///

Thank you RETIREDGUY123 for asking this question. My short answer is YES, I have drastically changed my habits. Specifically, I drive an electric car and have already signed a contract to install solar panels on my roof.

I just recently moved to TV I must say one of the first things I noticed was how few homeowners have solar panels. Many homeowners have solar pool heaters and solar lights but very few panels. Hmmm? Of all the states in the country, one would think Florida would have a lot more.

A little background, my last home was in Maryland and whenever I went to Home Depot there was always a solicitor from Solar City around asking customers about their home. I had just bought a home with a perfect southerly facing roof and so I decided to look into it. I can get deep into the economic feasibility of solar but in a nutshell, the payback for my panels after federal and Maryland tax credits was 7 years. After only 7 years, my panels would have paid me back my initial investment. Don't forget that the average solar panels will continue to produce electricity for over 30 years! When you do the math, it's actually a fantastic investment!

Instead of being concerned about how hot your attic gets in the summer wouldn't it be great to turn that around to a positive outcome? Solar Panels usually over produce during hot, sunny days and actually feed the grid when demand is at its greatest. I always enjoyed watching my 'net meter' run backwards during the daylight hours.

So, to answer the question again, yes, I have drastically changed my ways. I have solar panels that will supply my home, charge my electric car, my golf cart and my lawnmower. All from the sun.

I realize that one man's(woman's) actions won't make a dent in this huge problem, but I'm doing my part.

P.S. For those with a Netflix account, please watch 'Inside Bill's Brain: Decoding Bill Gates'. The third episode discusses the development of a traveling wave reactor which is a incredibly safe reactor that uses spent nuclear waste as fuel while emitting zero carbon dioxide. Incredible.

I commend people who voluntarily decide to buy an electric car. But, only about 5 percent of the cars currently being used in the U.S. are electric. Even if the power companies are currently burning fossil fuels to produce the electricity, they could switch to solar or wind to produce that electricity, which would then power those electric cars. However, people are buying thousands of brand new gasoline cars every day, and those cars will be on the road burning gasoline for the next 20 years or longer, with no chance to ever use a renewable energy source. So, if the people who think our planet is in jeopardy within the next 10 years are correct, then we are very much behind the curve in fixing this problem. Just something to think about.

The conclusion that this is definitely a good thing requires so many unproven assumptions.

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

Just saying.

We should all be thankful for, and good stewards of, this thing we call earth no matter who's right or wrong.

Steve

From that reference...

"A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth..."

A single UN official says...

That says so much about the attempts to alarm the world...whether you believe in man-made climate change or not.

So let's turn this around, since so many of you feel that so many of us who want to preserve nature, try to reduce waste, reduce pollution, reduce toxins, are wrong.

Tell us why you want to pollute the air? Tell us what your motivation is, for intentionally wasting, when you could - not waste? Why do you WANT to contribute to climate change? What's in it for you?

Because those are the only questions I can possibly have to ask, someone who is so dead set against preservation and ecological health.

That AP article was from 1989.
Steve

I can't believe none are concerned with the damage from controlled burning. So much pollution.

In the 70's the "experts" were predicting an upcoming global cooling (but the Time Magazine cover seen these days on the internet shouting about The New Ice Age is bogus - it never happened). Global warming is as much a political issue as a science issue, so it's hard to separate fact from opinion. The Green New Deal would do nothing about the biggest carbon problems - China and India, and would cost us trillions. There is little an individual can do, other than vote for politicians who are dumb and dumber on this issue. I guess I'll just die of old age and hope the doomsayers are wrong.

Those are at the very least, unkind things to say. Has anyone you have ever known said they want to pollute the air? I can't recall knowing anyone who wants to contribute to anything that harms others, other than people who are sociopaths. Industrialization has halved poverty and hunger. Lives depend on it. Greenies get a bad rap because they often talk down to people, and act smug and virtuous while really not accomplishing anything much to change things. Because doing all these very virtuous things doesn't really DO anything to change things that can be seen. Plus we are all living here in our air conditioning , if you want to split a hair. All driving our cars. All farting.

I am not thinking that anyone has the right to pontificate on this matter.

industrialization has halved poverty and hunger since 1990 - Bing

Thank you for that perspective. You had me going humm. Hope everyone gets your point.

Why people pollute? My guess is because they do what is most convenient and cheapest. The more complicated, the more effort something takes, the more expensive something is, the less some people are going to go for it.

Double check the forums you're reading please. I've read nothing of the sort on this one.

Why does Florida allow the burning of 400,000 acres of sugar cane every year?

Because people's livelihoods depend on it?

Plus, I was watching Nova the other night and learned that forest fires were part of the natural cycle of nature and fire puts elements back into the soil and it is cyclical. Look here;

forest fires are part of the natural cycle - Bing

I spent 4 winters in South Texas and I can tell you that burning sugar cane does pollute. In Texas they call it the black snow. I read that Brazil has banned the burning. They strip the leaves and compost them. In Michigan, where I am from, sugar beets are raised and they don't burn them.

Well then we should tell California right now, to tell them to STOP putting out all those wildfires. Let the state burn, because it's part of the natural cycle and we need to put the elements back into the soil, right?

And all those hurricanes that hit Florida? Stop re-building! This is Nature's way of replenishing the planet! Nature wants that land to sink, it's cyclical and we need to stop interfering in it!

Your house gets torn down by a tornado? Find another place to live and do NOT rebuild. Nature wants that land cleared, leave it cleared.

Do you not understand how ridiculous that sounds?

Newspaper articles from the early 20th century were raising red flags about the climate warming and the rapid rate of glacier recession. In the 1960's and '70's, the articles were about the climate cooling, and scientists speculated that we were on the precipice of another ice age. But then it started warming again. What's different this time? I suspect it's the invention of carbon credits -- a new tax. Governments around the world loved the notion taxing their people for a natural phenomenon. The study of climate transformed from a science into political ideology.

In an earlier post, someone had mentioned Milankovich cycles. There are probably other, longer-term cycles that have yet to be discovered and understood. We have been recording climate data for just over a century, and jumping to conclusions about millennia. Would we trust the conclusions of a cardiologist with one day of training whose diagnosis was based on a two second rhythm strip? I wouldn't. He might see the flat line between beats and determine that 40 percent of the time I'm dead, and my only hope was to raise my heart rate above 150. What science has told us is that CO2 on our planet has been as high as 1,600 parts per million, we are currently at 400, and anything below 160 is too low for plants to survive. I don't see the urgency. If anything, we should be adamant about getting the politicians out of science. After all, these are the same kinds of people who, with no evidence, told us that polyunsaturated fats were good for us. Has anyone noticed that the numbers of deaths from cancer have increased nearly identically to the increased consumption of vegetable oils?

I’m not sure if some don’t get it or just want to be difficult.

Or... some people want to shut down free speech by proclaiming there is only one side to an issue - their side - and other views must be suppressed, demeaned or ridiculed.

Your cardiologist might or might not see a problem. But he will STILL recommend you consume more plant than meat, more protein, fewer carbs, get plenty of exercise, and keep hydrated. Science may or may not know if our contribution to climate change is significant. But science still recommends we do our part to minimize our impact on the planet, *whatever amount* that impact might happen to be.

ABSOLUTELY YEP...to both posts.

I've even had a couple of religious people tell me that why should they lower their standard of living or spend their money now, helping the planet...when the 'Second Coming' is so near anyway? :ohdear:

My post above, offers one reason as to why many...are unwilling to make any real effort. :shrug:

It seems the instructions were stewardship not ownership for those who follow:

Beginning with the Genesis 1:26-28, God instructs humanity to manage the creation in particular ways.

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Leviticus 25:23 states:

"The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants."

Whoa, wait a minute. No one said they want to"pollute the air". As I personally stated, I am all for being a good steward of our environment, ie: don't foul your nest. So, a little discretion in your choice of verbage please.

Ummm, because that's how you harvest sugar cane.

Ummm...totally incorrect.

It's done because...it's cheaper and easier.

Alternatives to burning (strike match here)

In Florida though, the sugar lobby is very powerful and donates a lot of money to politicians, so that's the real reason it's allowed...and probably won't change. :ohdear:

Believe the scientists , not the politicians.

Where does it say that?

Certainly agree with that.

Agree.

But keep in mind also that scientists are not in total agreement about climate change, contrary to what many would have you believe.

There are a few fringe pseudo-scientists who have claimed that climate science is unknown, unresearched, that no one really knows, or that it's just chugging along doing what it does and nothing that any human does in life will have any affect on it. It's true, these people do exist.

EVERYONE ELSE in the climate science field acknowledges that a) climate change happens, b) it happens whether we contribute or not, c) we ARE contributing to it, d) pollution IS a contributing factor, e) drilling and mining ARE contributing factors, and f) the human factor IS statistically significant. They conclude that if we reduce the human factor - even if we don't eliminate it - the severity and speed of climate change will also be reduced.

You should read the 2019 Finnish Study that debunks Climate change

You speak of pseudo-scientists. I did not.

All reputable scientists do not agree on all aspects of climate change.

Whatever statement follows loses a lot of credibility by just starting off with those words.

You are correct. Only 97% agree while 3% still remain unconvinced. Their names are Larry, Curly and Mo. no offense, but this thread needs a little lift.:MOJE_whot:

If you read this thread you would have seen it is not a matter of whether most people believe in Global warming and climate change. If you read this thread you would see that most people do what they can and really what they always have done to conserve energy, reuse, recycle and repurpose and not waste. The solutions that now exist cost more money than they save and do not make a considerable change really.

The trouble with the devout is that they like to say I will do whatever I can to save the planet. Well most people feel the same way, but at this time it isn't going to stop global warming or climate change or really effect a difference that is discernable.

I keep saying.
I keep saying.

The greenies believe just what they want to believe about the views of the world and of conservative and moderate thinkers..They are still arguing about the reality of climate change when others are saying...At this time it cannot be fixed, which sets the greenies off. They want us to march, and to move our arms and legs and to clutch at straws.

If you read any recent polls from good sources (Pew, Gallup) you would see that more than 70% of all Americans are concerned about climate change and global warming.

Global Warming Concern at Three-Decade High in U.S.

If you would have read my post, you would have known I was giving a little humor to one post that I quoted. My belief is when someone scans posts without reading them completely they tend to misunderstand.

"The greenies..." wow. Just wow.