Who needs the Energy Star efficiency program? You do

SmartPlanet TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via RSS

•  
  1

  mario@...

  02/03/10 | Report as spam

  Actually, why do we need Energy Star efficiency programs?

  Carbon dioxide is essential for life on this planet the reduction of which past a certain point will be detrimental to our survival. Why is ?Smartplant? unaware of this basic fact? Perhaps because this blog is politicized and not truly interested in real science just spewing dogma in the form of midlevel papal bulls. Please see these links for a better understanding of the relationship and effects of CO2 and plant life on this planet.
  
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090422132829.htm
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0603-can_carbon_dioxide_be_a_good_thing.htm
  
  Now ask yourself what if any is the current issue with CO2 in the atmosphere; do we truly need to reduce the current levels, if so by how much? Second how many people have died as a direct result of the current ?overabundance? or ?potential overabundance? of CO2 in the atmosphere relative to lets say the number of people who have died form the guns or due to the presence of US solders/US baked private or foreign militia/CIA covert opts? I believe if we greatly reduced the US army, CIA covert opts along with the Israeli army all of which are funded by the US tax payer we would be saving far more lives then could ever by possible with CO2 reductions, and actually save the US taxpayer money in the process, resulting in a more moral, sane and respected nation. A far greater gain than can be quantified. The savings could be invested in pro life measures such as tax reduction, better schools, health care and more efficient technology!

•  
  2

  wayne31r

  02/04/10 | Report as spam

  RE: Who needs the Energy Star efficiency program? You do

  Dear Mario,
  
  WTF?
  
  If you read the article you linked to, you would see that the scientists say nothing that disputes the dangers of rising levels of atmospheric CO2 and the inherent problem of global warming.
  
  Here's a direct quote from one of the authors of this very report:
  "As we continue to clean up the air in the lower atmosphere, which we must do for the sake of human health, the challenge of avoiding dangerous climate change through reductions in CO2 emissions will be even harder. Different climate changing pollutants have very different direct effects on plants, and these need to be taken into account if we are to make good decisions about how to deal with climate change."
  
  Sheesh!

•  
  3

  mario@...

  02/04/10 | Report as spam

  Lets respect the truth and be honest to ourselves and future generations!

  Dear Wayne,
  
  Yes I have read and understood the articles. You have taken that quote out of context or perhaps you have not fully understood what was said in these articles with what is already understood with regards to cyclical variables affecting climate changes on this planet. To be fair it is not fully understood by climatologists however what is understood, is not properly or truthfully reported by some very vocal and medial propped people. They say that ?global warming? is detrimental to human survival. Well these articles through scientific study says the opposite. Allow me to quote lead author Dr Lina Mercado, from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, said, "Surprisingly, the effects of atmospheric pollution seem to have enhanced global plant productivity by as much as a quarter from 1960 to 1999. This resulted in a net 10% increase in the amount of carbon stored by the land once other effects were taken into account." Co-author Dr Stephen Sitch from the Met Office Hadley Centre (now at the University of Leeds) adds, "Although many people believe that well-watered plants grow best on a bright sunny day, the reverse is true. Plants often thrive in hazy conditions such as those that exist during periods of increased atmospheric pollution."
  
  Therefore according to this research reducing these pollutants we will in affect be reducing cloud cover and therefore supposedly reducing the ability of plants to take in more CO2. Thus they conclude we must reduce CO2. However what is not said is that along with less plant growth due to the reduction of particulates and water vapour (which was not mentioned) there will be a net cooling in the short to medium run. This is what we have been experiencing in the last several years. Thus those who have a political/economic agenda as opposed to scientific understanding shift their labelling of ?man made? dooms day from ?global warming? to ?climate change.? Less cloud cover however allow more sun light and solar radiation to reach our land and oceans which will in the long run lead to greater concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere. This water vapour, which is ?responsible for some 60% of the overall greenhouse effect (needed for human existence), also contributes to global warming via feedback effects?( http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41594). Water vapour and the resultant increased cloud formation with atmospheric particles will once again ?scatter light so that the surface receives light from multiple directions (diffuse radiation) rather than coming straight from the sun. Plants are then able to convert more of the available sunlight into growth because fewer leaves are in the shade.?
  
  Thus this cyclical affect of warming and cooling is part of natural events on this planet nearly fully independent of human actions, progress or intervention. Therefore why are some people saying that global warming is ?man made? and detrimental to life on this planet? In fact during the warming period there is greater pant growth need to sustain life on this planet during the cool periods of less growth which will lead again to warmer periods of greater growth.
  
  There is balance due to forces of greater impact than human action thus, why are we saying that efficiency is need to say human life and this planet in general? This is a lie. This false notion is big used to tax us further, charge more in electricity and petrol, lead to externality costs with business and government and worse than this a new Ponzi scheme of cap and trade which will be collapsed sometime in the future wiping our peoples retirement savings much as the housing market in the US. The end result is near no affect on the climate of this planet however the middle class or the slave class is made to work harder and have less in terms of savings.
  If we want efficiency for efficiently sake then lets just admit this is the case and move on without the taxes and erosion of the middle class. In fact we should endeavour to make all people better off not just Bush, Clinton, Gore, Bill and the rest of the super rich!