Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Drove though Oak Creek and Sedona and what I saw made me sick to my stomach.  (Read 6315 times)
Michael West
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349



« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2012, 05:33:43 PM »
ReplyReply

the millions of tons of airborne uranium and thorium produced by coal fired power plants is a tad worrisome to me.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Chine is still putting a plant a week online, and has been doing so for quite a long time.
Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2157


« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2012, 06:16:46 PM »
ReplyReply

This has been a fascinating thread to read.

I am not American - actually a naturalized Australian - however this thread highlights a long and noble tradition of landscape and outdoor photographers in highlighting environmental concerns. Certainly, in itself, this thread does not address the issues noted by the various posters but massive environmental successes have been achieved by less significant beginnings.
Clearly this sort of concern appears to reside in the DNA of outdoor photographers and just as clearly my observations are not original however I feel that they deserve repeating.

So, in summary, I congratulate your desire to participate in the environmental debate and admire your levelheaded rational approach.
Something concrete may yet be achieved here.

Kind Regards

Tony Jay
Logged
DeanChriss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2012, 07:21:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Coal is mostly carbon and perfect burning of carbon produces only carbon dioxide and water. Unfortunately there are lots things in coal in addition to the carbon that, unless removed at a considerable expense, are belched into the atmosphere when the coal is burned. The most toxic like heavy metals and radioactive heavy metals are present only in small amounts, but when you burn coal 24/7 in numerous power plants even trace amounts add up to many tons of these things put into the atmosphere over time. Even the carbon dioxide we used to think was harmless is now linked to global warming, so even perfect combustion of pure carbon in large amounts has a down side. It's worrisome alright.

There are about 6.5 billion people on this planet now and in about 50 years there will be twice as many. On top of that, energy use per person is climbing sharply and will continue to do so as the rest of the world becomes more like "us". New technologies help make everything more efficient, but they will never level or decrease total energy consumption, which is already unsustainable. In total, things like wilderness, wildlife, clean air, and clean water have only decreased and/or degraded through all of recorded history. If you think that's going to change I truly hope you're right, but I'm afraid these are the good old days.

So Lonnie, I know there's no exact answer, but if you had to guess, how long do the inversions usually last? For instance, if a person were to spend a couple of weeks around Moab this winter would the chances of getting some truly clear air be at least "pretty good"?  Huh
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 07:23:34 PM by DeanChriss » Logged

- Dean
wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669


« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2012, 01:06:22 AM »
ReplyReply

During the transportation fuel price spike a few years ago I noted that public transportation ridership rose and fell with the price of fuel.  Total gasoline consumption actually fell, too.  It seems that many people, whether they are concerned about carbon emissions and air quality or not, won't make any changes unless their wallet is suffering.  If that's what it takes them I'm in favor of high energy costs.
Logged
DeanChriss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 07, 2012, 09:37:13 AM »
ReplyReply

During the transportation fuel price spike a few years ago I noted that public transportation ridership rose and fell with the price of fuel.  Total gasoline consumption actually fell, too.  It seems that many people, whether they are concerned about carbon emissions and air quality or not, won't make any changes unless their wallet is suffering.  If that's what it takes them I'm in favor of high energy costs.
+1 on that. When cleaner alternatives are more expensive they will not be developed, and if they already exist they will not be used. It would be nice if we could do things because they're "right", but in the end it's only about "how much this will cost me today". Long term costs such as health and quality of life issues are a big part of the true equation, but they are generally not considered.
Logged

- Dean
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad