those big fat tyres come in handy when you need to go off road onto the pavement!

Now however the UK government are on the hunt for the dreaded...plastic carrier bag user. We all know that carrier bags take years and years to decompose, yet for years and years supermarkets and other shops have handed out billions of then willy nilly. Now they are being 'responsible'. Some shops, like Marks and Spence now charge you 5 pence if you need a carrier bag. To be honest, if you spend £100 on shopping and need 10 bags, the extra 50p isn't goin to break the bank or act as a deterent to people who need to use them. However,my local supermarket have opened a green till. If you bring your own reusable bags, you can go through the green till and...queue up with eberybody else, because they only have one!!

I have bought dozens of reusuable bags, because I don't like the thought of little anmals crawling into a discarded bag an suffocating.But mainly because the plastic bags are rubbish nowadays. You put a carton of milk in one and the bottom falls through before you reach the car. Plus, you pile the bags in your boot (trunk) go round the corner and all the bags go flying so there are other, practical reasons not to use carrier bags.

Years ago, we used to use paper carriers or boxes. Some stores even started to sell shopping crates and even adapted trollies to fit them, it died a death. So what is the answer? It sounds harsh on the carrier bag manufacturers but the only solution I feel is to stop making them. Force poeple to use reusable bags made of cloth or hessian but most of all make them cheap. Some stores charge £3 or £4 for a single bag so the costs don't weigh up yet.

So, what do others think the future holds for the humble carrier bag?

Interesting perspective, Elaine. Most of the stores I frequent offer a choice of paper or plastic. I choose paper 98% of the time, and my exception is when I have something that will collect condensation betwixt the store and home. I just hate when the paper bag bottom falls out and all my stuff scatters on the ground, breaks, or gets smashed.

Personally, I'd be happy with paper only. Plastic bags are a nuisance to me, they don't decompose, and I wind up with a huge collection of them in my garage. Generally, I turn them into the recycle box at the grocery store or deposit them at the school for them to recycle for school funds.

Of course, I do the same thing with all my paper bags, too. I use them to collect my daily newspapers, then recycle both the bags and the newspapers in the school recycle bins.

Regrettably, I don't see many consumers in my area asking for paper, and the clerks reach for plastic first time, every time, all the time. I would not miss plastic bags at all.

Most of the supermarkets here (in New Zealand) seem to be selling their 'eco-bags' as an alternative to plastic bags. Basically (as I'm sure the rest of the world has been introduced to them too) they are just polypropylene bags that have super reinforced stitching and cardboard down the bottom to prevent groceries falling through. There are even chiller ones for the milk! It's quite exciting. Anyway we've bought about five or six, which together hold the weekly groceries for five hungry people, a cat and 40 odd fish. Quite a few people (around my area anyway) have adopted the bags, but most of them forget to bring them to the supermarket (including my dear father when he goes out for a shop), which defeats the purpose really.

I would be quite happy to see plastic bags go for good. I found some stats in a magazine the other day:

• Between 500 million and 1 trillion plastic bags are used worldwide every year.
• New Zealanders discard more than 3 million tonnes of waste to landfills every year. That's more than 780 kilograms per person.

Given that New Zealand only has about 4.2 million people, that's quite a bit of rubbish really. What gets me though, is that even if we get rid of plastic bags at shop checkouts for good, the majority of stuff that goes into the eco-bags is just plastic anyway. However, if we were to somehow get rid of plastic bags at checkouts, the rest could only follow, which is somewhat positive.

EDIT: okay, the last bullet point there (I've just realised) doesn't actually have much to do with plastic bags. I'll leave it there though, as it's still a reasonably interesting fact.

If that's how much rubbish is produced in New Zealand, I dread to think how much is dumped in the UK.

Did anyone ever here about the carrier bag that was produced by a designer that all the celebs were after in the UK??

No, well it's rather funny and a bit ironic.

Sainsbury's which is one of the biggest supermarkets in the UK decided to get a well known hand bag designer Anya Hindmarch, to design a reusable eco friendly carrier bad for their stores. There were only a certain amount made so they became quite highly sort after. The bag was made of cotton and emblazoned on the side were the words 'I am not a plastic bag'. Anyone who was anyone had one, Keira Knightley, Kate Moss, you name them, all the celebs had one.

These bags went on sale for £5 each and people queued for hours to get their hands on one. They ended up changing hands on e-bay for up to £200 which is just nuts! There were even fake ones on sale!

Anyway, if you read this story (which also gives some facts and figures about the UKs carrier bag usage) you can get an idea of how stupid the whole thing was.

Now for the ironic bit. These bags were manufactured in China and were neither organic nor fair trade. The carbon footprint can hardly be offset against it's environmental benefits as stated here.

Just in case your wondering..no, I didn't queue up for one of these bags. I've only ever seen one in the flesh and that was in London last week and some woman was using it in a Tesco express on The Strand. A year ago she'd have been taking it to a nightclub or worrying about getting mugged for it!

I just wanted to post this here...I am slightly interrupting conversation so I apologize however as this is the Environmental thread...

April 19th will see the Earth Day broadcast on the Weatherchannel in the United States. When I go into Wal-Mart or even the military PX, I see T-shirts and bags for sale all sporting environmentally friendly slogans. How do you guys feel about all of this? Is it just propoganda used to turn a profit or does wearing one of these EarthDay shirts actually make a difference?

I am curious about the actual television broadcast. I wonder if it will just talks about how global warming is changing the Earths' weather patterns.

Here is yet another topic change: recycling!

My daughter has been studying recycling in school for the last two weeks. She comes home with projects, ideas, and homework all pertaining to how we can recycle, what can be recycled, and how to get the greatest benefits from recycling programs. There is NO recycling program in the greater North Idaho area. I do save my paper bags from the grocery store, my magazines, and my newspapers and dump them in the recycle bins at Cheyenne's school for extra school revenue. This is the extent of our recycling program here.

When we lived in Virginia Beach we had an extra "trashcan" for all items with the recycle symbol on the bottom: plastic, glass, metal, paper, etc. The city recycled and kept the revenue for city growth projects.

What I wonder is how many of our VTM'ers have a recycling program where they live? I'd love to do more, but the city infrastructure here does not support it.

Recycling is a big issue. As in your case Dorthy, I want to recycle but there is no infrastructure at all. We have normal bins, for common garbage and we have bins to recycle paper. BUT, there isn't one bin in every corner. More specifically, where I live we have two bins to recycle paper. Both of them are far away from my house, so we have to take the car and go dump our magazines etc. Even if someone wants to recycle in Greece, they can't do it. One positive thing though, is that they've put special bins in the center of Athens, so whenever I'm there I pay attention on throwing my garbage in the right bin. It's the least I can do. I actually take the leaflets people hand me and throw them all in the recycle bin for paper. Two good deeds at once!

I wish I could do more than that. But how am I supposed to recycle when the government doesn't offer me the chance to do so?

Lately I've noticed that everyone starts to become more aware of the environment. However, I'm not sure whether this is yet another fashion statement (like the thing about Wal-mart Amanda stated), or we realise that our planet is in danger. I hope it's the second.

As far as I am concerned, I try to recycle with the means I'm given. I try not to throw away too much water. I try not to spend energy when I don't need it. I could be better at all of these, but at least, I care. I know that Earth needs our help, so I try to have an ecological consciousness, and hopefully, if everyone does so, things will get better eventually.

Yesterday, I saw this short documentary on an area in the Pacific Ocean north of Hawaii where most of the garbage deposited in the Pacific winds up swirling in a great garbage quagmire. I'd never heard of the phenomena. Apparently, the Pacific currents cause the majority of the dumped (by ships) garbage to collect in this area and it roughly the size of Texas.

The point to the documentary is that plastic is entering the food chain here. Plastic not being biodegradeable, but rather photodegradeable (breaks up in sunlight) is being eaten in small bits by little fish, thus entering the human food chain through fishing.

It was a rather eye-opening story, and certainly not in a eco-friendly way.

In New South Wales we are given three colour-coded bins by our local council, as well as a smaller green bin to be used inside the house. The small green bin is for food scraps, which can then be emptied into the larger green bin along with the garden waste. However, the food scraps cannot be in a plastic bag when they are put into this bin. The yellow bin is for recyclable items, and the red bin is for other waste, including plastic bags. It's annoying to try and remember which bin is emptied on which week, but I think it's a good system. Coffs Harbour is also on permanent level 1 water restrictions, which means no sprinklers, but we've had this for six years now so we're all used to it. Before that, the drought was so bad at one point that we were on level 6, which meant you couldn't water your garden AT ALL, and all the taps were taken off the rinsing showers at the local beaches. Thankfully, this is no longer the case.

Over the last sixteen years of being in the military, everywhere I have been stationed has had some type of recycling program. The programs weren't always the greatest but it was something. Where we live now, there isn't anything. I mean they have recycling centers but they are miles away. I think that every government should strictly enforce recycling. I believe that if it where a law to recycle it would make the landfills that much smaller. I know, people will say that its hard to enforce but its like the seat belt law in the U.S. it took awhile but now everyone does it and if not they pay a fine.

Good point, ravensblood, and welcome to the Great Hall!

Recycling is a program that the government can have a serious influence on without causing too much inconvenience for the people. My parents, for example, do not place recycling at the top of the list, but they are only given three trash cans: one for green waste only like grass clippings and yard debris, one for recycling only, and one for trash. Since the one for trash isn't big enough for their trash needs, they're forced to recycle in order to get rid of all their waste every week, and they really aren't put off by it at all.

I don't think it would take that much to get everyone doing it, but it has to be convenient. One university I attended had recycling bins all over campus while the one I'm at currently doesn't even have enough trash cans in convenient places. It's not hard to guess which one had more students recycling.

I absolutely believe that if (here in North Idaho) citizens were provided with the means by which to recycle, they would. It's just not even supported, let alone promoted.

Metal is about the only substance recycled up here with a vigor. Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that much of the metal recycled is copper, and it's done for the purpose of buying illicit drugs by drug users. There are even policies in place where the money given for the metal is not provided for 30 days, and this is to reduce the number of drug users from stealing the metal for cash purposes. It's a huge problem here.

I found taking the time to sort the recycled trash from the general trash to be trivial. Much like all change, once you're in the habit, it is nothing to continue the practice.

Yes, if the governments provided all the necessary equipment, people would start to recycle and be more caring. However, we can't do it on our own. Even if we manage to eg gather all our metal cans, we have to go to the supermarket to recycle them there. It's not convenient. We don't have time to do that. Imagine how much money everyone would save by recycling, how helpful it'd be for the environment, and how greater everyone would feel about it! It's not hard to make people get used to a new situation. You just have to provide them everything they need to make the transition as easy as possible! I really get angry when I think that we can do something but we just stand there and watch our planet go from worse to worst!

I want to bring up another very important environmental issue: fires.

Last year, we had in Greece one fire in Athens, one in Parnetha (it is one of the forest areas we have) and a major fire in Peloponissos, where there was a major destruction of landscape, houses, etc.

The destruction was enormous and scientists fear that we may have flood problems, not to mention how many animals were killed and the fact that natural balance has been violated. On top of that, habitants of these areas are trying to get their life back since many of them lost their houses, animals, and some even lost their relatives. The worst part is that as it happens with every fire we have, there are assumptions that they were caused by people who have plans on building hotels, big apartments etc.

What do you think about fires in general? Don't we have to adopt several measures to protect the "green life" of our areas?

So what happened to this thread? alkisti, did your new question scare everyone off?

Adressing recycling real quick. My father lives in the United States Virgin Islands (USVI), and down there they do not have recycling. Everything...and I mean everything gets thrown away. I think this is a massive mistake. I mean, waste is a serious problem that is affecting us all. One of the biggest problems about waste is the attitude it provokes. People get used to having waste around and making excuses for it, so then when nuclear power plants and nuclear waste come into question they just throw it away...just like their used to. One of the biggest problems facing societies today si the waste epidemic. However, there is hope. I just recently read about a man in Ohio, USA...who turned a landfill into a golf course and the carts are powered off the methane gas the dump produces. He also collects the extra methane and turns it into energy giving back to the community. We need more of that to happen and the waste issue won't be an issue any longer.

Now then addressing fires.

Fires are a natural occurrance that are very important to the environment. Some plants only bloom after a forest fire occurs because the extreme heat causes the seed to grow. Fires provide room for new tress and plants to grow. It sort of...refreshes the environment. However, we do not need human-caused forest fires. This just burns down extra acreage and can endanger many lives (including endangered species). The west part of the USA deals with many problems concerning fires and the damage they cause. And the ones that tend to cause the most damage are human made. I think that clearly states that we need to control our fires when we go camping, etc. And let nature takes it's course.

~Nick~
hjp

Being a environmentalist, I've read many topics I wanted to address. But we're talking about fires now I see.

As Nick pointed out, fires are very important to the growth and rebirth of some forms of plant life. Farmers here will burn their fields to make dark, rich earth that is healthier for growing vegetables. This is why if you're driving on the highway between Barrie and Toronto, you'll see almost black dirt where the farms are.

However, fires can get out of control and spread, creating the massive damage the alkisti mentioned. Out in western Canada forest fires are quite common, and they seem to occur more than in the Eastern provinces. This article talks about a serious fire that happened in Alberta and Saskatchewan in 2002. Over 500 hectares of land was destroyed in this fire- that will take a lot of time to re-grow. Yes the land will be healthier, but what about all the people who have lost their homes, and the animals and other plants that wouldn't benefit from the fire? Personally, I think that forest fires cause more damage than good, but are still essential.

Last spring, there was a fairly large forest fire about 45 minutes away from my house, on the 144 highway. The highway was closed for days as the fire raged through and authorities tried to get it under control. The fire made its way and burnt part of a provincial park and the campers there had to be evacuated. I went through the damaged part of the forest after it was all over, and it had to be one of the saddest sights I had ever seen. The dead trees, turned into charcoal were still smoking and there was not one speck of green to be seen. I went back a couple months later and it was starting to look better, at least the plants were starting to grow again. But it will take many years before that area re-grows back to its old splendour.

I have a question concerning my statement about how more fires occur in the west, then the east. Is there an environmental factor that would play a part in where forest fires occur? I know that out west they have a lot more crops and have more farming so would that be a factor?

--x Lauren

Well, the mass amounts of farming that occurs in the midwest/west definitely dries out the environment, allowing it to be easier to start fires. However, the environmental factor that is involved with the drying of that area is the Rocky Mountain chain. I don't want to go too detailed but the air comes off of the sea and as it travels up the mountain sides, it drops most of the moisture on the mountains, so that the air on the other side of the mountain chain is very dry. This provides for a dry environment and thus, forest fires start easily.


-Nick
HJP

So there was this article in the city newspaper that I live near. It was addressing the concern that many biologists have, a concern about invasive species. It addressed lionfish and how they are a major threat to caribbean reefs. It is called as the 'biggest threat' to the reefs and needs to be dealt with now.

So what does the Dueling Club think should be done? Should it be left alone or dealt with? Should we introduce another species to decrease the population of lionfish or kill them off?


-Nick
HJP

Well, I'm not really into this kind of science, but I wonder: how did this fish end up next to the reefs? Did it get there on its own or was it a result of a scientific experiment?

Nature has a way of bringing balance back to places where it has been disrupted. So, it seems weird that some instinct would lead this species in a place where they constitute a danger to be dealt with. Maybe there is something wrong with the reefs themselves and this fish can fix the problem? I don't know. But if a lionfish ended up there on its own, there is probably a natural cause. In this case, scientists should leave it alone.

However, if someone else put it there (environmental organisations often interfere into nature), scientists need to have them removed.

I'm sure it is nothing serious and that everything will be explained if they take a better look at this phenomenon.

As with Alkisti, I am not up on invasive species. However, I am aware that we here in North Idaho have a major problem with an aquatic version: Eurasian Milfoil. This is a water plant that grows from the lake bed up towards the lake surface. This plant spreads out at the surface choking fish and all other waterplants in the area. It appears to spread from lake to lake by boaters not properly cleaning their hulls and engines.

I know the two largest lakes in Idaho (both located near me) have been treating this summer in attempts to eradicate the plant species before it takes over. Apparently, Eurasian Milfoil is hard to kill once it gets a hold established.

So, using my extremely limited experience on our local issue, it seems the infestation here is definitely created by man not nature. Human interaction definitely can interrupt the balance of nature, but what of nature itself? I saw a documentary last night concerning the Sealions living off the Alaskan shores. The documentary addresses their dwindling populations in reference to the lower quantities of Herring, and soaring quantities of Pollock.
Pollock was long thought to be overfished, so the government came in and stopped all Pollock fishing. Hence the soaring quantities now. Yet, the Herring population dropped affecting the Sealion population, as they consume Herring. The core debate was did man cause this shift in the fish population or did nature?

Man certainly has the ability to wreck havoc on the environment, I just wonder how much ability nature has of reversing our damage.

Hmm. I wouldn't consider myself an expert on invasive species, either, but it is still a very interesting topic. Too often an imbalance comes about because human beings really interfere. They add one fish to a pond, and the situation absolutely snowballs into a really terrible thing. I agree with alkisti. If the lionfish is there by natural occurance, I say we should let it stay there. If humans put a lionfish there, take it out quickly.

This is related, but not quite the same... Where I live, my city is building an artificial reef about a half-mile off the coast. I can see the big boats and all that out my window, and it really sets my teeth on edge. I really think that scientists and environmentalists should have learned their lesson by now: when you try to take preventative action, mother nature blows up in your face. They're building it because a species of fish is dying out from natural causes--not pollution or anything. They are simply fading away. Even though that's a shame, I think the situation will only get worse when we try to save them. My philosophy on the environment is to use what we need to live a fairly comfortable life, but to just step back a little. We can't save everything, and we aren't supposed to. Some species die.

I'm also going to bring back the fires thing really quickly. Last fall, there were huge, massive wildfires sweeping across southern California. The air was so bad that school in our district was shut down for the first time in over 50 years. The sky was literally yellow, and there was dust on everything. Here's the problem: wildfires are a natural and healthy occurance that make room for new plants. But, humans have been smothering the fires for so long that there are unnatural amounts of dry undergrowth. When a fire does strike, it strikes big. Just something to think about...

I hate fires, but I really hate when people cause them. I don't know if where you live it's usual, but here, as sometimes you prune trees and the Municipality doesn't take care for the branches, neighbours burn them. They don't do it in the middle of the city center, of course, but they choose the quiet places in the outskirts like my place to do it. Even, I have to admit, my own parents do it! It annoys me so much, but they don't listen to me. Because it's supossedly no other way to get rid of them. For example, leaves in fall. If it was my choice, I'd let them all scattered on the ground, because I love the ground covered in yellow, but my mom doesn't like it because, of course, it gets rotten. But it's not much, it's not that leaves smell bad or anything. And so, she sweep them in a heap, and burns them! Luckily they don't burn the rubbish, but there're people who do it. Another thing my parents did and I won't forgive them is this: opposite my house, there's a huge field which nobody knows who it belongs, and the Municipality nor anybody from them cares for it. And the field is usually a matting, I don't know how to say it ... full of dry bushes, dry grazing, wild little animals, and they are used to burn it in some places to keep it a bit clean. A while ago, came machines and sweept everything, but they left all the heaps of branches there. So, see what my charming parents did: they, and all the others neighbours, burnt it all along! It was such a long mound that it smoked for more than a week! For two weeks, I'd say. Oh God, I was really upset.

But what does the government do to prevent illegal burning, or wildfires? In my country, at least, not so much. Here, everybody flings thier rubbish out of the window of their cars, or if their rubbish bins are weak, and the dogs broke them and scatter the thrash, they don't mind to pick it, and even the dump catches fire! Of course it doesn't happen in all the country, but ... despite there're differences and changes, the respect for nature is zero.

There's as an example, the small towns like the one most of my relatives live. The Municipality compels people not to touch any of the trees planted in front of their houses, planted by the very Municipality. If they want to prune them, they have to call the dustmen to do it. There was also a organic processing plant, with earthworms, away from the city. Despite it's disgusting the smell, it's a good thing, because you're sure that trash is being recyclated. There're also separated bins, and so there're here in some neighbourhoods. But it's never enough.

And wild fires ... How to prevent them? I think moral sense is first, because many fires focus are cause by cigarrettes, for example. But then, when there's a dry period ... I have no idea of what you can do in those cases, is there any way the government can water them by helicopters? Here there was a huge fire not so far, months ago, and just when it was the "war" between goverment and farmers. It's probably it was a wild fire, but the government blamed the farmers, and if they did, it wouldn't be weird the goverment itself had caused it so as to have something to blame the farmers. If they did, what a sad thing.

I've been always interested in these sort of things. I love nature, and I'm worried by the way things are happening. I read posts ago about a letter, I think Sirren, was telling, that of a woman talking of life years after. It's horrible. I've watched certain movies at school: An Inconvenient Truth, and other I don't remember. I think Al Gore, if he's what he shows, is a conscious man, and I'm sad he couldn't reach the presidence. I also admire Bono, and all the celebrities who use their money to contributes with the ecology. I'm very interested in joining Greenpeace, but as long as I'm under age and don't own a credit card ... It's not a big fee, something to contribute, and if I had my own money, Id' pay gladly. But at least, I've signed in every project they sent me (even when you're not a member, they send you reports). So, I want to ask everybody interested, please visit their website and take part in any request to save your country. It could be a little thing, but the very least thing is worth for Earth.

I'm very, very worried about animals bad traits. Here there's a current campaign against it, and it's very good. I think it's been done in the US before. A girl holding a skinned fox (made by FX, of course). My contacts have often sent me a video about (mexicans? I think) thrashing some animals ... don't remember which one. I started watching it and my insides crawled. I didn't end watching it. It's so horrible ... thrashing a poor, defenceless creature, just for fun. Because, honestly, even if they wanted their furs, there're many other painless methods! Thrashing an animal is cruel, and must be hardly punished. I have nothing against eating meat; moreover, I couldn't live without eating meat, but I want painless slaughter methods. I hate everything related to animal's pain.

Well, now I relieved my feelings, again, please do the very least thing you can!

I, like Anna, believe that if a species is vanishing by natural causes, we should not try to protect it. Nature has its way, that's what biologists keep saying. For example, dinosaurs. I have heard that they vanished because the climate changed in order to be prepared for humans. If (hypothetically) someone had managed to save them and preserve their species, humans would have been born in a world where they were nothing more than a tasty meal. I realise why scientists and others make artificial lakes etc, but they should always keep in mind the consequences this might have in natural balance.

As for Desire's post, yes, leaving the leaves rotten is the best thing one can do. At least, my grandmother knows that and avoids using chemicals to help her plants grow. As I said before, nature has its way and has predicted everything. I guess her only mistake might be creating man.

As today is Earth Day, I thought it would be appropiate to post in here.



Now, I am a person who wants to help contribute to the environment so bad, but without the support of my family, I'm limited. I have to take papers and plastic bottles to school to recycle them in one of my classes. And my father recycles newspapers, but that's it! I don't understand why they won't listen to me when I've given them good and legitimate reasons. Basically, tonight I am going to be turning off the circuit box in my house at 9 for the World Power Outage. If they won't listen to me, I'll just make them. Our Mama Earth is the only place we've got, and some people don't seem to realize it, which makes me furious.


I agree with you both on this. Why are scientists trying to prolong the natural order of things, and by that I mean death. It befuddles me, and I give up on trying to figure it out.

Eisa pointed out to me this very interesting article. According to it, two homosexual penguins "adopted" a baby penguin that had been rejected by its mother. They are raising it now like real parents, their same sex not being a problem. The zoos have seen this happening before, male "gay" animals trying to breed or wanting to raise a baby of their kind, as if it is natural for them to act as parents despite their "abnormality".

What do you think about this story? Does it show something about the way nature works? Isn't it wise of nature making those animals take care of the babies someone else has rejected?

What do you think about this story? Does it show something about the way nature works? Isn't it wise of nature making those animals take care of the babies someone else has rejected?

First of all---awwwwwwwwww penguins.

Er, and about the questions... I think it does show something about the way nature works! And it makes me want to show the article to all the people who say that homosexuality is "unnatural." Penguins are natural. They are in nature. There are gay penguins.

It reminds me of this book: And Tango Makes Three It's about another pair of gay penguins who end up "adopting" a chick. The controversy was unbelievable. Honestly, what are you going to do? Split the partnership? That would be cruel!

I think that it is pretty wise of nature having the rejected babies taken care of by someone else. I think that principle would apply quite well to humans, too--just let gay couples take care of the abandoned babies if they want to. Then they get a real home, instead of living in a shelter or in foster care. You know? Sexuality shouldn't make a difference on whether or not you can be a parent.




From the story--and I agree. It was interfering with their behavior. I mean, what did the zoo think, they were only gay because there weren't any girls around? No. They're gay because they are. They want to be with other penguins that are the same gender. Like this guy said, also in the article:

I recently attended a conference about body and its functions, and I learnt something very interesting: scientists claim to have found a "gay" gene, a gene that makes people homosexual. If this is true, how can we talk about something unnatural? Genes are part of one's nature, and from what we know, homosexuality dates back to ancient times. I know that the environment plays a very important part on how one is raised and what they believe, but if nature has something to do with it, maybe we should just accept the fact.

This story is so cute! And it makes me feel kind of happy that this baby found some penguin parents to raise it. Otherwise it would have spent half of its life inside a laboratory.

It's weird how nature works. You know, a few scientists believe that all the answers can be found in nature's ways.