- kelly crespo
- Fort Lauderdale, FL
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Does a catastrophic event need to occur, for people to demand cleaner energy?
We are facing a silent killer, using non-renuable resources are slowing destroying our home however the initiatives are moving to slow. We can think of it as high blood pressure, people only pay attention to it after they have been to the hospital. What will it take to wake up?
Aadi Iyer
Maybe a catastrophic event is what we need to buck up..!!!
Mike Colera 10+
In my opinion, I am not sure that we are destroying our home by using finite resources for energy production.
Simple physics tells us that the conversion of energy in form usually has some loss and that loss can be problematic.
The bigger problem is that these sources are finite . What I see is that many minds exploring for new resources are looking to old energy sources: wind, solar and biofuels for answers.. The problem is that those methodologies are some of the most inefficient ways to generate the energy that our civilization requires. As one wag said, "you can chrome plate a horseshoe but it still goes on a horse." To make matters worse, even sincere exploration of these old technologies have been politicized and used for self aggrandizement and profit.
We are already facing an event, we have maybe a few hundred years to find a new process to sustain the life blood of civilization. And that is what energies are. If we fail, that civilization as we know it is doomed So, what can people do? Those that can, should learn all they can about the new technologies; Quantum Physics, nano-technology, etc.
The rest of us can look carefully at those who we give political power. If we give power to those who say they have all the answers, we will be doomed, regardless of the energy resources.
Random Chance 30+
More than likely, what humans can do, well, let's look at what they have done.
They have polluted every square inch of this globe and there is pollution, dying ecological environments in all the oceans of the world. The air we breathe is filthy, the fresh water rivers, lakes, streams and so on, are heavily polluted.
There has been some clean up on a small scale but all these things are connected, and more closely so than we humans are.
Our land is dying from our growing procedures, and well, it just goes on and on. We have radioactive areas around the globe, leaking radioactive containers, which in Redmond, Washington, the amount is enormous and has been going on for some time. We even have radioactive dumps in the seas along with underground caverns filled with waste. And yet some continue the cry that we need more nuclear power plants as a cheap alternative. The cost is not cheap. It is the most expensive we face. Japanese have been leaving their country after Fukushima. They don't trust their government at all. And they shouldn't. Their radioactive fish has been sold all over the world and the leaking goes on as do the lies that there is no danger to the public. This is for profit, not safety. Not wise choices. Not the right thing to do.
The right thing for humans to do is to stop what they are doing. If what we do, in any way, contributes to more pollution, the extinction of species, the degradation and destruction of ecological environments we depend upon, then
we need to stop. We can't heal anything. We have to leave things alone. I think they would also appreciate that.
I'm sure most everyone knows of pollution nearby.
We cannot really fix this stuff. We can only stop doing it. The earth will find its way to dissipate all the garbage we have provided for this service.
We need to stop. We so pridefully, foolishly and blindly continue to believe and think we can fix it if we only fuck with it some more.
Mike Colera 10+
Who has to stop, who gets to continue.? Who makes the choice? Consumption is life. Mankind can go on an energy diet. Lean and mean, so to speak. I don't want too. Now what?
There are nations who have the capability to initiate a major species extinction. .that will solve the "waste" problem . I guess we can point out the obvious. But, instead of rehashing old science, would it be better for a focus on the new?
Scott Reil
I believe what you mean to say is we cannot do it in time enough to avert the majority of ill effects from manifesting. This is true. We have pretty much ruined things for the kids and grandkids, but we can probably start turning it around for the genration after that. IF we start now...
Mike, what new science you got that we can start NOW? Then I guess we need to start with old science... I like the science that Albert Howard, who went to India to teach them 'modern' agriculture instead came to embrace. Organics is, at its core, really a study of the interactions of carbon and nitrogen. We underestimate both the quantity of, and the ability of, soil organisms to store carbon; if every home, business and farm in the United States went organic today, the climate crisis would end almost instantly. Desertification is an ugly feedback loop where the soil "dies"; it loses its inherent biology and as Alan Savory's new talk demonstrates, the ONLY way to reestablish that is to reintroduce biology. While we are encouraged to plant trees, it is grass savannah, such as Alan Savory is working with, that does the best job of storing carbon, due to higher biodiversity and root densities, and attendant increases in soil biology thereof.
As to Kelly's original question, we have had a bunch of those disasters lately, and sorry to say, while it has advanced the conversation some, the primal scream for non-carbon energy has been muted, to be polite about it. So no, dear, no amount of down-the-road-things-are-gonna-get-bad will start this conversation, even when we are already down the road. You are obviously too young to remember the Seventies, but I was there when we started this conversation (if you don't count Theophrastus, who first noticed deforestation led to warmer local climate, or Joseph Fourier in 1824, who proved atmosphere holds heat, or John Tyndall or...) See how far we have come since?
Drill, baby, drill.. :p
Mike Colera 10+
Where do they go "organic"? If every farm, ranch and other generator of food stuffs were to go organic... we inverse the previous calculations that industrial food production is 30 to 50 % more then organic production. So then, who doesn't eat?
Now climate change:
Your position is that the planetary climate has been in stable state since the beginning until about two hundred years ago when the western (Europe and North America) industrial revolution started extensively using fossil fuels thus raising the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increasing the overall planetary temperature.
My position is that the planetary climate is in a constant change state ranging from the planet being a giant snowball to world wide sauna with the CO2 rates swinging wildly. Further, there is nothing that man can do to change any of this.
OK, your turn...
As far as new science, I don't know what's out there. But, we've done wind, solar and biofuels for the last 10,000 years, if we can't do better, we deserve to go back and live in caves while we starve to death
kelly crespo
But in chemistry there are many material that can have similar uses, and we can work towards new improved ways.
For example biofuel is a potential solution that can replace non-renuable is the sense of utility, and there many others.
Now for the second part, let's assume that global warming has nothing to do with humans interaction and it is just a cycle. That is not the only threat that non-renuable brings.
Now if I have misunderstood some information please be my guest and share your thoughts.
kelly crespo
I saw the talk as well in the TEDlive stream.
Thank you for referring to my question. You are right about me not remembering the seventies I was born in the 90's. Just like I am sure you do not remember the 1800's when people did not want industrialization, however we can use Allan's Ted talk as an example of previous mistakes. when he was young (probably the 60s - 80s I do not recall the decade) Allan mentioned that he order to kill over 40,000 elephants to solve the problem in Africa. After many years of research he found out that he was wrong and came up with a solution to correct what he had done.
In other words he did not say I do not know the solution lets just ignored deforestation we still have a lot of good land. He came up with a solution over years of research.
And as I pointed out before, I am from the 90's maybe just because previous generations could not get of the addiction of oil, it does not mean that my generation wants the same. After all we are allowed to shape our future how we wanted right? For this reason I study to become an influence in my generation.
Thiyagu Jay
Perhaps, the economic crises or market meltdowns that occur regularly have forced the ongoing researches to shutdown or go slow. But it is the awareness on environment protection that has made us adopt energy saving measures and non-conventional energy production sources in a big way that were available even before the news on ozone hole became known widely. Clearly the world is awaiting a breakthrough that will help reducing use of fossil fuel as the quest for fossil has increased worldly conflicts, their use has increased health afflictions, chances to increase clean hydro or nuclear power has reduced greatly. I feel the need of the hour is to find the means to distribute the burden of generating power to as many as possible rather than expecting the state to do it. The various reasons including corruption, unrest, greed, non-cooperation and inertia, the governments have become unreliable in addressing this important need of the mankind. Lack of funds can not be a reason as it can always be found when there is a will.
Thiyagu Jay
Thanks to the initiatives of several scientists, agencies, governments and individuals, the world is more aware of the need to conserve energy, pollute less, tackle the environmental issues or at the very least raise the voice to help the cause. This awareness itself, in a way, has hampered availability of additional energy as none wants a thermal, hydroelectric or nuclear power plant in their backyard. At the same time the world’s population has increased and the resulting increase in consumption of farm produces, gadgets (ex: mobile, TV), services (ex: cable, amusement parks), travel, etc. which in turn has increased energy consumption several fold. Now we depend more of powered tools for what was done by sheer muscle power a few decades ago. So when we attempt to generate more power, also an attempt is required to restrain wasteful consumption.
As I see, there have been many notable improvements in the last decade : Thanks to the energy saving gadgets, I consume less power, despite an increase in their number at my home; old building are being replaced by new ones that conserve energy; newer cars emit less fumes; electric cars are commercially available; depleted green cover is being replenished; large wind turbine forms are seen in developing countries like India too; newer ways to harness energy from Sunlight are being tested; though less efficient, use of solar panels have increased; this is a growing list of incremental improvements that have already touched our lives. I trust and hope a technological innovation becomes available soon in generating sustainable and cheap solar energy.
John Robertson
Of course, CO2 is not a silent killer; it is THE silent life-giver. We would all be dead without it. It is the World's main plant food and its increase has played an important, although seldom acknowledged, part in the quite magnificant rise in food production since 1900. As CO2 rises still further from about 0.04% by volume now to around 0.08% by the end of the century the result will be nothing but good for Nature generally and for plant, animal and human life. Atmospheric CO2 is the quintessence of 'Green'.
Real atmospheric pollutants such as SO2 and NO2 have decreased by one if not two orders of magnitude while CO2 has continued to rise. It is important not to conflate those seemingly similar but profoundly different molecules. CO2 is the benign one that is vital for all life on Earth.
John Gianino
I came to the TED conversations forum hoping to find people that can think outside the box and that could possibly present the "AHAh" answer. Do you feel you came here for a similar reason?
Alex Velazquez
Noah Sanderson
Mike Colera 10+
Charles Curt
Roisin Bermingham
Mike Colera 10+
Charles Curt
kelly crespo
I understand that there are many project around the world for clean energy. However as I stated before "initiatives are moving to slow".
Let me give you a simple example, petroleum has been used in the world a little over a century and we have learned to increase its potential to run our world.
In the other hand the sun has been one of the essential source of power since human started farming. Several centuries have passed and our conventional solar panel only obtain about 15 - 30 percent of usable energy. Does it really seem like we are researching efficiently?
The world uses roughly 15 Terawatts annually, and the available of solar energy that we can obtain from the sun (70% of the energy, due to photons bouncing of the atmosphere and several other factors.) is around 90 - 100 Terawatts.
This is only one of the renewable energy that can be used.
I see a movement towards change but I do not think it is moving fast enough, and that is why I asked if we really need to get to the point of an event to occur, for the issue to become more important.
( If you saw the U.S. debates last yea, the environment was really not one of the main points and it is treated as theoretic subject government wise.)
I comprehend that Americans are one of the biggest polluters, but it can also be seen that as the other nations increase at a fast rate so is their pollution, and catching up in number to U.S. This is alarming because the environment is expected to be affected by more countries becoming industrialized.
http://energy.usc.edu/fact_of_the_week/what_countries_pollute_the_most.html
Ryan Newlon
Yes it was a side note in the debates because one very big issue that was hammered on was the economy. Most of the green energy companies, which we invested billions in accross the board, have either failed or on the verge of failure. With so many suffering and asking the government to do more without raising taxes it is even more difficult to justify. Not to say its not a worthy cause but its definitely a hard sell.
Comment deleted
Fritzie Reisner 100+
I have read that various mystics support and promote this belief system
Comment deleted
Fritzie Reisner 100+
I meant sources that meet scientific standards. I do know about the proliferation of online materials of the sort you have posted.
Thanks for sharing what affirms to your satisfaction your belief.
Charles Curt
Colleen Steen 500+
It appears that we (western culture) are trauma/chaos/catastrophic event oriented. In other words, we often don't pay attention until we are challenged with catastrophy. it's like you say...we have a heart attach, so we may finally pay attention to our health...we're divorcing.....oh....I didn't know there was a problem with our relationship!!! You obviously get the picture!
That being said, I believe that when we are mindfully aware of our "self" and our relationship to other people and our environment, we DO NOT need to wait for catastrophy.
There are a lot of interesting things going on to produce clean energy. More and more projects are coming before the regional project review committee with solar or wind possibilities, which we encourage. I can see 4 new wind turbines from my home. My home is being considered for solar panels, installed at no up-front cost. SunCommon, a Vermont company has done 200 of these projects in the past year. It reduces the homeowners electic bill with a clean energy source , and puts power back into the grid...it is win/win:>)
When we are aware, we tend to look around for possibilities, thereby avoiding the catastrophy:>)
Patrick Anderson
kelly crespo
they wanted people to stop using less energy and they tried different approaches a monetary, safe the environment, be a good citizen, and the last one was that your neighbor was using less energy than you (competition approach).
The most effective one turned out to be when people where compared to the neighbors and this create some sort of competition to using less energy than their neighbors.
As americans we know the United States likes to be number 1.
and about you second question, do we need to do more? definitively, that is why I posted the question in the first place because we as a world community are not progressing fast enough towards correcting our results of our actions.
Once again a catastrophic event would be the a wake up call, but we have the ability to work before it happens.
Jacqueline Patterson
kelly crespo
Maybe a "race to space" type scenario is needed before is to late, where the country or world acts as a whole to take care of the damages our civilizations have caused.
After all we only have one HOME. It is better to act when we have a small amount of time than acting when everything is collapsing.
Jacqueline Patterson
kelly crespo
However if the nation does not act in time, a catastrophic event may occur and this may be the motive for improvement.
Jacqueline Patterson
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
." Global Warming Cause: Methane emissions from animals, agriculture such as rice paddies, and from Arctic seabeds
Methane is another extremely potent greenhouse gas, ranking right behind CO2. When organic matter is broken down by bacteria under oxygen-starved conditions (anaerobic decomposition) as in rice paddies, methane is produced.
Global Warming Cause: Increase in usage of chemical fertilizers on croplands
In the last half of the 20th century, the use of chemical fertilizers (as opposed to the historical use of animal manure) has risen dramatically.
Global Warming Cause: Deforestation, especially tropical forests for wood, pulp, and farmland
The use of forests for fuel (both wood and for charcoal) is one cause of deforestation, but in the first world, our appetite for wood and paper products, our consumption of livestock grazed on former forest land, and the use of tropical forest lands for commodities like palm oil plantations contributes to the mass deforestation of our world.
http://planetsave.com/2009/06/07/global-warming-effects-and-causes-a-top-10-list/
David Grammer
Scott Armstrong 50+
while "leaders" continue to be the paid puppets of the owners and producers, nothing will change.
Robert Winner 50+
When a better mouse trap is built the world will beat a path to their door. In order to defeat coal; as a fuel the administration has enacted Cap and Trade through DOE ... changed the criteria from emmisions to visability ... enacted UN Article 21 and commited 35 government agencies to support the effort ...
So in summary: When politician stop playing political games and become transparent in their efforts instead of using the issue as a political football. When science contributes a better alternative. When the public make it a serious demand. In short we want coal becuase it does the job better and cheaper than anything else and it is abundant.
Did you know that the EPA demands a specific scrubber even though there are better scrubbers available ... instead of setting a level to be achieved and alloowing the companies purchase the scrubber of their choice ... The company by the way was a large contributer to the political party that won. Surprise. Surprise. Further scrubbers have nothing to do with visability.
As the man once said ... It is time for serious people and all the current players time is up.
edward long 100+
W. Ying 10+
Yes.
It is very probably so unless we know quickly what invalid happiness is.
(For invalid happiness, see the 1st article, points 1-3, 14, at
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=D24D89AE8B1E2E0D&id=D24D89AE8B1E2E0D%21283&sc=documents.)
greg dahlen 20+
By the way, if you want to add more time to your convo, hit "edit" and add some.