Greens gain one, nats lose one

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Farmer Joe

...most farmers fertilise their land every year because without it they can't grow a good grass/clover crop.

Was watching a TV program a couple of weeks back who switched from one sort of farming to another. After switching he started to look at what he was using and the effects it was having. The stuff that he was using to make the grass grow was making the cells hold more water and not actually having more cells. The paddocks looked good but the cattle were effectively eating water.

[Asriel]

Whether the climate is changing or not, Earth's natural resources are being depleted and the environment is being polluted; thus a change to more sustainable practises must be undertaken. Detecting human induced climate change is incredibly difficult to achieve, but observing pollution, deforestation, glaciers diminishing in size etc is pretty easy.

Re: sustainable farming etc. Didn't National cut $500 million (or so) from state funded agricultural research?

[Trigga*happY]

Originally Posted by Farmer Joe

I'm not too sure, I guess a lot of raw commodities are dropping at the moment. A good friend of mine runs a sheep farm near Kaikoura and the price went from about $200 > $700 a ton(?). It may have dropped again now.

http://www.efarming.com.au/News/efar...es-tumble.html

Urea prices have fallen from $840USD/Tonne since August to $330USD/Tonne, phosphate prices are dropping. The only reason we haven't seen it here yet appears to be our weakening dollar and Balance/Quinphos trying to hold some profit margin i'd say.

[Trigga*happY]

Originally Posted by Asriel

Whether the climate is changing or not, Earth's natural resources are being depleted and the environment is being polluted; thus a change to more sustainable practises must be undertaken. Detecting human induced climate change is incredibly difficult to achieve, but observing pollution, deforestation, glaciers diminishing in size etc is pretty easy.

Re: sustainable farming etc. Didn't National cut $500 million (or so) from state funded agricultural research?

Observing the mentioned results is very easy yes... Working out a solution that doesn't involve shutting down hundreds of thousands of jobs is quite another issue.

Please provide your plan for migrating the existing infrastructure of the population of planet Earth to a globally viable (balanced or negative impact) environmentally integrated system. Please do so in less that 1000 words and without using the letter "v".

[Saladin]

So because it's hard we shouldn't do it? That seems to be what you're adwocating :P

[Asriel]

^hehe
Pretty much what Saladin said, sure its hard to change, but once the change is in place we'll all be better off for it. A balance should be found between the loss of jobs and the loss of the use of our planet.

On the topic of jobs, when natural resources like hydrocarbons and minerals are used up (which isn't going to happen for a long while) millions of people will be out of jobs, so why not start preparing for that now by creating an industry that promotes sustainable energy. Both industries (non-sustainable and other) could be operating at the same time, creating jobs and also ensuring that our future is seen to.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by CCS

We're not worried about those people though...

the most retarded thing youve said-
where do you think we derive most of the goods/revenue you dummys seem to think = the good life.

[CCS]

lol, welcome to the internet, idiot. It's not all serious all the time, you know!

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Trigga*happY

Observing the mentioned results is very easy yes... Working out a solution that doesn't involve shutting down hundreds of thousands of jobs is quite another issue.

Please provide your plan for migrating the existing infrastructure of the population of planet Earth to a globally viable (balanced or negative impact) environmentally integrated system. Please do so in less that 1000 words and without using the letter "v".

Set others up da bomb! = Sorted!

[Trigga*happY]

Originally Posted by Saladin

So because it's hard we shouldn't do it? That seems to be what you're adwocating :P

Not in the slightest! I'm merely saying that everyone riding the 'fix the environment now!' wagon needs to be a bit more realistic about how it needs to be approached. I would also hazard a guess that the most taxes collected are from the worst culprits of environmental pollution, so by introducing large scale derailments of these businesses you stand to severely reduce the available funds in the govt coffers. Which are going to be already stretched thin trying to provide for the hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Haydos

Now they're settling for climate change because gosh darnit, we can't remember having this much rain apparently.

Actually it was the GOP that started using the term "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming", as it was considered a less threatening term. At any rate, that point is pretty irrelevent, and only serves to detract attention away from the real issues.

AGW generally suffers from a multitude of misconceptions, even the term "Green House Effect" is misleading. The popular description of the effect is that heat from the sun "hits" the atmosphere, and is either "reflected" out or "absorbed" by the atmosphere, as if there's some kind of magical glass barrier at its outer limit. An overly simplistic description, the atmosphere is more a gradient gases of differing composition and density. When the sun's energy enters the atmosphere, the result houses a number a different effects, some continues through the atmosphere, some is lost to the atmosphere itself and is radiated outward via convection.

The exchange of energy between the sun and the earth is fairly well understood by current climatologists, and as anyone who took science in secondary school should be aware, energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is where the consensus on AGW lies, not in the exact effect of the extra energy within the atmosphere, but in the fact that an increase in Green House gasses has lead to the atmosphere retaining energy for longer periods of time.

The theory of AGW has been around for over a hundred years, and in a weird twist of fate, the issue became more urgent during the late 60's and early 70's, as research into the upper limits of the atmosphere discovered something that had not been considered previously. The composition of gasses did not include water vapor, as temperatures were much lower, so the increase in CO2 became an issue again. Why is this a weird twist of fate? It was the US military who funded the research, hoping to find ways of making their long range bombers more efficient.

[Trigga*happY]

Originally Posted by Asriel

^hehe
Pretty much what Saladin said, sure its hard to change, but once the change is in place we'll all be better off for it. A balance should be found between the loss of jobs and the loss of the use of our planet.

On the topic of jobs, when natural resources like hydrocarbons and minerals are used up (which isn't going to happen for a long while) millions of people will be out of jobs, so why not start preparing for that now by creating an industry that promotes sustainable energy. Both industries (non-sustainable and other) could be operating at the same time, creating jobs and also ensuring that our future is seen to.

*see above*

I'm all for the idea of sustainable energy, I just dont' see anyone offering viable solutions. Wind provided energy costs land, which in a growing population is a commodity that can't be squandered.

Water/Geothermal energy is being reported as damaging directly to our environment as opposed to slowly poisoning it.

Fossil fuel, well yeah we know all about that one.

Nuclear? Well in the short term it's definitely cleanest, but the clean up appears to be causing a problem.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by CCS

lol, welcome to the internet, idiot. It's not all serious all the time, you know!

yarbles, asshole.

[CCS]

Shame, dick!

[Asriel]

Originally Posted by Trigga*happY

*see above*

I'm all for the idea of sustainable energy, I just dont' see anyone offering viable solutions. Wind provided energy costs land, which in a growing population is a commodity that can't be squandered.

Water/Geothermal energy is being reported as damaging directly to our environment as opposed to slowly poisoning it.

Fossil fuel, well yeah we know all about that one.

Nuclear? Well in the short term it's definitely cleanest, but the clean up appears to be causing a problem.

Hehe, so we're fucked then
Time to abandon ship.

AFAIK the problem with hydro dams is just in creating tectonic instabilities, and maybe fucking up fishies ecosystems or some such. Thats not so bad

[SpaceCowboy]

which are all great reasons why we should be producing our own power at the house. its easier than it sounds, and ill be proving it soon when ive perfected my solar powered stirling engine. not to mention small wind turbines. or, if you have access to a stream on your property, micro hydro.

[Draco T Bastard]

^^ Pretty much. Gone are the days that you needed hectares of land to be able to build a viable power plant.

[Gentl e]

I'm going to be completely energy self-sufficient once I've perfected my negative energy generator. Magnets!

[Saladin]

Steorn will save us with their magnets.

[SpaceCowboy]

yes, i shouldnt say ill be proving anything soon, as my stirling engine could fail to work completely and magnets are win!

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Asriel

AFAIK the problem with hydro dams is just in creating tectonic instabilities, and maybe fucking up fishies ecosystems or some such. Thats not so bad

What about the necessary flooding of the surrounding area? That would endanger rare snails.

[Asriel]

Oh noes! I forgot about the snails! Change of plan then.

Spacecowboy: Did you get specifications for this stirling engine or is it of your own design? Resource consent for building a hydro dam in a stream would be tricky, but a great idea nonetheless; I recall a lecturer from UoA going on about it a few years back. He showed how it wouldn't disrupt fish spawning, and I think he gave evidence for fish travelling back upstream through the dam, too.

[SpaceCowboy]

its pretty much my own design, based on youtubes and images (and lots of research) from the net. in drawing it up in Inventor 2008, so that i can perfect it as much as i can before building blindly. the only thing it cant simulate is the thermodynamic forces inside the engine, unfortunately. but i can handle the physics calculations ok, and make a near enough estimate to build a prototype.

pics when ive built it

[Hemebond]

Originally Posted by Haydos

The reason for this, is because we've since seen the ozone layer recover, the polar ice caps grow thicker and temperatures drop worldwide in the last few years

LOL, what?

[Hurtuso]

Originally Posted by SpaceCowboy

its pretty much my own design, based on youtubes and images (and lots of research) from the net. in drawing it up in Inventor 2008, so that i can perfect it as much as i can before building blindly. the only thing it cant simulate is the thermodynamic forces inside the engine, unfortunately. but i can handle the physics calculations ok, and make a near enough estimate to build a prototype.

pics when ive built it

for real? cool mate if so yeah please share how it goes

[Asriel]

Sounds great Spacecowboy, good luck with it; Im keen to see the final result.