Thread: For Atmosfear

Well, this thread got complicated

Originally Posted by Kozzle

Well there you have it. An expert on environmental science. Let me guess...economists know more than they do about the skullfucking we are delivering to the planet right

Economists probably have a better grip on the problem than psych majors.

you make a valid point in how our actions have an effect on the world around us, and changing our behaviors is an aspect of this dilemma. but the systems and consequences our actions have on the world around us are myriad and the repercussions of the changes and choices we make are difficult to understand properly. So while you probably have a good grip on how people think when they rape the environment and what aspects of that cause them to be that way, you don't really understand how changing a fuel source impacts the economy and our culture from top to bottom. It's not your field of study or expertise, and talking like you understand it makes you sound pompous and retarded.

As a note if you rage against capitalism yet you're basing this rage on the environment then you're an idiot.

Stakeholder management is currently one of the most important fields of study in modern business and the companies that have done the best job with it are the ones who are consistently performing well. Compare the worldwide success of Coca-Cola to Pepsi; the major difference in the companies is that Coca-Cola is consistently heralded as one of the leaders in CSR. Even Wal-mart has been forced to integrate this process and consider its ethical and philanthropic responsibilities because the market is demanding this behavior.

Well yes, that's one way to make the liberals happy. "Buy now and a dollar goes to something of your choice! It can be meals-on-wheels (best option FYI but I digress), research on breast transplants, or a motherfucking save-the-goddamn-earth fund! Screw the elderly, SAVE THE TREES YOU HEARTLESS FAGGOT"

Of course in reality we know that if the Bratz doll producers announce that a dollar will go to getting puppies out of drainage ditches (possibly alive) that doesn't actually mean anything since the whole thing is quite literally just "feel good", it's an abstract situation where you can look like an asshole if you refuse to buy, and secondly that doesn't change the fact that the Bratz doll producers are helping to turn girls into whores

On the environment, did anyone see Top Gear a few weeks ago? James May did a piece about a car...god I cannot remember if it was a Toyota or a Honda. It used Hydrogen if I remember right, basically its only emissions were water, filling it up took about the same time to fill up a car with petrol and you could get a good 200 miles out of it before it went dry.

May reckoned the future of cars had arrived and that this was the most important car ever built because it demonstrated what seems to be a completely eco friendly car which is practical. With only something like 1 moving part, the lifetime of these things should be longer than current cars. He was talking to Jay Leno, he reckoned this was the way forward to and it will save sports cars, using these eco cars for work, sports cars for leisure. However they are only available in California just now, and would need massive investment to set up hydrogen refueling stations, and indeed facilities to get the hydrogen.

Alot of eco cars, hybrids use electricity, which tend not to last long and takes a long time to recharge, which consumes electricity generated often from power stations, which cause harmful emissions. I will need to hunt around and find out the name of the car. And since hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, it is practically infinite. If you could switch cars to this, that could be some real nice progress.

Clearly getting the infrastructure in place would be costly and time consuming, but it would be worth it, it looks like it could be a viable alternative to fossil fuels. And if investment and research is done, who knows how such systems could be developed and advanced?

It's gas, not gaz.

Yea, actually collecting the hydrogen would be a problem, however electric cars simply aren't practical, at least not in their current state. Surely the energy expended in collecting the hydrogen would be less than the over all energy costs of using electricity to power cars?

Originally Posted by Kozzle

Well there you have it. An expert on environmental science. Let me guess...economists know more than they do about the skullfucking we are delivering to the planet right

lol, wow

I stopped reading this thread a long time ago. I was assuming complication from the length of the posts in this thread. I've never claimed to be an expert on environmental science, and am in fact not one, but I do know that global warming is even more overrated than global cooling was in the 70's and is a natural occurrence. While humans are accelerating it, so long as we don't get any worse it really isn't that big of a deal. That's all I have to say about that.

Originally Posted by Kozzle

I actually wasn't really directing that statement to you.

And apparently you didn't stop reading it long ago

....but you quoted me when you said it, lol

I skimmed until I got a gist so that I could say something for the sake of saying something, but getting into the specifics of solving fossil fuel dependence is pretty pointless, since the problem won't get solved until the oil companies and oil producing nations get to the point where they realize the well is almost dry and if they want to keep getting richer they will have to monopolize or oligopilize the next wave of energy.