BLU
Active topics
  1. Of course we have an influence. You do know many processes in the industry generate 20% product, 80% waste and pollution? That cant be without consequences.

    Even when the consequences are small now. (Which very well be the case) => We have to do without oil in 100 years (very optimistic guess). You cant waste 99 of them ignoring the fact that we dont have good substitutes. And it may be expensive to find alternatives in the short term but in the end efficiency is up and pollution is down.

    Unfortunately everyone sees dollar euro signs and nobody wants to start spending money on the future.



  2. Indeed that's optimistic: we don't have that long if we don't do nothing at all. Now is the time to make a change or our children will have a huge problem.

  3. Originally posted by Ali709:[..]

    I don't think it's funny. What makes you think we don't affect the globe? I see a big chance for that, and I see everyday how we've affected this planet.


    Yeah, we affected it by poluting water, air and even ground, by cutting woods...

    The global warming issue is, IMO, natural process. There were few ice ages in history, it's just natural. You know, there was time when there was no ice on Antarctic. And that will happen again in future.

    Many scientists will tell you the same thing but they have no place in mainstream media becuse that wouldn't be of interest to groups that have power and money.

    You produce the problem and then you produce the solution but you tell the people that you need money for it. It's just a huge game to keep money coming.

  4. Originally posted by Rob1965:[..]

    Indeed that's optimistic: we don't have that long if we don't do nothing at all. Now is the time to make a change or our children will have a huge problem.




    That's another thing we caused. Did you know, for example, that Marcedes Benz had prototype by 1960 that was spending 1.5 litre per 100 km?

    But there was no interest to put such car on the market because then oil industry wouldn't make huge money that is making today.

  5. Originally posted by Yogi:[..]

    That's another thing we caused. Did you know, for example, that Marcedes Benz had prototype by 1960 that was spending 1.5 litre per 100 km?

    But there was no interest to put such car on the market because then oil industry wouldn't make huge money that is making today.




    Those prototypes were not a full weight car afaik. But you are right, if we had the will we've had more progress developing more efficient engines.
  6. Originally posted by Yogi:[..]
    The global warming issue is, IMO, natural process. There were few ice ages in history, it's just natural. You know, there was time when there was no ice on Antarctic. And that will happen again in future.

    Many scientists will tell you the same thing but they have no place in mainstream media becuse that wouldn't be of interest to groups that have power and money.

    You produce the problem and then you produce the solution but you tell the people that you need money for it. It's just a huge game to keep money coming.




    Completely agree. If we look at the periods of ice ages, another one should begin soon. There are some scientists who do their own researches but their findings don't fit the mainstream. The recent incident at the University of East Anglia in Norwich (btw, hi Harry) showed that the scientists whose researches are the basics of the global warming theory didn't do their work honestly and changed the data so it would look like the Earth is getting warmer. Now try to change my mind about the issue...
  7. Originally posted by yuri31:[..]

    Completely agree. If we look at the periods of ice ages, another one should begin soon. There are some scientists who do their own researches but their findings don't fit the mainstream. The recent incident at the University of East Anglia in Norwich (btw, hi Harry) showed that the scientists whose researches are the basics of the global warming theory didn't do their work honestly and changed the data so it would look like the Earth is getting warmer. Now try to change my mind about the issue...


    I dont worry about changing your mind We need much more than 1.

    Even if you are right, we still need to invest in new technologies. Fuel isnt gonna be with us in a few decades.
  8. Originally posted by Risto:[..]

    I dont worry about changing your mind We need much more than 1.

    Even if you are right, we still need to invest in new technologies. Fuel isnt gonna be with us in a few decades.


    Fighting the so-called "global warming" is something different than looking for alternative sources of energy. Speaking of which, I think that the nuclear power is the best solution. And we definitely need to use biomass more.
  9. Originally posted by yuri31:[..]

    Fighting the so-called "global warming" is something different than looking for alternative sources of energy. Speaking of which, I think that the nuclear power is the best solution. And we definitely need to use biomass more.


    Nuclear is an option, but how do we get that driving cars The technology exists, but its not optimised yet. We need to start soon.

    And I think we should fight against pollution, global warming is not the only reason. Smog, acid rain, etc. And yes CO2 is part of those, no scientist will deny that Global warming is a though one, because previous climate changes are not documented. And saying we are 0% responsible is just as stupid as saying a 100%. Fact is that we cant continue either way. Water will rise, cities will be flooded. When nobody knows...

    I rather have action with high efficiency technology as result, even if we find out afterwards it was not necessary. Because one day it will and those not prepared will have to fight to survive. Literally speaking when oil is becoming rare.
  10. Originally posted by Risto:[..]

    Nuclear is an option, but how do we get that driving cars The technology exists, but its not optimised yet. We need to start soon.

    And I think we should fight against pollution, global warming is not the only reason. Smog, acid rain, etc. And yes CO2 is part of those, no scientist will deny that Global warming is a though one, because previous climate changes are not documented. And saying we are 0% responsible is just as stupid as saying a 100%. Fact is that we cant continue either way. Water will rise, cities will be flooded. When nobody knows...

    I rather have action with high efficiency technology as result, even if we find out afterwards it was not necessary. Because one day it will and those not prepared will have to fight to survive. Literally speaking when oil is becoming rare.


    I meant nuclear power plants as a source of energy in general (i.e. mostly electricity). Fossil fuels need to be replaced by alternative ones. We produce lots of biomass but don't use it.

    I am completely for fighting pollution. I reckon smog and acid rains have more to do with sulfur and nitrogen oxides, though.

    When talking about sea levels- throughout the recent years they have rised and fallen within 30cm on the island sates like Maledives or Tuvalu, which is perfectly normal. That info comes from honest scientists' works.

    Having good technology is always fine.
  11. Sulfer, NO2 are indeed the cause of acid rain. But those including CO2 are in the exhaust of many many industrial plants.

    And for electric cars to work we need to use them! Science is partly trial and error, we can try to improve them for another 50 years in a lab. But you can do as much in 5 if we start using them.

    Also waterlevels are rising, for other countries more drastic than others. I live around 5 meters below the sea surface. A slightly higher waterlevel and waterdefense failure will cost a lot of lives here. Luckily we can afford our watermanagement systems, but countries like Bangladesh have much more trouble.

    Also we just dont have the knowledge to predict what the climate does, we just have to our bit. Especially because we know where to look (for example: electric/hydrogen car) and we have the resources. We are just lazy at the moment.


  12. It temporarily affected mother earth. Long time for human lifes, just a small ammount of time for the earth
    Originally posted by Rob1965:[..]

    So, that's your answer? That's the easiest way to say: "Let's do nothing because it won't help anyway", right? This way, our planet is most definitely going down the drain.




    Thats not what I said, I'm just saying its all a natural process and we can really just affect a very very very small, almost unnoticable, part of it.
    Originally posted by Ali709:[..]

    I don't think it's funny. What makes you think we don't affect the globe? I see a big chance for that, and I see everyday how we've affected this planet.


    What makes me think that? A way higher rate of CO2 in the air millions of years before mankind came on earth
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.