Originally Posted By jonvn Sheryl Crowe is a dolt. So what? This somehow makes all the rest of it wrong?
Originally Posted By DAR No I'm just pointing out that we're going to be getting these ideas to save the planet and most are going to be absolutely crazy.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Plenty are going to be sane, doable, even easy. The compact flourescent bulbs, for example. They save a lot of energy (and therefore, money on your electric bill!) and in most situations they're an acceptable substitute for incandescent. But here's a good example of us (who think of ourselves as pretty "green") knowing about these things at least 2-3 years ago, and not getting any until fairly recently. We knew we should but we didn't - just plain laziness, and/or being used to buying incandescent all our lives. So sometimes it takes a steady drumbeat of "here are some simple things you can do" to goose people into doing them.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I'm just pointing out that we're going to be getting these ideas to save the planet and most are going to be absolutely crazy." Actually, most, presented by people who have more upstairs than Sheryl Crowe, are probably going to be completely reasonable. There is no reason to not pollute less, and to use less energy.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Plenty are going to be sane, doable, even easy.<< Exactly. And profitable for companies that create these new, energy efficient alternatives. (I didn't hear the Sheryl Crow quote directly, so I may be wrong here, but I "think" that toilet paper was really intended as a joke, no?)
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They save a lot of energy (and therefore, money on your electric bill!) and in most situations they're an acceptable substitute for incandescent.> Of course, they contain mercury, and so can't just be tossed in the trash when they go out.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, that's just horrible. You have to dispose of it properly. Even if it is true... You're not supposed to throw batteries in the trash, either. Perhaps we should stop using them.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <They save a lot of energy (and therefore, money on your electric bill!) and in most situations they're an acceptable substitute for incandescent.> <Of course, they contain mercury, and so can't just be tossed in the trash when they go out.> We have a place that collects them (and batteries) fairly close to us, so it's not a problem. I suspect, like recycling centers for other things, they will become more common as more people start using them.
Originally Posted By jonvn We do too. And also for old computer equipment as well, which you are also not supposed to throw away. And paint. Not supposed to throw that away, either. All sorts of things you aren't really supposed to just throw away, actually.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It's nice that you two have such facilities near by, but not everyone does. Thus not everyone can easily switch to florescents.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>The bulk of the weapons systems out there are still based on legacy computing platforms.<< That's what worries me. "Legacy" is often another way of saying "we lost the source code." You think I'm kidding?
Originally Posted By jonvn WEll, legacy hardware in government means that they haven't gotten around to upgrading yet. I was once at JPL, and I could not believe the equipment they were using. Archaic. And I guess for those people who don't have facilities for disposing of things properly, that they don't use batteries, either. Or paint.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << Of course, they contain mercury, and so can't just be tossed in the trash when they go out. >> This has been debunked. There is much greater amount of mercury emitted into the atmosphere from coal fired power plants than the trace amounts of mercury found in a compact fluorescent bulb. In the final analysis, compact fluorescent reduce greenhouse and mercury emissions in the environment.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <This has been debunked.> That would be nice, if true. But I just put "fluorescent bulbs, disposal" into the Yahoo search engine and every link I clicked on said you have to take them to a special disposal site.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It's nice that you two have such facilities near by, but not everyone does. Thus not everyone can easily switch to florescents.> Perhaps you should lobby your community or county to get one. That's usually how things break through inertia and get done. Something tells me you won't.
Originally Posted By jonvn Turns out that many scientists have actually been incorrect about global warming. The ice caps are melting about three times faster than they thought they would: <a href="http://www.kansascity.com/439/story/89416.html" target="_blank">http://www.kansascity.com/439/ story/89416.html</a> But what do they know. They're only out there actually measuring this stuff. One major reason they think the models were too conservative: "The computer models indicated that increased greenhouse gases and natural climate variations were about equally responsible for ice loss between 1979 and 2006, the researchers said. They said their own study indicates greenhouse gases may have a "significantly greater" role than the models suggested." SO great. In a way, this is actually good news. Because if we can fix the CO2 content we are pumping out then maybe we can do something about this problem.
