Serious Environmental Question from a conservative

What?? I didn't say anything.

 

I'll agree with MadMax...this could very easily go into the Global Warming thread that likely prompted the post and is still on the first page.

That said, there are varying answers to all your questions. but at the end of the day, yes, the goal is to stop polluting the earth in every way possible, whether that means still using large, excessive amounts of energy, but from safe renewable resources, or making a serious effort to stop "wasting" energy.

A liberal, aggressive environmentalist may not agree with the last part, as you could, for example, claim light pollution, or any number of "pollutions" - but I think, for the most part, the reasoned and logical environmentalist concerned about global warming and other toxins out there, is not necessarily pro or against complete lifestyle changes...they just want to prevent catastrophic disasters, and protect Earth a little bit more.

 

Wildbill, I honestly think you've asked great questions, whether or not you came up with them, that enough people aren't asking. It's similar to the bottled water craze for "healthiness" when plastic is known to contaminate water and shrink your nads, all while it's also known that it takes 3 liters of water to process the plastic that contains 1 liter of water.

Anyway,
1. No, I think we are messing up both at a good clip. Seriously. But you're correct in asking about what, if we get much more concerned about our carbon footprint in air, what happens to water? The semiconductor manufacturing for all these solar panels has a poisonous cost to the environment also, and nobody really talks about it.

2. I'm not sure how we do the analysis of "less bad." I don't think energy efficient always means more toxic components. There are win-win technologies, as I understand it.

3. I'm a big supporter of "nuculear" power. Seriously, this is one of several points where I depart from most of the left. Is it perfect? No. Does it beat the pants off the alternatives, in terms of risk analysis? I think it does.

 

Way to take the high road there, MM.

 

My thoughts: (Disclaimer: I have an engineering and environmental background, but I am not an expert per say)

Both have been sacrificed.

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yes, but this is extremely dependent on the caveat of "environmentally sustainable" energy. It is far easier to enact simple (and MUCH cheaper) changes such as CFLs as opposed to revamping power infrastructure. It is possible to increase efficiency and limit toxicity e.g., air conditioner coolant, PCBs and other such regulatory upgrades. But you can recycle CFLs to limit mercury intrusion, if this worries you. However, I have pointed out before that the mercury involved in CFL usage pales in comparison to mining, smelting, and oil processing applications. That's not an excuse, just another point in the "scaling" argument.

Yes and no. I intensely dislike the Sierra Club attitude that nuclear is inherently bad. That's a dumb argument. However, the waste, while minimal, is unlike any other waste out there. And it lasts thousands of years. Nuclear should be used, but it is IMPERATIVE that a waste strategy be determined and in-place prior to large scale implementation.

 

I agree with B-Bob. Those are excellent questions and should be a model for rational conservatives that want to have grown up discussions about serious topics.

 

B-Lo makes many of these same points in his cost-benefit article in the other thread (IIRC you dissed that thread).

 

Nuclear power is like the death penalty. I philosophically support both, but the devil is in implementation... and as has already been stated, the volume of nuclear waste is not really the issue.

 

I don't know what MadMax was thinking for ripping into you Wild Bill. These aren't dumb questions....

1. This should be a crucial question when Obama releases his infrastructure plans. America is blessed with a generous water supply but consumption is increasingly concentrated in urban areas. One problem is that our current infrastructure is geared towards making water as cheap as possible for farmers. They can waste water usage as an externality for their bottom line, and the runoff from fertilizers, pesticides, and animal waste has been heavily lobbied to avoid regulation.

Another issue is that despite the overall abundance, it isn't evenly distributed. It's a marvel of engineering and sheer will that places such as Las Vegas or Los Angeles can support that many people, but the costs to deliver potable water are hidden from public view and demanded to be as convenient as possible.

The midwest is expected to expand in America and if economic conditions sour even further, that rate could accelerate. For the most part, that area depends upon groundwater, the same ground water you're concerned about, for basic functions. Well, groundwater can take hundreds of years to recharge and it is already in danger of running out. There are efforts to accelerate the rate of recharge, but it's not enough to compensate for expected growth with current average usage, and it definitely doesn't anticipate for tainted water supplies from mismanaged, improper or illegal dumping of hazardous waste.

We do have an opportunity for planning future usage in light of demographic changes, but whether Obama can tackle it on even if he wanted to is a different story.

2. CFLs are likely a stop gap before LED technology becomes cheaper. It's mainly a compromise to work with the appliances we already have. A CFL that requires 27W, lights the equivalent of a 100W incandescent bulb and is designed to last 5 years (give or take) doesn't make this a black and white question.

3. It depends on how you measure risk and costs. There are many design similarities with current nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs. Until there's a cheaper method that breaks away from the similarities, it's a backdoor to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.

Also, nuclear plants aren't cheap and they take a couple of decades to complete. I hope we're still not stuck on fossil fuel debate in 2030...

 

i was just kidding. I can't believe any of you took this seriously.

Wild Bill, no offense I hope. The treatment for asking questions about these issues hasn't been too kind of late. That's what I was mocking...not you. Sorry for any confusion on that.

 

So what have you learned? I hope: ask question sincerely, in your own voice, with a real thread title, without cheap shots related to your elected obsession, and get a real discussion going. Please enjoy this thread.

 

I agree these are very good questions. I don't have time to answer them in more detail but a quick answer is that the LEED standards put out by the US Building Council considers a variety of environmental issues and not just greenhouse gases. So issues like mercury being used for light fixtures, off gassing from insulation and invested energy in building materials are considered. Also besides buildings codes for appliances are now being written to address disposal of them to reduce pollution from mercury and other pollutants. So while there are tradeoffs in regard to energy conservation and reducing greenhouse gases with other environmental pollutants these are being looked at as a whole to minimize overall pollution and enviromental damage.

 

Yes, but there's kidding, and then there's mocking...

 

did you understand what i was mocking??? judging by the responses here it appears to me the sarcasm was missed.

 

This is a good point. I've had to confront all these LEED issues recently at work, and energy consumption / energy generation is only one part of the pie. The extent to which a building uses recycled or renewable building materials, and the extent to which its materials are NOT toxic give just as much weight, from what I can tell in the code.

 

I was all over it... just waiting for SamFisher to "weigh" in.

 

I thought you were being absolutely serious. The language you used, the way you constructed your sentences, and even your punctuation would all lead a reasonable person to think you were trying to be anything but sarcastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

And because you know I'm really big on condemning people to hell.