Carbon Bloody Footprints.

[oneofsix]

you might want to try going outside and looking at the world. It has changed. Families may have less children but the world population is the highest it has ever been. When I was a kid, people had a washing machine, transistor radio, toaster, iron, the wealthier ones had a stereo and TV. I walk through my house now, I have a 50" plasma in the lounge, a 32" LCD in the bedroom Blue ray, sky, 3 x computers, ipod dock, stereo x 2, enough kitchen gadgets to sink a small row boat, battery chargers, phone chargers, 3 x phones, clothes dryer, dishwasher,fridge, every light fitting has 4-5 bulbs hanging off it. In the garage, there are all manner of power tools, battery powered and charged tools, fridge....and on and on....you know the score. Bottom line is that the appliaces are energy saving but we have 10 times more than we used to have............multiply that over a growing population.....what do you think?

that you is bragging about how many fancy appliances you have. But your electric cooker and microwave still produce less carbon emissions than the old camp fire style cooking especially if the power is hydro or wind produced.

[oneofsix]

From Wiki ...

....

Read like an "oops that didn't work lets try rewriting the criteria".

[YellowDog]

that you is bragging about how many fancy appliances you have. But your electric cooker and microwave still produce less carbon emissions than the old camp fire style cooking especially if the power is hydro or wind produced.

Forget wind and hydro, far too expensive.

Let's go for good old glow in the dark nuclear power

[Swoop]

"Carbon footprint" is simply another way of taxing people.

[FJRider]

Read like an "oops that didn't work lets try rewriting the criteria".

Basically the formula to work out the size of the carbon footprint is virtually impossible to work out. As the formula is endless ... or at least never ending.

To the extent that machines that make machines/products that make/made from .... where do you stop ???

But the underlying theory is ... that an overall reduction in waste be made in any process/activity. The use ... and RE-use of products and/or their materials ...

Rampant commercialism tends to go against this ideal. Cheap to buy usually means cheap to replace.

[skippa1]

that you is bragging about how many fancy appliances you have. But your electric cooker and microwave still produce less carbon emissions than the old camp fire style cooking especially if the power is hydro or wind produced.

Fuck off, I dont need to brag, you can pick up that shit for next to nothing these days. Fuck, a 50" plasma the same as mine for $475 on TM and my Sharp 32" can be picked up for under $200. The rest of those household appliances can be picked up for squat at Briscoes or similar.

[imdying]

But your electric cooker and microwave still produce less carbon emissions than the old camp fire style cooking especially if the power is hydro or wind produced.

A fallacy and not true.

[oneofsix]

Basically the formula to work out the size of the carbon footprint is virtually impossible to work out. As the formula is endless ... or at least never ending.

To the extent that machines that make machines/products that make/made from .... where do you stop ???

But the underlying theory is ... that an overall reduction in waste be made in any process/activity. The use ... and RE-use of products and/or their materials ...

Rampant commercialism tends to go against this ideal. Cheap to buy usually means cheap to replace.

the first part is like saying the existence of god can't be proven and must be taken on faith and therefore you can't disprove the existence of god.

The last part is a rant for the general reduction in pollution and not carbon footprint based. Now that I agree with and part of my problem with the fixation on carbon is that they will accept more, and more dangerous pollution in the name of reducing carbon emissions, like nuclear power or the Prius.

[oneofsix]

Fuck off, I dont need to brag, you can pick up that shit for next to nothing these days. Fuck, a 50" plasma the same as mine for $475 on TM and my Sharp 32" can be picked up for under $200. The rest of those household appliances can be picked up for squat at Briscoes or similar.

Over $600 on stuff that is not related to riding your bike

[skippa1]

Over $600 on stuff that is not related to riding your bike

I lie in bed touching myself and watching moto gp

[Akzle]

I remember being taught in science, that matter is neither created nor destroyed, it simply changes form. ( except in a neucleur reaction ? ). We were taught that there is no more material on this planet than when we kicked off.

That theory is probably out of date by now, is it???

more or less the same, BUT humans making shit that would never have happened in nature. petrochemicals,( shampoo, coke ie), sulphites, nitrates, heavy metals etc. that shit aint biodegradable. that shit has no place in the nature-chain. so humans are shitting in the only backyard they've got.

Families may have less children but the world population is the highest it has ever been. When I was a kid, people had a ((not much shit)). I walk through my house now, I have ((a stack of shit)) appliaces are energy saving but we have 10 times more...

so why not get rid of some of it? does it make you happy, having all that stuff to clean?

that you is bragging about how many fancy appliances you have. But your electric cooker and microwave still produce less carbon emissions than the old camp fire style cooking especially if the power is hydro or wind produced.

a) bullshit, a good fire burns cleanly with very little harmful byproduct, and NONE that can't be biodegraded naturally.
b) most of NZ's power is COAL generated. go fucking figure. that electric car? creates more fucking CO2 at source than my filthy detuned I6.
c) humans can't deal with nuclear waste. i think it's highly fucking rude to me making a mess, that remains a mess for 20-30-40 thousand or more years, that can't be fucking cleaned up.

[skippa1]

more or less the same, BUT humans making shit that would never have happened in nature. petrochemicals,( shampoo, coke ie), sulphites, nitrates, heavy metals etc. that shit aint biodegradable. that shit has no place in the nature-chain. so humans are shitting in the only backyard they've got.
Isnt that a moot point though? Humans are part of nature, so it clearly does happen in nature. Whether you like it or not is a different matter. Just like a shark may bite off your dick, it happens in nature, you dont have to like it though.

so why not get rid of some of it? does it make you happy, having all that stuff to clean?
It clearly does make me happy or I wouldnt collect it. I would say that 90% of what I have isnt a necessity of life (maybe even more than that) but life isnt about just existing is it?



a) bullshit, a good fire burns cleanly with very little harmful byproduct, and NONE that can't be biodegraded naturally.
b) most of NZ's power is COAL generated. go fucking figure. that electric car? creates more fucking CO2 at source than my filthy detuned I6.
c) humans can't deal with nuclear waste. i think it's highly fucking rude to me making a mess, that remains a mess for 20-30-40 thousand or more years, that can't be fucking cleaned up.

a) agreed
b) In 2011, New Zealand generated 43,138GWh of electricity. The electricity generated in 2011 was 57.6% hydroelectricity, 18.4% natural gas, 13.4% geothermal, 4.7% coal, 4.5% wind, 1.4% other sources
c) Dead right - fuck the nukes

[oneofsix]

a) bullshit, a good fire burns cleanly with very little harmful byproduct, and NONE that can't be biodegraded naturally.
b) most of NZ's power is COAL generated. go fucking figure. that electric car? creates more fucking CO2 at source than my filthy detuned I6.
c) humans can't deal with nuclear waste. i think it's highly fucking rude to me making a mess, that remains a mess for 20-30-40 thousand or more years, that can't be fucking cleaned up.

Your a) and b) are contradictory. They generate the power from coal by burning the coal and now many camp fires are "a good fire"? Btw heard today that burning coal dust can be 99% efficient and one of the cleanest energy sources available, just a pity the "green religion" is totally and unquestionably anti-coal, there might even be 29 coasters still here today otherwise.

The fact that we generate power from coal burning doesn't negate the if in my post.

As for the electric car it not only produces more CO2 but also more other pollution as well, actually I've already posted this.

Totally agree on c), see my earlier post referenced above.

[Akzle]

b) In 2011, New Zealand generated 43,138GWh of electricity. The electricity generated in 2011 was 57.6% hydroelectricity, 18.4% natural gas, 13.4% geothermal, 4.7% coal, 4.5% wind, 1.4% other sources

i'll accept that. more below.

the difference between humans and nature, is that they're not living in a natural state. they're living in a false "economy" "society" thing that a few have made up to fleece the many, *cue matrix-smith-humans are a virus*
everything else in nature evolves to it's environment, humans change the (immediate) environment to suit them.
everything from the basic diet - we eat winter foods in winter because they have the stuff we want, now we have all kinds of food on demand all year round: we now have obesity, asthma, allergies, coronary complaints, stomach, kidney and liver failure at un-natural rates.
not to mention, the lifestyle they adopt for this "comfort" reflects a nett detriment to the remainder of nature.
moot? i reckon it's fucken bad.

too, i reckon there's a better way than irreversibly consuming fossil fuels. by and large, the planet is made out oil. however, humans only have a very limited access to the planet. being that dey haven't got through the crust, we also have to live where they're digging, which isn't ideal is it?

and why, when there is the energy of the cosmos to be harnessed?

Your a) and b) are contradictory. They generate the power from coal by burning the coal and now many camp fires are "a good fire"?

...Btw heard today that burning coal dust can be 99% efficient and one of the cleanest energy sources available, just a pity the "green religion" is totally and unquestionably anti-coal, there might even be 29 coasters still here today otherwise.

no, many camp fires now are probably fucken useless, cos we can pour some lighter fluid onto pressed charcoal bricks to make it go woo.
once upon a time i'm sure people knew how to lay a good fire, to consume wood they had to chop themselves at a rate that suited their cooking (biff the oven) so as not to waste any. it would also have been indoors to double as warmth (chuck out that heater) and any ash would have gone on the vege patch (nevermind a bag of compost from bunnings)


the lignite that the 29 were chasing was being exported to china. because china have such good environmental laws, ehh....


i would have to see some kind of fact, i doubt NZ is burning coal at 99% efficiency.

we also have that problem where we start underground seam fires...(not to mention the toxic slurry pumped into the ground to get the shit out) like that one from '83 or so, west coast, that, as far as i know, is still burning.

[skippa1]

i'll accept that. more below.

the difference between humans and nature, is that they're not living in a natural state. they're living in a false "economy" "society" thing that a few have made up to fleece the many, *cue matrix-smith-humans are a virus*
everything else in nature evolves to it's environment, humans change the (immediate) environment to suit them.
.

that is one perspective, it is of course based on the premise that it is unnatural for humans to live in a society or as you call it a "false economy" and that it is unnatural for humans to change the environment to suit themselves. Nature itself changes its environment to suit its needs, birds build nests, ants and termites build complex communities with hierarchy's, bees live in communities and build homes that can impinge on the quality of life for other species. If you look back through time, we have had ice ages, times of drought and monsoon, natural phenomenon that wipe out species, whilst others evolve and adapt. All natural.
If it is so unnatural, how have we evolved to live like this?