Yes that would be one scene, They had us patting down Christian for weapons. This version has it cut out, but the original version had it still in. Go figure.
Global Warming- stop getting so upset
-
Pollution cost a lot to a society, i think this is a very short vision to say trying to counter pollution is damaging the economy. At short term yes, but not at long term. Just in large cities where there is a lot of pollution, there is less oxygen in the air, people tend to be more anxious, more fragile. So it will really damage economy at long term to fight against air pollution (just an exemple)?
-
So just by chance earth is entering a “warm cycle” during the time that we are polluting it most? I don’t believe in coincidences.
Ha! If there is warm and cold cycles, there is a 50% chance of one happening, so how is something with that sort of odds have to coincide with the other?
-
“If extereme enviormentalism causes economic collapse, you are not really doing any good.”
Yeah, be sure to watch out for this, some extreme environmentalist (like my sister) will try to lead you into the path of ruin. One example is nuclear power. A lot of people want to ban nuclear power plants all because of what happened in Chernobyl (gross Soviet negligence; using carbon moderators) and 3 Mile Island (gross American corruption to cut corners in order to save cash). The truth is that a nuclear meltdowns can be averted (some say it is impossible to happen unless someone is purposely trying to cause one) given adequate safeguards. However, the main question for environmentalist is what is to replace them? And what cost? Every form of power has its drawbacks. Power plants produce toxic waste (which shouldn’t be too much of a problem – IF stored properly), oil power plants often pollute, dams destroy the surrounding ecosystem, wind turbines only works at maximum efficiency when it’s windy, and solar power only works at maximum efficiency when it’s sunny. Nuclear fusion (possible, though electromagnetic “force fields” are still in prototype testing and could also lead to critical breakdown)?
“Pollution cost a lot to a society, i think this is a very short vision to say trying to counter pollution is damaging the economy. At short term yes, but not at long term. Just in large cities where there is a lot of pollution, there is less oxygen in the air, people tend to be more anxious, more fragile. So it will really damage economy at long term to fight against air pollution (just an exemple)?”
This is also true. Los Angels alone spends billions of dollars in respiratory related problems due to smog and pollution. However, environmentalism sort of reminds me of A&A (how off topic of me!). In A&A, you have your short term and long-term investments. Short term is for what is to happen now, for example purchasing tanks to prepare for a next turn invasion. Long term is purchasing for the future, for example purchasing a bomber to conduct strategic bombings for the next 5 or so turns. Short term is the quick fix, the economic depression me and YB talked about. Long term is more of what Fin is saying. The question is, how can you find a healthy medium.
-
Fusion would be safe, as it needs the force fields to be maintained. You have to put in a different kind of energy than you get out (input: electromagnetic energy, output: heat)
It is safe in that sense. Still makes a lot of radioactive contamination thoughlazy Falk
-
@TG:
extreme environmentalist (like my sister) will try to lead you into the path of ruin.
How is your sister extreme? (specificly)
-
@F_alk:
Fusion would be safe, as it needs the force fields to be maintained. You have to put in a different kind of energy than you get out (input: electromagnetic energy, output: heat)
It is safe in that sense. Still makes a lot of radioactive contamination though lazy FalkTrue, I think Fusion power is the way to go as a future’s efficient, consistent power source. However, there are two problems that are key to its potential: cost (both in research and procurement) and reliability. On the plus side, Fusion has been demonstrated to be safe to even non-scientist and the cost can eventually become comparable to conventional (fossil fuel, fission). However, I’m unsure of what you mean by “radioactive contamination.” Certainly, fusion is not as harmful as fission. The wastes from a fusion power plant would not require isolation from the environment for a prolonged time span, there are no nuclear proliferation problems, and even the most unlikely accidents would be very limited in their effect (not requiring public evacuation).
How is your sister extreme? (specificly)
Why don’t ya ask her yourself? But for a hint, one eventual goal is world-wide Vegetarianism.
-
If the population continues growing, that will become an eventual reality. (32 pounds of grain are required for 1 pound of beef)
-
If the population continues growing, that will become an eventual reality. (32 pounds of grain are required for 1 pound of beef)
Yes, but how about all of those hilly areas where you cannot farm? Beef ahoy!
I’m starting a boycott of soda because they create co2 for our favorite tasty drinks…but CO2 isn’t exactly good for our O3 (ozone.)!
If the world population kept growing, we would have to stop eating meat, but in western nations birth rates are lowering, and so in countries where people aren’t starving currently, they won’t be starving in the future.
Plus, there is too many fat people!
-
Ban all cars that get less than 22 MPG city unless there is a huge environmental tax!
-
Some hybrids getr 100 mpg highway.
-
yes, the volkswagen Yupo or soemthing. amazing peace of technology.
we had this technology since 1971 though.
-
What can I saw, fuel consumption isn’t on the number one list of what drivers want when looking for a car (“coolness,” “performance,” and “affordability” being the biggies). In California where price gauging runs rampant (especially in the summer), I still see people driving around in big, fuel eating muscle cars and SUVs. I guess Low Emission and High Mileage vehicles, for now, aren’t cool, powerful, or affordable enough for people to give them more than a second glance.
-
I don’t think I could fit my family of 5 in a car designed for maximum fuel efficiency. They’re mostly small models designed for a driver and one passenger, really no back seats - hatchbacks…
-
@Field:
I don’t think I could fit my family of 5 in a car designed for maximum fuel efficiency. They’re mostly small models designed for a driver and one passenger, really no back seats - hatchbacks…
But, when you buy a new car: is fuel efficiency any important to decide which car you buy?
You don’t have to buy the most efficient car, but to buy the most efficient car that fits your real needs (which are not speed and coolness etc.)……Maybe the car producer then skip their production and advertising scheme from “has cool can holders” to “is as good as possible in fuel consumption”
-
“Coolness” matters. Just look at any car advertising commerical or magizine add. Hardly do they adverstise good fuel consumption (it think to date, I’ve only seen 1 commerical on a fuel efficient are - the Honda Civic H (?)). The rest of the commericals are just filled with catch phrases, taking corners at high speeds, off road driving with lots of mud, and other “if you buy this car, you’re bound to have fun” propaganda. The problem is that it works.
-
How does CO2 affect the O3? I could understand why CO does that, and why flour-carbon-hydrates (sp?) do that, but CO2? please explain.
-
F_alk - Your right, it is a consideration to buy the best fuel efficient car for your needs. I was demonstrating that it is not feasible for everyone to have cars designed for the maximum, since people with families couldn’t possibly buy them…
-
@F_alk:
How does CO2 affect the O3? I could understand why CO does that, and why flour-carbon-hydrates (sp?) do that, but CO2? please explain.
I’m no scientist! How does Carbon Monoxide even exist? It only has 6 shared valence electrons!
-
@F_alk:
How does CO2 affect the O3? I could understand why CO does that, and why flour-carbon-hydrates (sp?) do that, but CO2? please explain.
I’m no scientist! How does Carbon Monoxide even exist? It only has 6 shared valence electrons!
good question. i’ll try and take a look at that. I did know at one time, but alas, i’ve been slacking.
-
Where have you been educated?
Suggested Topics
