How we can help pollution

[sciencesimon]

In my opinion we can help pollution in homes and facilities organizations from regulation by a governing body restricting the supply of oil.

 

A national/regional broadcast system, Television and radio and internet that is making decisions about restrictions from weather patterns. If the weather is hot , oil should be restricted to preserve any potential waste. If weather is cold oil should be unrestricted.

Incentives for homes , facilities and organizations to exchange appliances or get new appliances could be helpful.

 

It would be a positive idea until Eco living is predominant.

 

What do you think about that idea?

[vordhosbn]

And when it's very hot, will there be enough oil for supply trucks, power plants, heavy industries, etc...

 

Also what you are suggesting is against the principles of free market, and more towards something resembling a totalitarian regime.

[sciencesimon]

Ways to save the planet, not politics or money but fresh air ? Politics and laws need to be amended for the good of the earth which can destroy us. i am not implying a totalitarian political regime, i make no mention of politics. We all have a legal right to purchase oil, people can buy all they like, but legal restriction can be structured to save the planet some breathing space, if its hot , heating does not need to be turned on, i am sure their are many people who do so in hot weather. Homes would be the easiest long term solution. Restricting consumption at the home, not on capital hill. The planet have got so technologically diverse and personal and scaled to a fine art, that not a lot of people can see the larger detail. it's being painted for us by nature. do people have to understand , no.

[shyvera]

Mind you, not everyone uses oil to heat their home (which is what you seem to be implying). In the UK, for example, many (if not most) homes use gas-based central heating.

[D H]

Ways to save the planet, not politics or money but fresh air ? Politics and laws need to be amended for the good of the earth which can destroy us. i am not implying a totalitarian political regime, i make no mention of politics.

Sure you did. You asked for "governing body restricting the supply of oil."

 

Why the bleep do some people insist on poking their noses in other people's bedrooms? Some want to peep at our sex lives, you want to peep at our thermostat settings. Get out of our bedrooms, the whole lot of you!

[PaulS1950]

Why involve the government? Why not just make the changes in your lifestyle as an individual? If you get the Feds involved it will cost money for the studies, the legislation and the new departments with all the new employees to manage and enforce the paperwork and laws.

[John Cuthber]

The government already restricts the supply of oil.

The mechanism is called tax.

[pioneer]

If you look at oil and coal, the theory goes that these were produced by the remains of living organisms over long periods of time. What that means is all the basic components of oil and coal were formerly part of the earth, including all the CO2 that results when we burn these things.

 

When oil burns, we are returning the CO2 back to the earth where it originally came; natural part of the earth. That period of earth history, when all these materials were not yet oil and coal, was not a time of earth destruction. It was a time of earth fertility, producing abundant life that would alter these simple materials into those junkyards of dead life we call oil and coal deposits. Therefore putting this material back to its original state, before life created these dumps and boneyards, would not destroy the world, but simply restore the world to an earlier pristine time when there no such landfills and dumps.

 

The bottom line is fear of change, using the assumption now is the perfect time of the earth. Through rhetoric, reality is distorted to create those misleading messages of world destruction. But as history shows, when all this material was spread over the earth, in simple forms, the earth was not destroyed. The earth was fertile with a potential for change. The earth was pristine with no junk yards of oil and coal.

[CharonY]

Ah yes, the good ole it is natural hence it must be good theory. Yes the original atmosphere was pristine and wonderful. Well, no oxygen, but hey, who needs that? Also CO2 is good because it makes plants grow. If you'll excuse me, I am going to take a bath in lava.

[Double K]

In my opinion we can help pollution in homes and facilities organizations from regulation by a governing body restricting the supply of oil.

It would be a positive idea until Eco living is predominant.

 

Actually this is already being done but not through restricting oil.

 

There is now a "Greenstar Rating" for new construction/developments.

You gain more green points for many things, including lower carbon footprints, utilising solar etc, and making the design "intelligent" by utilising natural heating & cooling to reduce as much as possible the need for extra heating/cooling. Some new developers will demand a green star rating of a minimum (3 stars for example) most new developers are going along this line as most councils have made it harder to get DA (design approval) for buildings that have no green star rating at all. Other benefits and incentives are also offered to encourage greenstar design buildings as well throughout the construction processes.

 

If this interests you you can view the criteria etc here

http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/green-star-overview/

[Anna1]

Stop going by car or motorbike, just walk

[Double K]

Stop going by car or motorbike, just walk

 

Why go "in" to work at all?

We live in an age of technology, I could certainly, very easily, perform my job from home (with the software provided).

If I could do this, even 2 or 3 days a week, I could save on petrol and all the rest of it, but bosses are still stuck in the old way of thinking. This wont change until the next generation takes their place as the bosses.

[PaulS1950]

There will always be thos jobs where one must be present in order to facilitate the company's income and your own. Service and maintenance industries are just two big examples. While sales and management positions are becoming less participayory It is still an industry of relationships. It is difficult to build those relationship via telecommuting.

The most effective way to eliminate the use of fossil fuels is to take advantage of the natural systems. Sunlight, wind, planys and bacteria can replace fossil fuels

 

In answer to pioneer's statement:

The organisms responsible for our fossil fuels were living - their carbon was bound in their physical bodies and remained their for millions of years. We are releasing the carbon faster than the aymosphere can recover. In addition to that we have fewer plants to recombine that carbon into biomass than ever before. The imbalance that is being created will not kill the earth but it might destroy our ability to live on the earth.

[OrganoEnergy]

This is obviously just an opinion but if I had to say how we can help pollution. We have to look at ourselves and what we are doing that can cause some of the pollutions that are occurring. First off, car pooling to school or work may reduce your costs on gas as a benefit and reduce a bit of GHG's.

 

Also, placing bioreactors or incubators by coal fired power plants may also reduce the GHG's.

[alpha2cen]

Eat self-cultured food as possible as we can, that is best way to reduce pollution. And wear self-made dress. Let us live in the country. Efficient life make our Earth more polluted.

Our small S(entropy) life makes our surroundings more big entropy state. So it is not easy to reduce pollution.

Edited February 14, 2011 by alpha2cen

[Hearts]

Stop going by car or motorbike, just walk

 

Well, you forgot to add the time factor in~

what if I can plant a tree/ find a viable alternative energy option/save the entire earth from Global warming/etc etc using the time that would otherwise be wasted if I walked to class instead of taking the bus?

 

If you look at oil and coal, the theory goes that these were produced by the remains of living organisms over long periods of time. What that means is all the basic components of oil and coal were formerly part of the earth, including all the CO2 that results when we burn these things.

 

When oil burns, we are returning the CO2 back to the earth where it originally came; natural part of the earth. That period of earth history, when all these materials were not yet oil and coal, was not a time of earth destruction. It was a time of earth fertility, producing abundant life that would alter these simple materials into those junkyards of dead life we call oil and coal deposits. Therefore putting this material back to its original state, before life created these dumps and boneyards, would not destroy the world, but simply restore the world to an earlier pristine time when there no such landfills and dumps.

 

The bottom line is fear of change, using the assumption now is the perfect time of the earth. Through rhetoric, reality is distorted to create those misleading messages of world destruction. But as history shows, when all this material was spread over the earth, in simple forms, the earth was not destroyed. The earth was fertile with a potential for change. The earth was pristine with no junk yards of oil and coal.

 

Co2 is a gas ~ but thats not the point here anyway.

Frankly pioneer, the whole point of environmental preservation/ engineering and all related fields is to make our human lives ( and we might as well include the other critters that roam the earth) comfortable and sustainable. We are trying to save ourselves, not the earth. Imagine the earth without us. Even if it spew lava from every pore and its atmosphere is nothing but methane and co2, it would still be perfectly 'natural' and the minerals there wont complain anyway.

 

Eat self-cultured food as possible as we can, that is best way to reduce pollution. And wear self-made dress. Let us live in the country. Efficient life make our Earth more polluted.

Our small S(entropy) life makes our surroundings more big entropy state. So it is not easy to reduce pollution.

 

 

Back to simpler times eh? well, our population has increased a millionfold since then and not all of us can afford a big enough space for country life now. Contrary to your intuitive, 'efficient life' is better than inefficient life because otherwise we would be wasting energy. Remember energy cannot be destroyed but it only moves one way~ tat is towards increasing entropy, or decreasing 'quality'. So it would be best if we make full use of our energy now before it all becomes useless.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Hearts