100 ways to save the environment

create a compost pile in your back yard. this recycles nutrients back into the soil, and provides food for detritus feeders at the low end of the food chain.

 

Write to your Congressman and Senators and ask them to promote nuclear power so that America, the single biggest CO2 emitter on Earth, can reduce it's CO2 pollution output.

 

I heart composting
Why buy fertilizer when you can create rich (and free) plant-food in your own backyard?

And while this list is quite nice, keep in mind that one big thing you can do is to encourage this type of environmental-responsibility as a standard.
What i mean is to vote for candidates who hold the same environmental priorities that you do and keep on their backs to get things done. Also try to buy only from corporations who have made a serious and loyal commitment to the environment (shopping organic is an easy start!).

And don't forget your canvas bag :icon_wink

 

my mom uses these green canvas bags to get groceries nowadays...it makes me feel a little greener.

 

Well they are certainly better than plastic or paper!
(and cuter too).

 

watch in order:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-qu_0KlMvw&feature=PlayList&p=EBD7FED9D13A8EC2&index=0[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUp6STGJBwc&feature=PlayList&p=EBD7FED9D13A8EC2&index=1[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4uEMMg_YOE&feature=PlayList&p=EBD7FED9D13A8EC2&index=2[/YOUTUBE]

some of you are gonna hate me for posting this, especially on here lol

 

I found it low they attacked her character rather than her issues.

They didn't debate his points they just went into political hijacking hoping an ex-Greenpeace member would distract the viewer?

Again where's there rebuttal? Now they went into demographics. So far they haven't given one shread of scientific evidence to support their side. All they have done is almsot say "they're wrong because we said so."

Now that is undebatable. How stupid do you have to be to sign your name to something you know nothing about?

Okay so they made a bad choice putting her in front of the camera.. she started to make her points but got chocked up. It's not that she was under informed, she was nervous? I'd be speaking with a stutter too, along with most people i know. It was a bit.. unfair to attribute a possible problem with public speaking (let alone for a show) as naivety.

----Now beginning second video

For starters i don't find it very helpful in persuading me that he is cursing and attacking these people on a personal level. It's not becoming of anyone.
Science often times is inconclusive, science is always developing, our laws of physics still can't figure out how bees can fly? Or accurately predict the weather patterns for that matter.

That was by far the stupidest thing ive ever heard someone say. It didn't even make sense, if he's presenting a theory... i dont know, i cant even explain it.

What would they report if it was good news? "Record crop all across Indonesia"
True, bad news does sell. But we're not talking about Britney Spears here? It doesn't really apply. Sure it feeds hysteria, which i don't agree with. People should be doing this out of free will not fear.

Question. Why didn't they just show this guy's presentation which by the looks of it has scientific proof, instead of feeding us their cuss words and unsupported claims. I would've actually liked to hear what he had to say.

Now it's getting to the point of bigotry. Why not let Ross tell you how he got it instead of blocking any way for him to defend himself? Any respectable debater allows the opposing side to voice their facts and then presents his own facts, hopefully winning over the undecided.

There really is no one specific quote but during the time when CATO institute guy was on, wasn't he with the Natural Resources department or something, as in the natural resource: oil. Isn't that what they called biased information? Just because he's libertarian, doesn't mean he doesn't have an ulterior motif as well.

I think the same thing, i don't think we know as a fact, i've never accepted science as concrete because it is always evolving and updating itself as information is gathered. I do however respect and believe it, i mean what else is there? Duh.

I'm just a believer that, if this is the current theory then i will abide by it and prepare for the worst as i have always done. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. Or as Murphy Law dictates: things will go wrong in any given situation, if you give them a chance.
In my opinion, it's better to just do my small part (which causes me little to no trouble) than to take inaction if this theory holds up.

If i'm hearing right... she's not done talking. Yet another thing you never do in a responsible debate? She was quite stupid in what she said at first, but perhaps she saved herself later on, you know the part they cut off at 9:15.


---Video 3 is no longer available

---Overall

The host was very crude and had no credibility. He talked smack without any sort of personal experience and his guests really didn't disprove any argument but actually were on the fence.

The ex-Greenpeace member only commented on political hijacking of the environmental movement

The petition only proved that the particular group of people in question were.. well.. quick to throw their name.

And the "skeptical environmentalist", well as by his title is by definition: on the fence.

 

^would you like to see a video showing how terrible PETA is lol

 

I hardly see how this pertains to the current subject?
I don't find it helps your camp on this issue that you have no response to the points i raised.

 

^i dont have a response because i knew whatever i said to defend myself wasnt gonna help, plus i knew that if i did start to defend myself you and others would most likely gang up on me.

I just hope you began watching the videos with an open mind.

I will say this though:
one thing i did find funny was you said "I found it low they attacked her character rather than her issues" and later you went on to say how crude the host of the show (Penn) was. I dont get what that has to do with the subject, but im sure your gonna tell me lol because im pretty sure that if there was a guy praising what you believe, and he cursed just as much if not more than Penn you wouldnt say a thing.

 

Thats not true, i haven't been rude on this forum since i came back to it, i think i have been more than fair and level-headed during debate threads. I am interested in what you have to say. As, obviously, Penn did not persuade me, perhaps you can demonstrate some points without his language.

Whether you believe me or not, I did. That is until the end of the first video, which is where i started to close up due to the cussing and lack of evidence to back up their claims. It did get mildly better and i was starting to open back up near the end of the second video and was ready for the third but it has been removed for unknown reasons.

Yes, i did talk about Penn, but i didn't call him a "moron" (among others) as they did in the video, i said he was crude. Which is a fact that can be justified. I don't think anyone here will argue that he was being crude.
It doesn't have anything to do with the subject, but it didn't help me keep my mind open. It was unprofessional and did not make for good persuasion which undoubtedly is the point of the videos.

And please, do not make testaments to my character without any sort of justification. You do not know me and it is not becoming of you.
If anyone from my camp was using that kind of language and at such volume, i would think no more of them than i did Penn.
I think that kind of language has a place but that place is certainly not in a dignified debate.

 

Nuclear isn't safe. Those plants are just big terrorist targets, and not only that they create waste that stays around for millions of years.

Energy bills that force the creation of more energy efficient items and increased MPG in cars are the proper way to go about saving the environment, like the bill passed last month.

 

Most HOAs that I know of prevent the creation of a compost pile because they can become pretty nasty if houses in a neighborhood are too close together. But I think if you live out in the country and you're permitted to do so, I think a compost pile is a good idea.

 

I highly agree. Although this has been discussed at length in the past.

 

LEAVE THE ENVIRONMENT ALONE!!! [/chriscrocker]

 

Nuclear power plants can not explode, for the method of nuclear reaction controlled and not the same as an explosive one. living near a nuclear power plant does not increase your risk of cancer or radiation poisoning (Has been proven). a terrorist can crash a plane into a nuclear power plant, but will not cause it to explode; maybe a meltdown, but even that is unlikely. Control rods in reactors prevent any Uranium or plutonium from creating a nuclear chain reaction! Nuclear is quite safe, but it is costly. very costly and not worth our time.

:tantrum:

 

I'm no expert on how to keep a nuclear power plant safe, or how to mitigate the effects of an attack on one. However, I know that attacking one and causing something to explode, or the core to have a meltdown or leak, would kill millions of people. They're too risky, and I don't believe the benefits of the power produced outweigh the potential security threat they pose and the waste they create.

That was slightly off topic, but I think it's important for people to know that a nuclear power plant can harm the environment and that it's by no means the great savior of our planet.

 

Most of the anti-nuclear hysteria comes from the big "nuclear bashing club" named Chernobyl. Chernobyl was a tragedy of course, but the design of the reactors at that power plant basically made a matter of "when" and not "if" it would explode and if you read the history of the incident, you would know that the "safety system test" they performed the day of the meltdown made an explosion on that day inevitable.

The other "club" of course is Three Mile Island, which happened because of incompetence of the workers at the plant, but the safety systems at the plant prevented it from doing what Chernobyl did. That was 30 years ago when nuclear safety systems were not nearly as advanced as they are on the new plants being built in Japan and France. If the same thing (worker incompetence) as at TMI happens on a modern NPP, the reactor would shut down instantly and nothing further would happen.

The question of spent nuclear fuel is also easily solved, but is also being stymied by Hippie Weasels (quoting Penn & Teller). The Yucca Mountain Facility in Nevada will store Thousands of years worth of nuclear waste in the middle of the desert (no chance of ground water contamination) in solid rock chamber. The waste will also be encased in damn near indestructible storage casks, shielded from future water corrosion by stainless steel drip shields.

Nuclear power is only expensive in America because the Hippie Weasels have pushed through laws that make it impossible to build one and the older NPP's are hugely less efficient and safe than modern ones so the cost of running them is far higher. Look at France, 80% of their power is supplied by NPP's and no one is growing extra arms or sprouting tumors on their foreheads. It is also far cheaper in France because their much newer plants are far more fuel efficient and need far less maintenance than the decades old dinosaurs running in America.

On the topic of terrorist attacks on NPP's you will find that the security at an NPP is more tightly closed than Hillary Clinton's legs. There is also a large no-fly zone around every NPP in America and a straying plane not reacting to orders to withdraw from that airspace will get a Sidewinder up it's ass. I also think that building a NPP under ground and laying ten meters of reinforced concrete and steel above it would protect it from most attacks a person could conceive.

In conclusion, I have seen that the hippie element rarely actually understands the issues that it protests against, just like the Greenpeace Weasels protesting GM foods and their so-called "GMO Expert" saying in an interview that GM foods are totally unregulated, when they are in fact the most stringently regulated food products in the history of the world (in the U.S. the EPA, FDA and USDA all have a say in GM foods).