Allow me to pose a more general question to OS:

TP, global warming, and any other specifics aside - do you believe that we (mankind) have an obligation to not destroy the environment?

evillepaintball wrote: Clark Kent wrote: Allow me to pose a more general question to OS: TP, global warming, and any other specifics aside - do you believe that we (mankind) have an obligation to not destroy the environment? at least until we find another planet to live on

Crow (4/19, Springfield, Tenn.) wrote: I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.

I don't know about OS, but while I feel that there there is some obligation, it doesn't extend into lunacy. Do you really feel that packaging toilet paper in indavidual squares would really help the enviornment?

There IS no scientific consensus on the subject of the CAUSE of Global Warming.  Yes, we know the average temperature on the face of this planet went up about 1°F in the last century.  WHY this happened, is still being debated, though you'd never know it from the media coverage.

1. Non-scientists generally don't want to bother with understanding the science. Any claims of consensus relieve them of any need to do so. These claims also serve to intimidate the public.
2. There is a clear attempt to establish truth, not by scientific methods, but by perpetual repetition.

Personally, I think we're doing our part here.  Is there room for improvement?  I have no doubt.  Will we?  Most likely.  Reduce pollution.  Use compact fluorescent lights etc...  But to follow the gloom and doom sermons of the likes of Al Gore is pure folley... 

This is right up there with the proposition that I heard not too long ago for the imposition of a tax on barbecuing since BBQ grills emit CO2. There would be an annual fee paid by those wishing to grill.

smooth huh?

Okay, no one mentioned this. How exactly do you propose the gov't "limit" our toilet paper use? Sell in individual packets? The packaging required would destroy the environment faster than TP ever would.

Idiots.

oldsoldier wrote: Yes Clark, Mankind has an obligation. Now once our scientists finally decide what exactly is the true error in our ways, maybe, until then I am sceptical.

In other words:  "No"

Ok then.

Bidets work wonders, but you have to be careful or you get very wet.  And the first few times you will use more TP to dry yourself off than you would have just wiping.

But they definitely work as advertised, and do a much better job than mere TP.  In fact, folks in many parts of the world have very unflattering terms to describe the people (like us) who don't use bidets.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: I am sticking with the general theme of the thread and talking about cleaning yourself. Has anybody in here used a bidet? Do they really work? Is it as refreshing as it looks?

I've been in several countries where they're used... but never used one myself.  Honestly, they need to leave an instruction manual with them or something.  There's no seat on them... am I supposed to hover?  Just sit down in the basin?  I don't know the protocol...

FlimFlam wrote: Honestly, they need to leave an instruction manual with them or something.  There's no seat on them... am I supposed to hover?  Just sit down in the basin?  I don't know the protocol...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidet - Done .

In my experience most users would find it odd to actually sit down instead of hovering, but I know that many people do sit down as well.

Of course, the more common in-home "hand bidet" is easier to use, since is basically a hand-held shower head attached to the toiled.  Just spray as needed.  I actually prefer these to the standalone bidets, since I don't have to get up and walk around half-dressed.

Tolgak wrote: I have a feeling OS is doing this to prove a point in school or to other people or something, not just for himself. I'm calling for all forumers to ignore his threads. Who's with me?

Um, not me?

1. I seriously doubt OS is still in school, I don't know him or any details about his life for certain, but I have a gut feeling.

2. Yes, he does troll a bit with his right wing perspective, and while he does appear to me to be further to the Right than I am, I agree with a good portion of what he says, I do call myself a conservative.

3. If you feel like he's trolling, DO NOT POST, rising to his bait and then starting this 'let's freeze him out of our little clubhouse' crap is inane ... and indicates that he got what he wanted out of you (assuming that he's trolling) ... that is ... a reaction. The only thing that you accomplish by trying somthing like this is to make yourself look like a childish idiot.

4. This is a thread ... about ... TOILET PAPER ... yeesh, ... yes I know that he threw a few barbs out there aimed at leftists and enviornmentalists, getting upset about it is only going to entertain him and/or reinforce the steryotype of leftist/environmentalists or whatever that he's baiting to. Please learn to pick your battles. What are you going to accomplish by flaming over this? Who are you going to convince?

Feel free to express your opinon, heck, that's what this forum is for, but anything beyond this ... I'm going to take a lighter tone.

oldsoldier wrote: The hyprocracy of the issue is the point.............

Indeed.  As in the hypocrisy of declaring an obligation not to destroy the environment, and in the same breath absolving yourself of all responsibility until "the scientists finally decide what exactly is the true error of our ways".

Very convenient.  You get to declare moral superiority without any moral responsibility.

Not only don't you have to do anything, you don't even have to feel guilty about not caring.  You can happily go about your wasteful destructive ways without worrying, since it really isn't your problem.

That is a very elegant piece of buck-passing.  I am impressed.

I don't know how I missed this gem the first time around...  sorry for the double post.

oldsoldier wrote: I beleive Mt St Helen's put more greenhouse gasses and particular polutants in the atmosphere in four days than man has is 4 centuries.

The origins of this myth are clouded, but I believe it goes back to a book written a few years back (Trashing the Planet, by Dixy Ray).  It certainly has legs, however.

In any event, the claim that volcanoes put out more CO2 than humans is factually incorrect, but also displays a lack of understanding of the issue.  The numbers get a little iffier when we talk about SO2, but people unfortunately tend to lump those (and other pollutants) simply as "greenhouse gases".

According to the http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html - USGS , the COMBINED annual output of all vocanoes worldwide, including underwater volcanoes, is about 145-255 million tons of CO2.  It varies mainly depending on how many volcanoes erupt in any given year, but volcanoes put out CO2 all the time, regardless of eruptions (which most people fail to remember).  The estimates I have seen for Mount St. Helens' eruption in 1980 have been in the range of 10-15 million tons.  Eruptions look spectacular, but are just part of volcanic activity.

In comparison, the standard count for CO2 put out by human activity is about 24 BILLION tons of CO2/year.  For the math-challenged, that is about 100-150 times more than the combined volcanic activity.  Human impact on CO2 emissions completely dwarfs volcanic activity.

The volcano bit is simply false.

Moreover, even if it were true, it still would be beside the point, because it's not like we are trying to STOP CO2 emissions.  We need CO2, and lots of it.  The issue is balance and change.  The planet is not going to suddenly explode if the CO2 count goes too high, but the changes brought on by this may be unpleasant to us.

Even if volcanoes did contribute more CO2 than humans, that would still be the wrong question - the real question is whether we, by our actions, are adding the last straw to the camels back that will lead to unpleasant change.  Or, better yet - is there something we can do to avoid or delay unpleasant change, regardless of whether we caused it?

The question isn't so much about who/what caused the change - there are millions of contributing factors.  The REAL question is whether we can do something now that will result in better living conditions for our grandchildren.

Environmentalism, or sustainability if you prefer, isn't really about "saving" the environment - it's about preserving a climate in which we (humans) can survive, and preferably survive without too much change to our way of life.

oldsoldier wrote: How do we all know, or assume that I have no enviornmental concerns.

All I know of you is what you post.  Upon this I base all of my conclusions.  Your post spoke quite clearly for itself.  If you add to that by additional posts, then I will modify my conclusion as data is added.

But I do not believe that you are alone in that buck-passing mindset - it is very common, to be sure.  And in most of the country, doing something out of the ordinary for express environmental purposes is somehow seen as bad.

Solar panels on a roof actually REDUCE the value of that home in much of the country.

But here's another consideration, from that bastion of liberal thought, The Economist.  Last fall they had an issue on global warming.  They examined available evidence.  Their conclusion?  They viewed the evidence in favor of the "consensus" view as powerful but not conclusive.  Their analysis, however, was much simpler:  The potential result of climate change would be total economic devastation.  It would be truly foolish not to spend the money now to protect against it. 

You do not buy fire insurance because you expect your home to burn, but because it might, and that would really suck.  The Economist concluded that there are easily enough evidence to justify spending billions upon billions in efforts to combat this change.  A simple application of Pascal's Wager will show the wisdom of this conclusion.

Sitting around waiting for "scientific certainty" is the sure path to extinction.

And boy ... does it get some people up in a lather, whether they'll admit it or not.

Tolgak wrote: It seems to me like he's up to something. By getting us to respond, especially with posts that don't mean anything, he's already won.

Depends on what the competition is for ... heck, I can see only two reasons for coming to this forum, entertainment and information. I come here for both. If you ask me ... somone has only won somthing if you agree to play with them and they 'win' at it. I can't speak for OS over whether he finds this entertaining or not. I'm not even sure why I allowed myself to get drawn into it beyond the fact that the tone in here was turning nasty, over an environmental debate.

I'm not attacking you personally Tolgak, I was just hoping we could tone things down and keep it in perspective.

I'm sure the Farkers here have already seen this, but I can't help myself.

tallen702 wrote: As to the question of greenhouse gases. I often wonder about the effects of our (US/Canada/Western Europe) polluting habits versus the effects of the industrial revolution when there were no pollution controls.

That's a relatively easy question, actually.  NONE of the pollution controls currently in effect have anything to do with CO2, which is by far the biggest emitted greenhouse gas.  So basically a coal plant today emits the same amount of CO2 as an equivalent coal plant 150 years ago, give or take.

Where we have made vast strides is in the regulation and limitation of many other pollutants, mostly particulate.  Mercury is the target of much current effort, and some strides are being made there as well.  The blackened windows in old London (and current Beijing) are primarily the result of fly ash particles coming out the smokestack.  Coal plants in the US and Europe now have significant fly ash controls in place.

Our cars and power plants are cleaner now than before with regard to many pollutants, but have not changed with regard to many others.

And there is my biggest beef with anti-environmentalists - they whine and moan every time a new change is proposed, but a decade or two later they can barely imagine going back to the way it was.  Are you happy that you don't have to dust the ash off your car before going for a ride?  Thank an environmentalist.  Happy that you can now fish in those rivers and lakes again, that just 20 years ago were covered in algae?  Thank an environmentalist.

tallen702 wrote: Growing up in "The Chemical Valley", I can say that there have been huge strides made in "scrubbers" that effectively remove Greenhouse gases from the stacks of most chemical and energy plants. While CO2 currently still bypasses the systems, SO2 and many other greenhouse gases have been removed or reduced due to the systems in place. That is why I wonder what the difference between greenhouse emissions from the IR to today are.

Ah, yes.  Of course, those other gases were regulated for reasons unrelated to greenhousedness... :)

I know that SO2 is a pretty serious culprit, and we have done a good job of limiting that one, but my understanding is that CO2 is far and away the overwhelming leader in man-made greenhouse emissions, regardless of local regulation from time to time, simply due to relative volume.

Darur wrote: We really know squat about climate and squat about climate change.  The Dust Bowl, Grand Coulee, all examples of us seeing climate cycles and assuming thats how the area will always be.  There is so much more we need to understand before we can say anything about global warming as fact.  The sun's role, the affects of the Gaia theory, even things such as the oceans affect on CO2.  We cant say with reasonable confidence that we know whats causing global warming and what it will do.

While I understand your sentiment, you are over (or under) stating it a bit.

We absolutely CAN say with reasonable confidence that human behavior has had a very significant impact.  We clearly do not understand all the factors, nor can we state as "absolute fact" even what the human influence is - but "reasonable confidence"?  Unless thousands of scientists are actively lying, yes we can.  This has gone beyond mere speculation, unlike some of the other theories you mentioned.

oldsoldier wrote: I am still confused. Was the same vast scientific community "lying" in the 70's when the prediction of a "New Ice Age" was thrust upon us as man's next catastrophy?

I've responded to this in detail before, to you, more than once.  Clearly that was a waste of time.

Man affects the enviornment, but the great heat tab in the sky, as well as other celestrial events (axial shifts, the "wobble", shifts in magnetic fields, etc)have more of an effect than man, and these we have no power over.

And I specifically addressed this on the previous page, in response to one of your threads.

I am still waiting the scientific explination of the archeological/geological evidense of past Global Warmings, long before the industrial revolution.

Also addressed by me, in detail, to you, in previous threads.

I don't know why I bother.

All of this information is readily available to anybody who honestly wants to know.  That you keep asking the same questions, without bothering about the answers, tells me that you don't really want to know - you just like asking the questions.

.Ryan wrote: Ok, so the fact that scientists have been wrong in the past means that they shouldn't be believed now, no matter what the evidence gathered via the scientific method and put up to extensive peer review by the best scientists this planet has to offer says?

Bingo.

This "argument" of "they were wrong before" keeps coming up whenever somebody doesn't like what scientists are saying.  Always convenient, always idiotic. 

oldsoldier wrote: So let me understand, we are supposed to accept as gospel the word of the scientific community no matter the past record of such. So why is the earth not flat, the sun revolve around the earth and other decesions reinforced by a consensus of the time. So people like Galaleo(sp) and such were idiotic by your definition, based on thier dispute of the scientific consensus of thier time. I get it now.

This is another one of those "I keep saying this" talking-to-a-wall efforts. 

The Earth was flat?  NOT a scientific consensus.  That was a pre-scientific RELIGIOUS belief.

Sun revolving around the Earth?  NOT a scientific consensus.  That was a pre-scientific RELIGIOUS belief.

These two "examples" keep coming up, despite the fact that they may be the WORST examples ever. 

If anything, they further my point - the actual scientific community developed observable data in a difficult-to-understand field (astronomy).  The non-scientists refused to believe the scientists, because they couldn't understand it, and if they couldn't understand it, it must be wrong.  But eventually the mass of data overwhelmed all uneducated opposition.

These "examples" also futher display failure to understand the way the scientific process works.  Scientific theories, once supported by a significant amount of data, are hardly ever "disproven".  They are modified, tweaked, and improved, but rarely simply discarded.  This is because the data lives on, and any theory that can explain and organize the data is valuable, even if it cannot explain ALL the data.

Pointing to one data point that appears inconsistent with a theory does NOT invalidate that theory, generally speaking.  Instead the theory is either limited in application, or modified to accomodate the new data.  Science is a continuous process, not a "solved it" math problem.

Even though Galileo had the basics right, and we still teach many of his theories, he was wrong about many other things.  This does not invalidate the correct portions of his learnings.

Back to the topic at hand if they want to take my toliet paper, they being the disturbed people that think that one piece is enough, then they're more than welcome to. I will simply use a washcloth and flush that down. Take that liberal tree huggers take that.

Industry will have to change:  TRUE

Individuals can't make a difference:  FALSE

Lighting is about half of the residential energy use in America.  Switching to CFBs can cut that usage by 75%.

Every mile driven in your car (on the average) produces about 1 pound of emitted CO2.  If half of Americans drove ONE MILE LESS each year, that would be millions of pounds of CO2 reduced each year.

California is aiming for a million homes with solar roofs within a few years.  These million very small residential systems (only a small fraction of American homes) could generate as much energy as at least ten large coal power plants.  That's a whole lot of pollution avoided.

And there is more.  Installing energy efficient windows, getting efficient appliances, etc - these things will all save you money while also reducing damage to the environment.  You CAN make a difference.

I agree that changes in certain portions are great, and we should constantly be working on a cleaner enviorment for our own sakes, not just for the good of future generations. Global warming aside, mass pollution isn't that great for your body either.

However, saying that the public needs to downsize their SUV's, and enforcing expensive, economically unsound solutions (i.e. the Kyoto Protocol) should not be done until we have sufficient evidence to persuade the American people that diasaster is near.

And the hypocrisy is evident-people like Gore and Crow aren't throwing down their private jets and mansions for adobe huts and jackasses are they?

stratoaxe wrote: And the hypocrisy is evident-people like Gore and Crow aren't throwing down their private jets and mansions for adobe huts and jackasses are they?

A couple of thoughts on this:

1.  Gore and Crow are not the sustainability movement.  Just because some of the most visible folks might appear hypocritical, that in no way relates to the underlying science.  Nor does it reflect upon how most people are behaving.  I know dozens and dozens of people who are walking the walk in small ways.  Switching bulbs.  Carpooling occasionally.  Not turning on EVERY light at the same time.  Considering mileage when buying a car.  And that's not counting any of the real hardcore Granola folks - these are just average Joes.

2.  Nobody is saying that Gore/Crow, or anybody else, should downgrade to caves and jackasses.  That is a straw man argument.  The suggestion is to take where you are now, and take a baby step backwards.  Replace 10 bulbs in your house this year.  Turn up the temp in the house by 2*.  Maybe pass on the engine upgrade in your next car.  Little things. 

Nobody realistically expects that people are going to sell their mansions, and sustainability is about realistic, SUSTAINABLE change.  Asking people to make a massive switch is not realistic or sustainable.  So if Gore has switched out 10 bulbs from last year, he is already ahead of most Americans.

3.  I don't know about Crow, but Gore is putting his money where his mouth is, by buying rather expensive carbon offsets.  Last I heard his household is entirely carbon-neutral.  Granted that this is the rich man's solution, but that's the beauty of a market-based approach.  People can choose to buy their way green or behave their way green, depending on their situation.

I wasn't necessarily using that as an argument against global warming, but instead an example of the political power trips and evangelism that's rampant through the more radical corners of this issue.

And what you said is exactly what I said-small things are great. But ideas like the Kyoto Protocol are ridiculous. Let's not forget that Kyoto recognizes China as a developing nation, and is therefore exempt from the economic responsibility afforded, which basically puts huge financial loads on the US to cover for nations such as China, when China is the now the heaviest pollutor in the planet.

The solutions being put forward right now aren't going to solve the problem, they're putting all of the responsibility and blame on the US, and therefore saddling the American people, when in reality the evidence isn't conclusive enough to make this kind of change.

And, to get back on topic:  Toilet paper.

While Crow is a bit of a tool, and her "1 square" suggestion is silly, there is some truth there as well, and another example of how even a little change can go a long way.

Let's assume that, on the average, Americans go #2 once each day, and use multiple squares of tp on each occasion.

Therefore, if you vowed to use one less square than you currently do per #2 effort, you would use 365 squares less per year. 

Now let's see what happens if one in 30 Americans did this - reduced their #2 tp by ONE SQUARE:

1 in 30 Americans = 10,000,000 people.

10,000,000 * 365 = 3,650,000,000

So, if a small fraction of Americans would simply reduce their daily tp use by ONE MEASLY SQUARE, we could reduce tp waste by more than THREE AND A HALF BILLION squares.

That is a giant waste reduction by any measure.  And there are a billion little ways like this to reduce waste.  If even a small fraction of Americans change just a few little things, it will have massive impact.  There is no need to go to caves and jackasses.

Again, I agree on the topic of small things, but these aren't the issue being presented on the political scale. These are non-enforceable habits that a hedonistic society such as ourselves need to be educated about.

It's the large scale political measures that are causing division in the global warming debate. Every American can do his part, but we're not yet ready for a massive change in society just yet.

stratoaxe wrote: It's the large scale political measures that are causing division in the global warming debate. Every American can do his part, but we're not yet ready for a massive change in society just yet.

Understood - but unfortunately, I am not sure you can separate them.  In order for these little changes to take hold, we need a fundamental shift in the American psyche - going back to the old mindset of "waste is bad".  Most people today don't even think about waste at all.

And that fundamental shift will, IMO, be brought about by large policy changes at the political level.

And, of course, change at the corporate/industrial level MUST come by policy change.  Powerplants won't get cleaner on their own.  More expensive alternate fuel powerplants won't get built on their own.  As much as I dislike government interference in the marketplace, I view it as absolutely necessary in this instance.

A little off topic, but this reminds of a Futurama episode..."Everyone, throw your garbage in the streets!"