Thread: Earth has suffered irreversible damage

Originally Posted by Undecided

Title of this thread: Earth has suffered irreversible damage

OK, just had to make sure I hadn't wandered into the wrong thread. Why are we talking about British royalty? Did I miss something? Did the Queen spew out some more toxic fumes or something?

It's been hijacked by our resident nutter.

Please Undecided, help us get back on topic, cause Chiquita is doing my noodle in.

Originally Posted by Undecided

Title of this thread: Earth has suffered irreversible damage

OK, just had to make sure I hadn't wandered into the wrong thread. Why are we talking about British royalty? Did I miss something? Did the Queen spew out some more toxic fumes or something?

I guess the thread got side tracked around page 10

The British Royalties were introduced couple of pages ago by the Banana Lady. But Im not yet quite sure if they are going to do irreversible damage to earth while taking back the power in Britain.

Anyway if we would really like to get back to the subject, we could go see what we were discussing 10 pages ago. Maybe I should do that and come back with something civilized to say about the issue.

Well. I guess we were discussing whether or not the humans have done irreversile damage on earth and if we would end up destroying it.

Well I already commented that on somewhere in the begining. But maybe I should add that I am very worried about the air pollution right now. We seem to be burning more and more fuel all the time and even the amounts we have burned in past seem to be too much for the athmosphere to survive. Its not just the global warming, but there are other effects too. Soon we wont be able to walk around outside without fearing to catch skin cancer, because there is no protective layer in the air anymore.

But instead of trying to control the use of oil and other fuels, we increase the use all the time. Even the price level hasnt scared people away from using private cars or stopped companies from burning oil for energy. This is very alarming to me. I wonder what will it take to make people understand that we cannot continue on this path?

Well. I guess we were discussing whether or not the humans have done irreversile damage on earth and if we would end up destroying it.

Well I already commented that on somewhere in the begining. But maybe I should add that I am very worried about the air pollution right now. We seem to be burning more and more fuel all the time and even the amounts we have burned in past seem to be too much for the athmosphere to survive. Its not just the global warming, but there are other effects too. Soon we wont be able to walk around outside without fearing to catch skin cancer, because there is no protective layer in the air anymore.

But instead of trying to control the use of oil and other fuels, we increase the use all the time. Even the price level hasnt scared people away from using private cars or stopped companies from burning oil for energy. This is very alarming to me. I wonder what will it take to make people understand that we cannot continue on this path?

I was surprised a couple of years ago to discover the Finns were also concerned about skin cancer - it has long been an issue here - most people of my generation get checked regularly and many people I know have had more than one growth removed.

It was this that motivated my discussion with Chiquita about a patch of sky that i could buy - NOT pollution as she seemed to think.

I have property in one of the cleanest areas of the world, with two of the cleanest (arguably the cleanest) rivers running nearby ... but no matter how many national parks I surround myself with, I cannot protect myself from ozone damage ... as you probably know - the thinning of the ozone layer - no matter where CFC's are produced ... gravitates towards the poles. Until I was in Finland I hadn't thought of the ramifications of that on high latitude regions in the northern hemisphere.

Like you I am also concerned about the increase in carbon emissions and the impact that is already having. That hot summer you had a couple of years ago is, I believe, a taste of what is to come ... and it was far more devastating than what many people realize. You get a few summers like that and it will totally change Europe...and we are already seeing the impact of long term drought here.

It can be argued that our water shortages are the result of increasing population in the city, however for years I watched reduced rainfall, higher evaporation and dying trees in areas where neither this, nor soil salinity, was an issue. It is difficult to prove anything - especially in the area I am thinking of, because the records don't go back that far, however if we look at the natural history of the area, we can see that trends over the last decade or two are very different from what has gone before.

In terms of the trees that are at risk - one of these is an ancient gondawanaland species ... if it has survived so many millions of years but beginning to die out now in entire pockets ... there must be something going on.

I've also been in drought affected third world countries where reduced rainfall is having huge impacts on lifestyle ... some of this, while the result of anthropogenic factors, is not the result of increased carbon emissions, however even there, it is not poor farmers grazing their lifestock that is the primary cause, but more 'modern' activities, like dam building, sinking bores into aquifers ... and large scale land clearing.

then you get flooding also as the result of these activities - the deforestation and large scale clearing in any case.

I have tried to argue that we in the west are part of this problem too - if we choose to buy cheap rainforest hardwoods, or products from countries that allow logging and other environmentally unsustainable practices ... then we are supporting activities that will lead to the degradation of our global environment.

The long term effects of these environmental practices will lead to more conflicts, which will inevitably result in an increase in the number of refugees, and which will create more strain and strife within our own countries ... unless we collectively turn our backs on those who, in the long run, are victims of environmental excess.

as for fossil fuels ... years ago I argued against nuclear power ... but like many environmentalists (I am not one - my expertise is in a different area) I am beginning to rethink my attitude on this one - at least as a short term solution - although one I am not completely happy with.

I do think what we really need to do is sit down and look honestly at what is going on, and stop letting selfishness and clinging to what we have get in the way of working together to look at solutions.

AS an Australian, I am disgusted with my government for not signing Kyoto - although I don't think Kyoto went far enough - at leas it was a step in the right direction.

As a matter of interest the majority of Australians are aware of issues such as global warming - we can't help but be - most of our major cities have very tight water restrictions and we have been experiencing extremely hot, record temperatures during the first part of Autumn ... after consistently hot summers and low rainfall for several years. Despite this, they still voted Howard back in ... because discussion of higher interest rates under the opposition scared them into worrying about their hip pocket nerves.

And I think this is the major concern ...if even those who are being affected by global warming are still more concerned about short term economic factors .... what hope is there that we can do something constructive about this issue?

Yeah. I can remember there being a lot of talk and newspaper articles about water storages drying up in Australia, while I was there couple years back. And seem to be the ones worst affected by the wholes in the ozone layer too. So one would think people there would understand that something has to be done. But still your politicians seem to be against Kyoto for some reason. And as you said, it not enough, but it atleast a start.

And I also agree with you about cutting forests in underdeveloped countries. I know that in western countries there are strict limitations how one must take care of the forests or atleast you need to follow certain guidelines if you want your forest to be certified one. And working for forest industry in Finland I know they must be atleast around here. Otherwise customers wont buy your products. So we have done something right there, but the problem is, that it doesnt matter how well we preserve the small forests in our countries, if we buy products that are produced by clear cutting rain forests.

Oh and the third thing you mentioned. Nuclear power. Im a green party voter, but the one big issue I have with the party is that they oppose to nuclear power here in Finland. In my opinion nuclear power is the least polluting realistic option right now. Its better than fossile fuel plants and wind/solar energy technology just isnt advanced enough to produce enough power. We are actually building a new power plant in Finland right now (which is very different from other Europian countries, that seem to be heading the other way) and some people are even talking about one more after that.

Of course we should also try reducing the need for power and at the same time develop better alternatives for nuclear power, but at the moment its the best realistic option.

Yes. our politicians are against Kyoto for some reason. economics. our 19th century style coal fired power stations, and selling coal to China, are two very important reasons. BTW - even coal fired power stations can be energy efficient - I've heard that with the technology available we could do zero emissions ... but change costs - and more importantly - it takes a willingness to change. These will only happen if governments are prepared to subsidize or offer rebates until new technologies are established ...

we still have issues over forests here ... however not on the scale of the tropical rainforests. clearfelling, as opposed to selective logging, not only destroys habitats and ecological systems, it also increases the spread of disease - in SW Australia the spread of jarrah dieback is facilitated by clearfelling near waterways, especially in winter.

The current state government used the forest issue as one of the points in its election platform a few years ago - so things have improved, and despite dire warnings of the consequences, there were no huge job losses. Over three decades of looking at green issues, I have not yet seen a case where making positive changes in how we deal with environmental issues has led to the dire consequences that have been predicted, and I suspect that once changes are actually put in place we won't suffer as those cassandras of economic doom and gloom predict ...

Nuclear power - yep. I still don't like it, but I also know the technology we have now is unlikely to result in another chernobyl ... and I also know its cleaner and more efficient - and less definite in its negative environmental consequences - than what we are doing now.

but yes Rudi, the obvious thing is to evaluate how we use resources, because fact is we don't use them efficiently. Small European cars have as much get up and go as heavy landcruisers - and are more practical in most situations - especially for city drivers - yet use far less fuel. it seems to me that in many instances (and I know there are exceptions - when living in the bush a four wheel drive was far more practical for me) the use of heavy vehicles is more linked to the psychology of the driver than anything else.

I also think its about fear of change ... although if we stopped and looked at it all what we had, and expected, even ten years ago was less than it is now ... we're quite prepared to change as long is its buying the upsell ... its just downsizing we're scared of.

Economics is usually the reason not to do anything good for the environment Its quite easy to provide reasoning in short term by telling everybody that all the new environmental protection plans are going to hurt the economy. And people are so afraid that being friendly to nature would cost jobs that they rather keep on polluting and then get cancer.

On thing that has been up and coming for several years now is better recycling. I know that in some countries like Germany they can be really strict about it. In Finland people recycle if they can, but there isnt a good system behind the whole process yet. And of course some people wont go through the trouble. But Im hoping we will increase recycling in near future. There seem to be growing numbers of people in Finland that actually want to save the beautiful nature we have.

Btw. Did you notice that once we actually started talking about environment again, everybody disapeared Mud-slinging is so much more fun than saving environment

Originally Posted by Rudy-T

Economics is usually the reason not to do anything good for the environment Its quite easy to provide reasoning in short term by telling everybody that all the new environmental protection plans are going to hurt the economy. And people are so afraid that being friendly to nature would cost jobs that they rather keep on polluting and then get cancer.

its interesting. the environmental lobby is generally accused of fear mongering - but the truth is ... the economic fundamentalists are far better at using fear as a marketing technique for their own agenda!

On thing that has been up and coming for several years now is better recycling. I know that in some countries like Germany they can be really strict about it. In Finland people recycle if they can, but there isnt a good system behind the whole process yet. And of course some people wont go through the trouble. But Im hoping we will increase recycling in near future. There seem to be growing numbers of people in Finland that actually want to save the beautiful nature we have.

I have been told by someone in the industry that we have the highest rate of recycling in the world ... the US has the lowest among developed countries and Germany, followed by several Scandinavian countries ... the best in Europe. To be honest when I was in Finland a couple of years ago I thought they weren't doing very well on it - at least at the consumer level ... although I think paper recycling was quite good.

recycling can be effective and profitable ... local government councils here make a profit on recycling ... all households have recycling bins as well as rubbish bins, in which to place clean recyclable waste - each householder is given a list of what can be included.

In addition councils also do verge collections a couple of times a year, so that householders can leave out larger items - much of which is recycled, or green waste, which the council mulches and then sells for a profit to those who wish to reduce water consumption in their gardens.

some goods are not suitable for recycling as the energy costs of recycling can be high ... but in actual fact most goods can be recycled for a profit.

we also have specialist organizations that repair and recycle office equipment (no student needs to buy an expensive new PC - you can get a restored recycled one for around AU$200, as just one example) and a range of other products. And they make a profit.

I still think the emphasis needs to be on evaluating our consumption habits, and reducing excessive consumption ... however I think thats a hard one.

I'm old enough to consider many of todays essentials as luxuries ... but its hard for younger people to see things that way...you can get by without many things without compromising your lifestyle at all ... just being a little more prudent in the choices you make.

the way to reduce your 'environmental footprint' is to reduce, reuse and then recycle ... if we all made a small choice twice a day, like to walk to the shop, catch a bus, turn the air conditioning up 1 - 2 degrees - we could collectively have a huge impact.

Then if building approvals were only given to houses that were well aspected for climate ... both householders and the environment would make huge savings ...

Btw. Did you notice that once we actually started talking about environment again, everybody disapeared Mud-slinging is so much more fun than saving environment

I'd rather discuss something positive, but I have a tendency to respond when someone addresses me directly. unless there's something more interesting on offer on the same thread ... like getting back to the topic.

Originally Posted by daisym

I have been told by someone in the industry that we have the highest rate of recycling in the world ... the US has the lowest among developed countries and Germany, followed by several Scandinavian countries ... the best in Europe. To be honest when I was in Finland a couple of years ago I thought they weren't doing very well on it - at least at the consumer level ... although I think paper recycling was quite good.

I actually just read on the paper that we recycle 71% of all paper used in Finland. Thats quite high in my opinion. But it also said that our goal is to raise the percentage to 75% which would mean that we would be recycling more paper than any other country. The article didnt mention what country is recycling more currently.

But as much as we are good in recycling paper, there is much for us to learn in the other areas of recycling. Actually the only other thing I can think of that we recycle pretty well is bottles. Glass and plastic, beer and soda. But that is partly because we have a pawn on them. So when you buy a bottle of beer you pay 10 cents for the bottle and you can get it back if you return the bottle to a store. I think that work pretty well and as we drink most of out beer from glass bottles, they can be reused numerous times. I know many other countries have system like this too, but Im not sure if it is global.

But then the other materials ranging from metal to biowaste, are not recycled that well. Some neighbourhoods have their own trash cans for such products (actually bio-waste bins are quite common), but other would have to take them to trash cans that are further away from their home like near a store. I live at student campus and we can sort our waste into about 8 different bins, but my parents neighbourhood only has three different alternatives (paper, bio and all the others).

I still think the emphasis needs to be on evaluating our consumption habits, and reducing excessive consumption ... however I think thats a hard one.

Of course that is true. And what I found idiotic these days is that often food items and other small everyday purchases are packed so that there is almost more of the plastic package in the product than the actual product. So we use a lot of plastic just to wrap stuff that would actually need that much packaging or could be sold in bigger packages. But once again, this is what consumers want so, its hard to blame companies that make the products.

I'm old enough to consider many of todays essentials as luxuries ... but its hard for younger people to see things that way...you can get by without many things without compromising your lifestyle at all ... just being a little more prudent in the choices you make.

You are right there. We could do with out much of the stuff we buy nowadays. But once again people want luxury

the way to reduce your 'environmental footprint' is to reduce, reuse and then recycle ... if we all made a small choice twice a day, like to walk to the shop, catch a bus, turn the air conditioning up 1 - 2 degrees - we could collectively have a huge impact.

Well that brings up another good subject, mass transport. I live in a country where distances are big and people have to use private cars a lot. And even though there is some kind of mass transit in bigger cities it is not near efficient enough that people would use it that much. They have been fighting over whether or not to build a subway route to Espoo (a city adjanced to Helsinki) for years now and still there is no resolution. Everybody knows that we would need better mass transit system here, because there is a lot of commuting between Helsinki and Espoo, but it seems like the politicians just can make a decision on the matter. A subway line could make a big difference in amounts of cars driving in traffic everyday to get from Espoo to Helsinki or the other way.

I'd rather discuss something positive, but I have a tendency to respond when someone addresses me directly. unless there's something more interesting on offer on the same thread ... like getting back to the topic.

Well yes. Having an intelligent discussion is fun, but sometimes you just have to react and throw some mud, if people are saying ridiculous things. But then the discussion often disapears, because people just want to make the other guy look bad. Still I cant just stay quiet when I read stupidities like Chiquitas posts in this thread.

Originally Posted by Rudy-T

I actually just read on the paper that we recycle 71% of all paper used in Finland. Thats quite high in my opinion. But it also said that our goal is to raise the percentage to 75% which would mean that we would be recycling more paper than any other country. The article didnt mention what country is recycling more currently.

But as much as we are good in recycling paper, there is much for us to learn in the other areas of recycling. Actually the only other thing I can think of that we recycle pretty well is bottles. Glass and plastic, beer and soda. But that is partly because we have a pawn on them. So when you buy a bottle of beer you pay 10 cents for the bottle and you can get it back if you return the bottle to a store. I think that work pretty well and as we drink most of out beer from glass bottles, they can be reused numerous times. I know many other countries have system like this too, but Im not sure if it is global.

ah - deposit legislation. about twenty years ago I was studying environmentalism and consumer behaviour - i found in South australia where there was deposit legislation on aluminium cans, there was a 95% recycle rate - whereas in western Australia where we had local collection points where people could be paid for bulk deposits (or not at all) we had a 60% recycle rate.

clearly, by pricing goods slightly higher because of a refundable deposit, you could increase recycling rates. South Australia also has deposit legislation on PET (plastic soda and water) bottles. This also increases the rate of recycling.

the reusable glass bottles were a better idea I believe, however we stopped using themas we began to consume in larger quantities. a 2 litre plastic container is much more convenient than a two litre glass container ... and I guess along with our environment our health began to suffer as we began to increase the amount of sugary soda we consumed - among other larger quantities.

But then the other materials ranging from metal to biowaste, are not recycled that well. Some neighbourhoods have their own trash cans for such products (actually bio-waste bins are quite common), but other would have to take them to trash cans that are further away from their home like near a store. I live at student campus and we can sort our waste into about 8 different bins, but my parents neighbourhood only has three different alternatives (paper, bio and all the others).

Helsinki and Espoo could manage a system similar to ours from what I've seen - and may be able to do so more effectively because in many areas your populations tend to be more concentrated ... can't say the same for the smaller cities and towns .... I think effective recycling programmes are easier in larger population centres ... however when I lived in a small town our local SCHOOL was involved in a few enterprises ... including compacting newspapers into firebricks - they burnt slightly faster than wood and were sold to raise funds for school equipment (yes our schools are government funded, but parent associations often have projects and involve the community in fund raising activities) and were the recycling point for aluminium cans in the town - collecting the proceeds for the school.

Of course that is true. And what I found idiotic these days is that often food items and other small everyday purchases are packed so that there is almost more of the plastic package in the product than the actual product. So we use a lot of plastic just to wrap stuff that would actually need that much packaging or could be sold in bigger packages. But once again, this is what consumers want so, its hard to blame companies that make the products.

another thing I noticed - a trend I saw beginning in the seventies. for example - a packet of biscuits (cookies) would have a tray pack included at an additional cost to the consumer of 6% of the total price - and two less items in the pack. it didn't make any real difference to the consumer other than that they were paying more for less and had more rubbish to dispose of ... why was this introduced? who benefitted?

there were heaps of examples like this.

Well that brings up another good subject, mass transport. I live in a country where distances are big and people have to use private cars a lot. And even though there is some kind of mass transit in bigger cities it is not near efficient enough that people would use it that much. They have been fighting over whether or not to build a subway route to Espoo (a city adjanced to Helsinki) for years now and still there is no resolution. Everybody knows that we would need better mass transit system here, because there is a lot of commuting between Helsinki and Espoo, but it seems like the politicians just can make a decision on the matter. A subway line could make a big difference in amounts of cars driving in traffic everyday to get from Espoo to Helsinki or the other way.

I have to say Rudi, a couple of years ago I was catching buses from Espoo into Helsinki evvery day for about a month, and I found the public transport excellent compared with what i was used to. Looking back, if I consider the distance and time taken for transport it was not so good - and I think there could be more streamlining of services if people are to rely less on cars - the subway line (rail link?) would be an excellent idea...but I think the indecisiveness comes from the efficiency factor - is the population sufficient to justify it?

we are currently in the process of upgrading our rail system to the southern suburbs, and while there is a lot of criticism of this, I'm expecting it will be the same as when the northern rail line was introduced ... people won't know what they did without it once it starts. Our system is to have a rail line down the centre of the freeway, with parking facilities and bus interchanges near stations. I now use public transport in Perth, something I didn't last time I lived in the city because it was so incredibly inefficient.

I have just returned from a holiday in melbourne where public transport, at least in the central metropolitan area, is also much better than here. I think that as cities get larger economies of scale make efficient public transport networks more viable ... Helsinki has about 800,000? Espoo - quite a lot less, but the combined population would be less than Perth, yet despite this your public transport system is not that bad. I've had to wait longer in perth for a bus than I ever had to wait in Espoo.

Well yes. Having an intelligent discussion is fun, but sometimes you just have to react and throw some mud, if people are saying ridiculous things.

its best when you can have an intelligent exchange of ideas - if thats happening, time wasters are easier to ignore.