Comments on: B.A.D.: Learning Not to Worry

By: dcr

dcr — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:30:07 +0000

I wish I had saved (or maybe I did somewhere) a link I found a few weeks ago. There was an article (or maybe it was a book review) that detailed what would happen to the Earth if people suddenly vanished. (Rapture, alien abduction, neutron bomb–take your pick.) New York would be flooded in two days, because no one would be there to operate the pumps that keep the water out of the city. In ten years (I think), many of the tallest buildings would have collapsed, because the water-soaked ground would soften their support base and they’d tip over. It also discussed how quickly plants would grow up through the concrete and into buildings and homes. Also covered which animals would thrive and which would likely die out. It was really interesting.

Human civilization is fragile. We always seem to imagine that, if civilization were wiped out for whatever reason, thousands of years from now, people (or whatever sentient life might be around) would come across abandoned buildings and be in awe of them. But, our concrete and steel constructions are brittle in the face of Mother Nature. The earth is much more resilient than we are.

By: dcr

dcr — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:22:01 +0000

My initial idea was to do a post on the dark side of photosynthesis, that plants produce carbon dioxide at night. In young plants, the amount of carbon dioxide converted to oxygen during the day outweighs the amount of carbon dioxide they produce at night. But, in older plants (as in mature forests), the ratio isn’t so good. I didn’t have the time, though, to hunt down all my references and put that together. Maybe someday. On another blog. Because this blog isn’t about plants. Mainly.

Then, there is the dark side to solar cells, which require hazardous chemicals for their production and are also very inefficient. I have read that new solar cells are in the works that don’t require those hazardous chemicals to be made and that can convert the whole spectrum–or at least a wider spectrum–of light into electricity. But, it will probably be a few years yet before they hit the market. Assuming they work as promised. I haven’t heard anything about them in a while.

Then, there is the hype over fluorescent bulbs with some areas already banning incandescent bulbs. Few people mention that fluorescent bulbs contain mercury and are costly to dispose of. And, hopefully you don’t drop it on the floor! Funny thing is that led bulbs will probably replace both within a few years. They use less energy, can produce more light, last longer and don’t have mercury.

By: dcr

dcr — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:09:11 +0000

I took a tangent, as I am prone to do.

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:08:51 +0000

Amen and thank you very much. I’ve been preaching and harping on and about this issue for a long time. Jon

By: Mike Goad

Mike Goad — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:01:15 +0000

I wrote two - reluctantly.

We’ve always been environmentally conscious, but when environmentalist try to shutdown your livelihood (nuclear power) it’s hard to get enthused about environmental causes.

I, too, am a bit skeptical on global warming.

My big problem is trying to understand how a rise in CO2 can cause global warming when the CO2 rise is lagging behind temperatures.

Consensus of scientists does not mean it’s science. Besides, most of these scientists aren’t climatologists.

Global warming is based on faith. It’s a faith based movement and Al Gore is its prophet.

Climate change is occurring. Climate change is always occurring.

Many of the things that are being done in the name of global warming are probably things we should be doing anyway. Others, though, may not be — and mankind may get some unfortunate unintended consequences.

By: keeyit

keeyit — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:29:38 +0000

I thought today the blog action day should be environment ?
I wrote a post on environment !