September 18, 2007
· Filed under Tips, green living
“I live the same way. My answer will greatly depend on what kind of an area in which you live.
For starters, check out www.walkscore.com.
You can get books from the library.
Surf the web that you said you have.
Learn to sew and then make some of your own clothes. Start biking and walking more, it will save you money and consume time which will be spent getting exercise and looking the area around you.
Cook at home more, saves money and takes time.
Most movie theaters have cheap second run films.
You could start brewing your own beer.
Take part in the fine art of dumpster diving.
visit any public park, garden, community center, museum, or zoo.”
September 18, 2007
· Filed under Population, Society, Suburbs, green living
“There is no single demographic that is the sole basis of all of our environmental problems. In this environmentalists opinion, the rapidly expanding suburban demographic in the United States is a huge contributor to an increase in pollution and a less efficient use of dwindling natural resources.
In other countries, the specific demographic that causes the most damage might be different.”
September 18, 2007
· Filed under Activism, Global Warming, Media, Society
“Celebrities are going to exist. Whether we like it or not, the system in which we live glorifies the wealthy, and gives special attention to a small portion of the population. There are always going to be people with the money and ability to jet around the globe being photographed and making movies or putting on concerts.
At least some of these people have a cause that they are vocal about. And some of those with a cause have taken up the cause of global climate change. When Bono talks about AIDS, and raises money and awareness for the worlds poor, do people complain that he isn’t in a Lab? That he isn’t actively seeking the cure himself? If anyone faulted him for this, would anyone give them any real attention? Of course not.
People that are deterred from the environmental cause by celebrity involvement are already deterred, they just use their supposed disgust of celebrity hypocrisy as a guise for their own anti environmental tendencies.”
September 18, 2007
· Filed under Activism, Al Gore, Food, Global Warming, Media, PETA, Vegan
” As usual, I agree with PETA on the big general idea, but not on the specifics or methods.
Meat production is a huge contributor to global and local pollution, both in greenhouse gasses, as well as ground water contamination. The impact does differ depending on the type of meat, but all of them are problematic in some way. However, I haven’t seen one study that says that meat production is the #1 cause of global warming. It’s up there, but I believe industry and factories still top the list. But in order to make real impacts we do need to address all of the causes of global pollution, so meat needs to be looked at. The ignoring of meat production in the “inconvienent truth” is just as sign of the society in which we live.
As for their methods, what they are doing is just assesenine. They want to show that meat produces greenhouse gasses, so they go around producing unnecessary greenhouse gasses? Does that mean in order to show that the war is bad, anto war protesters should kill soldiers at peace rallys? Will PETA start slaughtering animals at demonstrations to show how cruel it is? Again, it just goes to show where their priorities lie. For them, global warming is just a tool to use to convince people not to eat meat.”
September 18, 2007
· Filed under Pollution, Recycling
“Recycling removes waste from the garbage dump, and often allows for a re purposing of finite natural resources. However, the infrastructure required for recycling (Trucks, recycling facilities) can produce alot of pollution in their own right. Aluminum is highly cost effective to recycle, both financially and environmentally. However, many studies say that the recycling of paper is actually worse for the environment, and isn’t cost effective.
Really, with recycling it all comes down to who you want to believe. The real solution is creating less waste in the first place, thus reducing the need for recycling at all.”
September 3, 2007
· Filed under Bags, green living
“A good quality “shopping tote” should last you much longer than a year, especially if you repair it in the off chance that it should break. You can also use other multi use bags than just the newly popular totes. Backpacks make good bags for small trips. By using reusable bags for shopping, you also have the option of buying used, making your own out of scrap fabric, or using organic cotton…all of which are better than constant consumption of either paper or plastic single use bags.
September 3, 2007
· Filed under Cars, Green Travel, Green tech, Pollution
“I’m well aware. But the difference is that with electric cars, you have the option of using alternative energy to power them. With a typical gas powered car, you do not. Also, the efficiency that can be created in a large power plant is much higher than in a thousand individual engines. Also, it is much easier to monitor and control air pollution when it is in a centralized location as opposed to a thousand scattered car engines. Also, in an urban setting, electrical generation can be done outside of populous areas, and electric cars produces no emissions at the site of use, lowering the health risks of emissions exposure.
In the short run, electric cars, powered by coal, are still better than ICE engines. In the long run, the Electric cars that currently are powered by coal can eventually be powered by other sources of energy as they rise in availability without any modification to the vehicle itself.
Coal is a massive environmental problem. But not using electric cars isn’t the answer to a transition away from coal.”
September 3, 2007
· Filed under Alternative energy, Green tech, Solar Power, Wind Power, green living
“That would be a very fun DIY project. Do a quick search for “the evil genius guide to solar power”. This book has alot of good projects.
As for pros and cons of each, the first pro is that neither produces pollution as a direct result of power generation. Granted, there are the environmental costs of producing the units, but as the impact can be centralized, it can be monitored and controlled.
Cost wise, the wind power units are much more cost effective, producing power at a fraction of the cost of the solar units. However, the wind does not always blow. Solar costs more, but in many areas you have a more regular supply of sunlight than you do of wind.
The most effective technology for you will most definitely depend on your area in the world.
But both wind turbines and solar panels can be made on a small scale as a fun project. You could even use your project to charge small electronics like an ipod.”
