We Need the Tropical Rain Forest if we want oxygen and we dont pay brazil for it. What we want is oil and we dont need it and we do pay for it



so we pay for stuff we want and dont pay for stuff we need to breath u know

That is an absurd comparison. The world would just about shut down for everyone except the 3rd world countries without oil. Sure it wouldn't be as bad as having no Oxygen, but the 2 things are not comparable.

Did you know that majority of the oxygen is produced by by algae in water, not trees? Read up before going around chanting meaningless stuff.

There ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_cycle

Now go and do something useful like telling people about the greenhouse effect and stop this "running out of oxygen" rubbish.

I have to agree though. We have to stop using oil. It is killing the environment, sure, but the main reason is that at the rate we use it, we only have about 45 years left before we run out totally.

So most of the world is going to shut down in 45 years, because everyone knows that humanity as a whole never REALLY SERIOUSLY tries to fix something until something really bad happens.

Look at any human history. It's everywhere.

Yes, it is completely inevitable and goes like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

That's why we need to transition to biofuels. http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Maybe this article is a little far out, but hey, it's still better than hydrogen IMO.

Better than hydrogen?!? Hydrogen powered cars (not fuel cells) have 0 emissions. Only pure water comes out the exhaust.

And if we did use biofuels, not only would we still be polluting, but the amount of bio-oil that we would need would mean that a vast amount of farming space worldwide that would normally be used for growing food, would be growing biofuel instead. So then we'd have a solution to the lack of oil, but the world would starve before we really got to use that solution.

Whereas with hydrogen, it is A) the most plentiful substance in the universe, B) lets out 0 emissions, and C) would pretty much last us forever, since it can also be fused into helium in fusion power plants (scientists are trying to get them to actually work).

Heh.. Hydrogen is not that easy. It may be the most plentiful in the universe, but we are not actually going to space to fetch it, are we?

We get hydrogen from water. Also, when hydrogen "burns", it turns to water.
According to laws of nature, we therefore have to put in more energy to produce hydrogen than we will ever get from burning it.

So where do we get the energy to produce hydrogen?
Fossil fuels mostly..

And the cycle continues...

And the cycle continues...
Seems we just keep using things with no regard to the outcome.

So where do we get the energy to produce hydrogen?

Windmills, the sun.

Why not just produce biofuels? According to the link I posted before, they shouldn't take away much, if any, farmland.

they shouldn't take away much, if any, farmland.

Of course it would. If you are a farmer, and you have a choice of growing potatoes,to sell for consumption, and get paid $10,000, or to grow corn, to sell to make fuel, and make $50,000, which one are you going to choose?

I personally think hydrogen and solar energy is the way to go. Another interesting thing is antimatter. It was something like 1/1000 of a gram of antimatter could power a car for its lifetime. Unfortunately it currently costs billions to produce.

I don't think the sun is going to "run out" anytime soon, unlike other sources of energy; That is why it would be great to figure out how to use it efficiently.

Solar energy is good, I agree, but the equipment is fairly expensive. Then again, however, I guess it would cost pretty much to establish a system described here (http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html).

Try reading that link. It may be a little far out, but it kind of makes sense.

Another interesting thing is antimatter. It was something like 1/1000 of a gram of antimatter could power a car for its lifetime. Unfortunately it currently costs billions to produce.
Not only that, anti-matter is very difficult (and costly) to isolate completely from matter, since any contact with matter produces a very violent elimination reaction of sorts. The reaction of a kilogram of antimatter with the same amount of matter produces energy equal to burning about 5 and a half billion liters of gasoline.

The United States military is looking into because of that feature. It could potentially be an alternative to nuclear weapons (not sure if that is good or bad)

Nasa has also done a lot of research on the potential of using it as a fuel for a spaceship, that could take us to the "unreachable" parts of are universe.

As you said, it is very hard to isolate, and very hard to turn into energy..well in apportioned amounts at least.

Yet again.. Unless we find a huge chunk of antimatter somewhere (unlikely), we would have to produce it from "normal" matter. And, according to laws of nature, we would have to put in more energy than we would ever gain from antimatter.

Both antimatter and hydrogen are realy good to reduce pollution and make a great power source for moving things, but they are not a solution to the energy problem.

The only real solutions are "green" power sources (wind, sun, waves, bio* etc), traditional nuclear power, fusion power.

Unless we find a huge chunk of antimatter somewhere (unlikely)

Yeh, it's called the universe, it think that is a pretty large chunk.

Yeh, it's called the universe, it think that is a pretty large chunk.
Hydrogen is not that easy. It may be the most plentiful in the universe, but we are not actually going to space to fetch it, are we?
Same thing applies here. Plus how are you going to capture it, or even find it?
Solar, Wind, Hydro are the only really clean ways. If we have to go hydrogen, then the only logical source of energy for mass production is nuclear, we are still a long ways away from having solar panels being good enough for serious consideration. Wind requires special locations and vast fields, hydro is also pretty limited. Wind will piss off PETA because it kills birds, and hydro will piss off lots of people because you either have to flood areas, or make unsightly coastlines and also destroy some wildlife habitats.

Yeh, thats great in all, but considering that global warming itself does all those things,1000 times over..i don't think anyone would have any right to be pissed off if it is all in an effort to stop global warming.

Wind may piss PETA off, but co2 emissions, which are linked to rising temperatures, that are changing the migratory cycle of those birds, therefor killing them and the fact that b/c of global warming "up to 30% of the species are at risk of extinction", will piss PETA off more then some windmills pushing around the air.

hydro will piss off lots of people because you either have to flood areas, or make unsightly coastlines and also destroy some wildlife habitats.

Where did you get this from? Why would you have to "flood" areas to make hydrogen fuel?

Even if that is the case...which would you prefer..flooding areas, in an effort to slow down global warming..or just not doing anything, and have those areas flood anyway b/c of rising sea levels. Or, deal with "Unsightly" coastlines, in an effort to stop global warming, and help save thousands of species from extinction, or do nothing?

Hydroelectricity, not hydrogen..

Ok...What does that Establish??

You have to dam up rivers to get power from rivers. Damming rivers floods land. I don't need a textbook or a source to tell you that.

Seems we just keep using things with no regard to the outcome.

Not all of us are able to afford new hydro-electric cars, or install solar panels on our home remember. It's not that we don't care about the environment.....I mean, I will be in the suffering generation (I'm 16 right now), and I don't want to be, although I can't help an extrodinary amount with my schooling and upcoming job opportunities so you really can't say things like that with such generalism.

That's true cfit, we will run out of alot of resources but not in the next 10-20 years but more likely a few hundred ( Except for Oil, that might run out sooner )

Plus we dont need oil, we could always use bikes like they do in the rest of the world...

I don't need a textbook or a source to tell you that.

Didn't ask you..just simply got confused on what you mean. This whole thread consisted of people talking about hydrogen fuel..and then you say "hydro", not saying that is bad, just saying i got confused.

Either way..as i said.......alreadyy

Even if that is the case...which would you prefer..flooding areas, in an effort to slow down global warming..or just not doing anything, and have those areas flood anyway b/c of rising sea levels. Or, deal with "Unsightly" coastlines, in an effort to stop global warming, and help save thousands of species from extinction, or do nothing?

I say we close this thread before it goes out of control :( .

There is no reason to close this thread

i hope we run out of oil very soon, so we can start to use something better and cleaner. Like Hydrogen. Also if every car uses it they will find cheaper ways to make it.

Maybe you should think about that statement. What would all the machinery in the factories run on as a lubricant.....water? Besides I read somewhere that they (scientist) estimates that there is enough oil reserves in the US, Gulf of Mexico and in Canada to supply us for the next 200 years. And I have probably not thought enough about the following statement either but here goes. I think we should pull our troops out or Iraq and stop buying oil from them. Let them kill each other, and us leave them be! At first I supported the war but as time goes on, it seems like it will never end.


just my .02

Although i completely agree i think we should refrain from turning this political..b/c thats when it turns ugly.

That's why I said we should close this. As for what halo71 said....you obviously haven't done your homework with Iraq....only a small portion of the country's populous are insurgents. Otherwise, they are regular human beings.

If we closed every thread that turned political we would be closing a lot of threads. Lets get back on onto the initial topic instead of turning this towards the war

Nah renewable energy sources are not for everyone. I mean, would you care to use an electric car that cost you $100 a month to refuel (or charge or whatever), when you could have a gasoline-powered one that cost $50 for the same thing in comparison? I mean, not everyone's got the cash to be environmentally friendly, even if they want to be.
Look at Greenpeace, they keep crying about the most absurd things. Like GM food for example. They raised such a hue and cry about it, slyly concealing one (among many others) fact that GM food helps farmers grow better crops with lesser pesticides used on them, which reduces the need to grow so-called "organic crops". If all that funding were to go into research for new fuel sources wouldn't it be utilized better?

While we're on the "Save the world" topic here, I though I'd share something I watch recently that blew my mind!

There is a fish farmer in the States somewhere breeding fish at an alarming rate. He believes he could feed the world on his fish! They breed at such a rapid rate that he could wipe out world hunger.
Problem is though that no one will sponsor him ... Government or private. So his plans have hit a wall.

I think he's a Saint! Anyhoo ...

What we need: Morals
What we want: Justice
What we pay for: Everything! Even the wicked in prisons! Crazy ... how much is a bullet??

Prison is a joke. Someone who sells drugs gets more time in prison then someone who killed someone. Half the problem is that we are incarcerating people for marijuana related "crimes". Don't think there is such thing. Gawd..I'm horrible with staying on topic..

If you really think we should kill everyone in prison, then i would love to see if you were still saying that when you are in that position.

If you really think we should kill everyone in prison, then i would love to see if you were still saying that when you are in that position.

Not that I am Mr Perfect by any means, but prison is somewhere I wouldn't let myself end up. My parents raised me to respect others. If all parents did their job by raising children with morals, compassion and a general goodwilled nature, we wouldn't pay as much tax to keep criminals comfortable ... there would be less people incarcerated in theory. Parents and (these days) T.V is the biggest influence over any child.

To those who seek to destroy society by being generally wicked or sinful deserve not to be among us, and the rest of society shouldn't be burdened with footing the bill! Would you committ a crime knowing that you may die for it? I wouldn't!

Oh, and I think drug dealers are inadvertently responsible for crimes committed by drug users.

But the crimes committed by drug users aren't punished as greatly as the drug dealers them selves. My father was killed by someone on soma's (tranquilizers)..the guy got 15 years...Now, my uncle is in prison for dealing cocaine in florida, he got 35 without parole.

then i would love to see if you were still saying that when you are in that position.

I' m sorry, what i was trying to imply by that, was, what if you where innocent??

I heard of a case, where a man stole video tapes from walmart, 3 christmas in a row, to have something under the christmas tree for his family. Well, under California's 3 strikes and your out, he was put in jail for life. Yeah, the man was stupid too steal in the first place..but life in prison?? I' m sorry, but i think there is something wrong here. Oh yeh..did i mention he was black?

Maybe we should just give them negative karma points?

EDIT: With regards to the first post, there is no need to worry about plant life. If anything the worlds plant life will thrive due to the increased levels of CO2.

I think there are much bigger greater things than global warming. Such as morality, justice etc. Like in the above post by twite. Is that fair? No.

Not all of us are able to afford new hydro-electric cars, or install solar panels on our home remember. It's not that we don't care about the environment.....I mean, I will be in the suffering generation (I'm 16 right now), and I don't want to be, although I can't help an extrodinary amount with my schooling and upcoming job opportunities so you really can't say things like that with such generalism.

This is a major issue that keeps us from going "green". Most people won't pay the extra money for any given item just because it is better for the environment. They will calculate the savings from use-cost to see if it will pay for the extra item-cost which is always like years and years and never do it. (all though I think anyone with a hummer or navigator can afford 2 hybrid civics)

The sad thing is that when we continue to shop this way they will continue to make them that way. Does anyone think that if all of us refused to buy inefficient products that they would just disappear? I think they would start producing eco-friendly anythings at an alarming rate!

But I also think this, we have all done this too, but if there is something(reasonable) that you really want you find a way to get it. You really can't come up with the extra 200.00$ to get the eco washing machine instead? Even waiting a couple more weeks or whatever?

You will know when you ask yourself, because you are the only person that you can't hide true feelings of guilt from. Live with your decisions and don't blame the rest of the world on how you justify doing the wrong thing.

Come on IBN, you've complained (in a roundabout way) in at least 2 threads now in Meeting Spot about Karma. There is a thread in Site Comments all about it post there. Everyone already knows you are against it, ignore it or PM Julio, but don't keep littering threads about it.

Now with that out of the way - The fish thing even if it were true, it comes at a price, there would be incredible water pollution from live fish waste, and you have to feed the fish, they don't just grow by drinking water. All of that food then has to come from animal byproducts and/or crops, the efficiency rate of converting fish food into fish mass for people to eat is pretty low, might as well feed the humans the crops and animal byproducts.

As for the drug dealers, I imagine they get punished pretty hard with the thought that if you remove the dealer you may remove some users. The problem with drug users is once you become addicted to meth, heroin, coke you run a high risk of becoming a screwup in society - losing your job may be a start, which then you aren't paying taxes, and have no legitimate source of income. Then how do you pay for the drugs, crime. It may be false logic to think removing the dealer eliminates the users, but thats how the lawmakers see it. There is also a lot of law breaking going on to get the drugs to the dealer.

As for the fish.. What would you feed to the fish? Used tires?

Meat is very inefficient in the sense that you need a lot more of food to feed that critter than you would ever get from eating the thing later on. Animals are not a way to save the world from hunger.

Yes, meat is good if you want to convert grass to something that humans can eat, but then you might as well grow rice and soy in place of that grassland. Any energy conversion step will waste a whole lot of it and you get much more out of sun->plant->food than sun->plant->animal->food.

If the richest nations donated 1% of their income there would be more than enough (in fact there would be a surplus) to provide food, water, medicine and education for all the third world countries.

The fact is that they simply dont want to do it.

Would natural resources deplete so rapidly if the human population wasn't so large? There is your source for all of the problems... why does everything have to expand and grow so much?

I agree Nodsu; rice would be the way to go.

But you really should check out that doco I saw ... genetically bred fish that grow at an alarming rate and it wasn't really costing him much in feeding them and whatnot.

Good on him for trying! He's on the right track :)

If the richest nations donated 1% of their income there would be more than enough (in fact there would be a surplus) to provide food, water, medicine and education for all the third world countries.

The fact is that they simply dont want to do it.



are u sure about this fact it sounds very made up. a fact like should be posted with proof.

I could say that rich countries already donate 2% if or something. Of course i dont know how much they donate.


I do know the America gives billions of dollars to poorer countires.

Also If u want to donate some of the money u have to a poor country then feel free to do so. It is good to lead by example i think


Also if u do want to donate money to a charity then check out the percent the charity gives at http://www.bbb.org
They should give at least 80% to there cause

ok look antimatter is the same mass as the mater used to create it and as of now we can create a very very very tiny amount of antimatter for more info look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

Read it in detail?

Generating a single antiproton is immensely difficult and requires particle accelerators and vast amounts of energy—millions of times more than is released after it is annihilated with ordinary matter, due to inefficiencies in the process.

are u sure about this fact it sounds very made up. a fact like should be posted with proof.

I could say that rich countries already donate 2% if or something. Of course i dont know how much they donate.


I do know the America gives billions of dollars to poorer countires.


Its not made up at all. These inferences are derived from the UN Development Reports. Plus the main reason hindering the development of the Third World is debt. So it has to be donations not loans.