Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
An interesting idea about our environment; ..I'm probably late to the party, though
Topic Started: Dec 6 2005, 07:00 AM (363 Views)
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

I was thinking about this on my snowy drive to work today. That's actually what got me thinking.

Everyone loves a fresh snow fall...but it's always the day after where the depressing sight of exhaust-stained snow is seen. Granted this is only near roads...but it really goes to show you how dirty our society is...usually it's invisible too.

Anyway, I'm sure this has been suggested or even implemented before...but what I suggest is that the government propose a new committee to work with the EPA and the department of energy, do carry out a comprehensive 3 year report.

This report would cost a lot of money, but the consequence of not having one would cost even more.

I say this because we all know that our current consumption and production habits can't last forever. The problem is, there are so many conflicting studies out there, that not much progress can be made with a clear goal or even a clear problem!

The commissioned report should work with those government agencies, and basically examine the energy situation (usage, production, consequences, forecasts), and the same thing with oil, water, and other natural resources.

I dunno, I just think an official commissioned report on the state of our natural resources, spending, usage, and production habits, and clear forecasts as to what to expect and then recommendations at the end about what we should stop doing, what we should continue doing, and what we should start doing...would be highly valuable to our nation and the world.

Whatcha think? Is this is a dumb idea? :shrug:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
What possible value would such a report provide?

The government is not qualified to do this.

Asking the government to spend untold millions or even billions to try to come up with accurate information about this is a waste of money and resources that could be better spent on R&D for alternative energy sources such as solar, wave, wind, geo-thermal, nuclear, etc.

We would only have yet another useless government report on something.

I vote for dumb idea.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Actually, they do have reports like that, coming from the DOE and the EPA. I have a summary of the 2000(?) one in my room if you want to check it out.

It spells out our consumption, production and total resources (as we know them) of all types of fuels, divided by sector. Also lays out our criteria pollutant discharge for a single year.

EDIT
And you're right, this does cost a bit of money to produce. Fortunately, DOE and EPA put an adequate amount of money into their R&D; at least I think they do, even though there's always room for improvement.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Well first of all, we do have current reports, but I'm thinking about something along the lines of the 9/11 Report.

Something public and worthy of headlines.

Basically, the power of public opinion (and education) is priceless, and I think such a public and major report (even if it's just the combining of current EOR and DOE reports) would spur much support of necessary changes, since right now you have to admit that most people know we should do something, but that's it. No one (generally) knows what we should do or how to do it.

Mark, I see what you're saying, but personally I see it as more effective if we spend money and time on a major report that helps focus our goals. We spend a lot of money on R&D, but I often think that the goal is unclear, and that the situation is unclear.

I don't know...I'm just thinking that a major public report saying "Hey, STOP doing this! We'll run out of oil in 20 years" or "Hey, good job! Keep doing this!" or "Hey! This is the situation, this is the problem...how can we fix it?" in a very public and official way, would do a lot.

I can't think of a more appropriate quote than Gene Kranz during Apollo 13:

"Let's work the problem, people...let's not make things worse by guessin'!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Quote:
 
I dunno, I just think an official commissioned report on the state of our natural resources, spending, usage, and production habits, and clear forecasts as to what to expect and then recommendations at the end about what we should stop doing, what we should continue doing, and what we should start doing...would be highly valuable to our nation and the world.


Well, what I'm telling you is, this stuff is already out there, all of it. It's already "public", but it's not in the news because I suppose nobody cares very much about how we might run out of oil in 100+ years. EPA and DOE both have a publications section on their website where this information is displayed.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Ok, well then (and I guess it's necessary in our ADHD society), that we get a PR plan together and market those studies. Or at least make a faux-committee which basically takes the existing data, and makes an "official" report out of it. This might involve additional research to make the study comprehensive...or maybe not. I don't know how comprehensive the current DOE and EPA findings are. Aqua, you might know...do they do all I was suggesting? What we are doing wrong, right, what we should do, how much time do we have left, what rumors are true and false (global warming, ice age, oil reserves in the US, alternative fuels, etc..)?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
For example, these two websites are a pretty good starting point to find that kind of information:

http://eia.doe.gov/

http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/pollutants.html

Now, each department summarizes some of this data into "official reports" that have to pass the QA standards of our federal government. They're fairly specific, however; one for mercury emissions alone is hundreds of pages I'm sure.

Then, some people in the private sector just make it their job to compile all this information into books (full of citations), and simplify the text so that non-scientists can understand the data. I got one of these that's 3 or so years old on my bookshelf. They're great stuff. The only drawback would be that since they're making the books, they decide what goes in them; same ol' story. So, best thing to do is to get your hands on a couple, and make sure the sources come from gov't reports only; no watchdog groups or 3rd party organizations.

As for an official commissioned report done by the cooperation of the DOE and the EPA, I suppose that if they don't have one of these it's because all the information that would be put into it is already in the public domain in the form of seperate reports.

EDIT
I'm totally with you about marketing this information. I mean, heck, there's annual water quality information ONLINE that shows exactly what's in your drinking water, every year. And people still buy their Britas and complain "well, you never know WHAT'S in those pipes." Well, yes you do, if you took the time to find out.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Not much point carrying out a big study if oil company lobbyists have more influence than scientific evidence.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

John, I think a major public study like this could debunk the oil lobbyists' power. No?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Aqua Letifer
Dec 6 2005, 10:37 AM
I mean, heck, there's annual water quality information ONLINE that shows exactly what's in your drinking water, every year. And people still buy their Britas and complain "well, you never know WHAT'S in those pipes." Well, yes you do, if you took the time to find out.

I just bought one of those gadgets for our apartment! :angry:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Well, I think you bought one to clean up the water, not because you have this baseless, conspiracy-theory type fear that public drinking water is horrible for you and contains pure, concentrated evil that will devour your soul, should you ingest a glass. There's people like that out there, believe it or not.

Here, check this out!

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo/md.htm
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

What...you work for the EPA or something? :sword:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
No, but I have a lotta friends over there. :wink:
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The 89th Key
Dec 6 2005, 10:48 AM
John, I think a major public study like this could debunk the oil lobbyists' power. No?

No, actually. It's not just the oil lobbyists, it's all of them, environmentalists included. Whenever there's a study done at great expense everyone just goes on and on arguing about whether it was valid, who had vested interests, etc, etc, until eventually people say it's all out of date now anyway, and maybe we should do a new study.

Yes, I am a little cynical.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Well, do you think people say that about the 9/11 report? I think people have their issues with it, but generally people cite it when having debates...and when someone cites it, it's not refuted. I think the same use could be found with a report of this nature, too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
John, you might want to read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. It's good stuff.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
Aqua Letifer
Dec 6 2005, 11:53 AM
Well, I think you bought one to clean up the water, not because you have this baseless, conspiracy-theory type fear that public drinking water is horrible for you and contains pure, concentrated evil that will devour your soul, should you ingest a glass. There's people like that out there, believe it or not.

Here, check this out!

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo/md.htm

Apparantly, you haven't seen water from the Monongahela! (shudder) :o
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Oh, I have, LD. And the Potomac, and the Susquehanna. Wading knee-deep in algal slime is NO walk in the park (even though you need to take said walk in the park to get there). Them's nasty stuff. But the state may or may not be doing a decent job cleaning it up; only one way to find out!
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
I'm joking, AL. I found your post to be very funny. I hope I don't get flamed for saying that! Oh, I'm ok, I didn't use a :lol2: . Crap, now I did. Guess I'm nothing more than a cheerleader. Oh well. Give me an A (A)- Give me a Q (Q).............


Seriously, I am very much on your side about the whole tap water issue. Let me ask a question: Do those faucet filters take out any of the good stuff in water?
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Sorry, I didn't pick up on the humor becuase you're exactly right, the Monongahela is nasty nasty! ...good thing we have pretty darn good water cleanup in MD.

Quote:
 
Seriously, I am very much on your side about the whole tap water issue. Let me ask a question: Do those faucet filters take out any of the good stuff in water?


Hmmmm, good question! I think they don't for the most part, but since all faucet filters are different, you might have to just ask the folks who made the one that's in your sink.

Here's a gov't pamphlet about water filtration; I think most of the info. can be applied to faucet filters as well.

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/faq/pdfs/fs_h..._filtration.pdf
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
I guess my biggest question would be regarding Flouride. If tap filters and pitcher filters take out the flouride.
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
I think a good rule of thumb is to say "no, they don't". I'd check the specs of your filter to be sure, but generally I don't think they're that effective. They mostly get rid of the big stuff, like taste & odor compounds, and lead.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply