# Fish hobbyists and "going green"



## hollyfish2000 (Aug 23, 2007)

It's occured to me lately that fish hobbyists are doing two things that are considered "not good for the environment." We're using a lot of water and we're using a lot of electricity. It's been on my mind lately (Earth Day, I guess) and I don't have a solution to either the actuality of that or the guilt . . . But I do notice the difference in my electric bill and I only have three tanks for a total of about 120 gallons. I can't imagine what you guys with many, many more gallons are seeing each month from the power company.

Anyway, just a musing about the subject. Anyone else worry about this?


----------



## morningsky (Apr 22, 2008)

I use the water from water changes to water my lawn and outside plants.


----------



## Joels fish (Nov 17, 2007)

morningsky said:


> I use the water from water changes to water my lawn and outside plants.


 Ditto , my plants love it .

Why would you feel guilty about enjoying your hobby? There are thing that can be done to offset the costs of running multiple large tanks, mostly I leave lights off and don't run the AC as much. I do it for finacial reasons though, not that hippy BS though. Personally I think that all this green stuff is pure malarky. You end up spending more green trying to be green . It's a total racket.


----------



## lloyd (Aug 24, 2005)

i skip showers on water change day. :lol: the way i look at it: if chevrolet can be subsidized to build hummers and cadillacs, by the same government pressing me to shower in cool water, then all the hype to save the world is bunk. "RIP pontiac. Die chrysler. and kiss my ford GM."


----------



## 55gal (Jan 19, 2009)

How often do you perform water changes ??? :dancing:

I was told by one person in the LFS who has 20 tanks in his cellar that his electric bill is over $500/month

But, I guess if you get enjoyment out of it money is secondary, and that's the whole idea of being in this hobby.
Enjoy !


----------



## 748johnd (Jun 30, 2007)

I don't worry about it. However, living in upstate New York I pray for global warming.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

I have felt guilt from time to time, but on this one, I find myself agreeing with Joels fish 

it's a load of hippy bs to go "green" with disposable ballasts on spiral fluorescents, turn off lights for a single hour, and use "made in china" reusable shopping bags or worry about my drop in the bucket total energy use in my home...

billboards or other advertisements are lit up with antique spotlights all night, government buildings as well... 
ships cover the seas to bring oil to places to make more cheap plastic **** at the dollar store...

even where I work is superchilled down to 74 and lit with more T12 antiques than my eyes can take... who needs it to be 74 all summer in Florida anyway?

My house runs at 84 all summer and feels great... dry and 84 is fine! My house is lit by daylight and I'm looking at switching to as many LED bulbs in my house and over the aquarium as I can... now that is going green!!!


----------



## Hoosier Tank (May 8, 2007)

55gal said:


> I was told by one person in the LFS who has 20 tanks in his cellar that his electric bill is over $500/month


Pfft... Could be relavant or not. I live in the country and my "utilities" are only an electric bill, no gas or water/sewer... 5 bedroom, 3 bath house and when all 4 daughters were home we had $500 a month electric bills every winter. That was when I only had a lowly 29g.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Here's what I don't get about the concept of wasting water. Maybe it's just about where I live. I have a well and water comes from an aquifer. When I change water it goes to a septic system, is purified by mother nature and returns to the aquifer. Where is the waste?

I don't have a good answer for the electricity. I'm picturing a bike next to the fish tank that someone has to get on a pedal every hour to charge batteries to run the filters.

I'm sure you could use solar panels to charge batteries to run filters though. My father's house uses solar panels to charge batteries to run electric appliances when the generator is not running (he is off grid). Expensive though...plugging in to the wall is still cheaper.


----------



## lloyd (Aug 24, 2005)

DJRansome said:


> Here's what I don't get about the concept of wasting water. Maybe it's just about where I live. I have a well and water comes from an aquifer. When I change water it goes to a septic system, is purified by mother nature and returns to the aquifer. Where is the waste?


 the waste occurs, when demand exceeds the natural process, and forces us to recycle water manually. if your well ever went dry...you would grasp the concept (of conservation) rather quickly. just wait until another million people rely on that same aquifer for their water supply. :wink:


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

lloyd said:


> just wait until another million people rely on that same aquifer for their water supply. :wink:


 or a single golf course... 
:lol:

actually happened!


----------



## xalow (May 10, 2007)

I have thought about the environmental costs of keeping fish but considering how much of an issue it is compared to the other things I do that ruin the environment its really an insignificant part of the problem, I probably hurt the environment more just by washing my clothes.

I worry, but not because of my fish tanks.

The idea of an "environmentally sustainable" fish tank would be a fun science experiment though!

For me the hardest part would be lighting the tanks, indirect sunlight in a giant fishroom greenhouse could work in a warmer climate though.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Oh so as long as we control the infestation of humans, we are being green! I can live with that!

I live in the NJ Highlands where development has recently been basically prohibited. Don't tell my neighbors, but I can live with that too. Bear, fox, deer, turkey...all welcome. Hunters...not!


----------



## JWerner2 (Jul 7, 2008)

Im more concerned about my gas guzzling V8 I drive with a whopping 18 mpg's at least 35+ miles a day just to survive by making a living and the waste produced by having two children.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Would be something to consider to have solar panels charging batteries to run the filters though. It would have to switch over to "grid" electric if the battery drained after a bunch of cloudy days. Hmmm.

I agree that fish tanks are probably the least of our worries, but it's the principle of the thing and small steps, right?


----------



## JWerner2 (Jul 7, 2008)

To **** with that. Tell that to China. Im not going to give up my luxuries I deserve when other countries do more damage than we could ever by doing water changes and running aquarium appliances.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Dont'cha want to be a role model? :lol:


----------



## Joels fish (Nov 17, 2007)

**** no , time to stand up to hippy BS and tell'em "get bent"


----------



## lloyd (Aug 24, 2005)

DJRansome said:


> Would be something to consider to have solar panels charging batteries to run the filters though.


 real conservation is more than simply switching sources. expired batteries are high on the toxic waste scale already, listed right after the used tire. proof that (my) government cares less about resource management? Canada is passing law, province by province, that every car needs winter tires. rather than force the manufacturer, to engineer a product suitable to the customer's needs, they legislate the need to double tire sales/disposal waste simultaneously. go economy!!

conserving energy, within the fish keeping hobby, is 'small fry' in comparison.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

The batteries used for storing solar energy are huge and last for dozens of years right? I'll have to research, but we aren't talking about the kind you put in your flashlight or even fossil-fuel car batteries. Are you saying that because solar is used to charge batteries that using solar power for a fish tank would be more polluting than using regular electricity? Or even for a house?


----------



## Joels fish (Nov 17, 2007)

Most of the batteries used in solar setups are lead-acid (just like your car or marine batteries) or Ni-Cad. Properly maintained they last for years, but like those compact flourecents, when they're spent they are toxic waste. A better set up is one that feeds the solar power into your home while we are away. You cant make the meter spin backwards, but you can reduce the amount of spin while your not home using that power, depending on what type of solar panel system you use. Much better than having 20 or 30 batteries sitting aroung emitting noxious and explosive fumes.


----------



## JWerner2 (Jul 7, 2008)

Be more concerned about the computers-like the ones we are using-filling up half of Africa.


----------



## lloyd (Aug 24, 2005)

Joels fish said:


> Most of the batteries used in solar setups are lead-acid (just like your car or marine batteries) or Ni-Cad. Properly maintained they last for years, but like those compact flourecents, when they're spent they are toxic waste. A better set up is one that feeds the solar power into your home while we are away. You cant make the meter spin backwards, but you can reduce the amount of spin while your not home using that power, depending on what type of solar panel system you use. Much better than having 20 or 30 batteries sitting aroung emitting noxious and explosive fumes.


 unless i've fallen behind in technology, we still need batteries to store sun energy in 12V, as a prerequisite to converting it to household 110/120. wind and water have the same inconvenience.

back to topic: does anyone think the waterfall of a hob could provide sufficient energy to power itself once running? those aqua500's can really tumble some water :thumb:


----------



## Steve St.Laurent (Oct 2, 2008)

lloyd said:


> back to topic: does anyone think the waterfall of a hob could provide sufficient energy to power itself once running? those aqua500's can really tumble some water :thumb:


No - there is always some loss involved. If you could make that work you would be rich beyond imagination because you would have successfully invented the very first perpetual motion machine!


----------



## Joels fish (Nov 17, 2007)

lloyd said:


> Joels fish said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the batteries used in solar setups are lead-acid (just like your car or marine batteries) or Ni-Cad. Properly maintained they last for years, but like those compact flourecents, when they're spent they are toxic waste. A better set up is one that feeds the solar power into your home while we are away. You cant make the meter spin backwards, but you can reduce the amount of spin while your not home using that power, depending on what type of solar panel system you use. Much better than having 20 or 30 batteries sitting aroung emitting noxious and explosive fumes.
> ...


The voltage isn't as important as whether it's AC or DC. All you really need is an inverter to convert the current and a transformer to step up to the correct voltage.

lloyd nailed it , you might be able to reclaim enough energy to power something small but nowhere near enough to power a HOB.


----------



## Joels fish (Nov 17, 2007)

I should amend my previous statement by saying that you only need a transformer if you feel you must have 120 or 110v out of the solar panels (provided they don't already put out that voltage). Amps are more important than voltage so long as total current doesnt exceed line voltage and current, then you'd be fine without a transformer. 3volts at 10amps is better than 30v at .3amps.


----------



## lloyd (Aug 24, 2005)

Steve St.Laurent said:


> lloyd said:
> 
> 
> > back to topic: does anyone think the waterfall of a hob could provide sufficient energy to power itself once running? those aqua500's can really tumble some water :thumb:
> ...


 yea, i was fishing... 8) .maybe run a hob off your toilet flush? mine has some wicked turdidity. :lol:


----------



## Norse76 (Jul 20, 2008)

The same hippys that dont want us using water and electricity are the same hippy's that dont want us to have fish as a hobby.

I think those hippy's need to go to China and tell them what to do.

Oh that's right, they are not covered by any rights that allow them to whine about things there. :thumb:


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Apparently NJ does not permit the battery installations anymore anyway. An acquaintance recently installed solar for $30K and received $20K back from the government. It will take 6 years for him to recover his net $10K expense. Guess I'll be plugging in my fish filters for a while longer yet.


----------



## Joels fish (Nov 17, 2007)

Anyone considered wind turbines ?


----------



## earth intruder (Oct 14, 2008)

DJRansome said:


> Here's what I don't get about the concept of wasting water. Maybe it's just about where I live. I have a well and water comes from an aquifer. When I change water it goes to a septic system, is purified by mother nature and returns to the aquifer. Where is the waste?


Well, I can't speak for everyone, but I know that in my area (Southern California) we "waste" water by drawing it from the Colorado River. Naturally, my area is almost always in drought, so we have water piped all the way from Colorado to service Los Angeles, Orange County, etc... The impact on the Colorado River and other areas has been substantial, often to the detriment of native fishes. I think we can all appreciate wanting to conserve fish!



> Such a strategy, however was undertaken at a great cost to the environment, and a range of environmental concerns now beset the Colorado River, both in the United States and Mexico. For example, dams and diversions, with water used and reused, created conditions very unfavorable to native fish species. Not only do dams block fish passage, they also reduce spring flows, trap silt, and alter water temperatures, all to the disadvantage of native species. Further, regulated flow destroys inner canyon beaches and is detrimental to spawning habits of native fish. The introduction of exotic fish posed a further threat to native fish. Four species of native fish are endangered in the Colorado River Basin.


As for myself, I use water from all water changes to water my garden, and I only plant things that are native to the area and that have low water requirements... I don't want to have a garden of water-sucking plants that contribute to draining the Colorado and harming its fish. 

Now, I have some problems with the "go green" movement... I think that hippies cause a lot of damage to the image of environmental conscientiousness. But I think that if anyone takes the time to read a bit about the impact of industrialization on the world's ecosystems, it becomes clear that a lot of species are being negatively impacted by human activity, and as someone interested in fish, reptiles, and wildlife in general, I feel the obligation to do _something_ about it. Now, just what "something" is, is a little more complicated...


----------



## xalow (May 10, 2007)

These concerns are one of the reasons why some people cite for why they keep native species. The idea being it will take less energy to recreate their natural environment. Still even with natives you have to think a lot about how what you are keeping, endangered species live all over.

How about this?

*Cichlid-Forum Earth Day Pledge:* Volunteer with a local government or other organization working on fish/waterways and use that experience to be a more responsible fish keeper or to have a more environmentally efficient aquarium.

Who knows maybe we can have members breeding species that are endangered and live near them, a network of captive breeding programs. I can't think of anything to describe how cool that would be since everyone here all ready enjoys keeping fish it would be doing good work for fish.

I worry this thread will be locked if we start discussing "environmentalism" and the geopolitical pollutants. If you feel compelled to anyways you could say:

"Well China is a major polluter and this influences all of us because the coal they burn has an extremely high sulfur content and the burning of such fuels causes acid rain. Furthermore as much of the tropical fish industry is located in Southeast Asia normal weather patterns will lead some of this pollution to where a huge proportion of tropical fish that we buy are farmed."


----------



## RyanR (Apr 29, 2008)

Keeping my fish happy and seeing them happy, encourages me to be keep at being environmentally conscious... and hopefully does for many other people who enjoy this hobby.

We have fish tanks instead of TV.

-Ryan


----------



## Joels fish (Nov 17, 2007)

That's one thing that has always burned me up about the environmentalists here and other parts of the world. They claim the US is responsible for so much of the worlds polution woes , yet the US is a world leader in clean energy technology and China and India get a free pass (along with the rest of the developing nations) to do what they please. Even more rediculous is that whenever a new nuclear plant ,wind farm ,solar farm , ect is planned or begins construction the same environmentalists that claim we need all this green energy lawyer up to block them in the courts and chain themselves to trees to block the bulldozers. Just doesn't make alot of sence. You gotta give a little to get a little you know.

As far as fish go, the hobby is very green in general. captive breeding reduces the impact of the hobby on the natural habitats of our fish , and helps keep some species from slipping into the abyss of extinction . Never mind that it serves as a potential pool from which species could be re-introduced to the wild in places where they have become extinct. We do plenty of green things as a whole in this hobby , so I'm not gonna feel guilty about burning a little power to run my equipment . :wink:


----------



## JWerner2 (Jul 7, 2008)

> Anyone considered wind turbines ?


Yes, the government, and it failed miserably plenty of times.

They used windmills on old farms many years ago. Why do you think we moved it up a notch?

I also dont see the efficiency of one. It would still need to charge a battery as wind is not constant. Therefore we go right back to the solar power debate.


----------



## JWerner2 (Jul 7, 2008)

xalow said:


> These concerns are one of the reasons why some people cite for why they keep native species. The idea being it will take less energy to recreate their natural environment. Still even with natives you have to think a lot about how what you are keeping, endangered species live all over.


Is it not easier for most of us to keep water warm/tropical than it is to keep it cool enough for most native species? I always thought a chiller would cost more to purchase ( thats a given ) but also operate.

I know in my house with central air I can keep the water warmer easier all times of the year.


----------



## lloyd (Aug 24, 2005)

here's an idea for the energy conscientious, with spare time:
if a standard 19x36 solar panel gives out 30watt in full sun, and a common canister (eg. rena xp3) consumes 19w, then why not consider to install 2 panels under a 72x24 shallow tank? with a glass bottom, and the lighting we usually blind our fish with, two panels might possibly power a pair of canisters, and supply enough additional energy to heat the tank modestly. you would still need a battery to store power during lights out, an inverter, and maybe some timers to turn one canister off during lights out...


----------



## JWerner2 (Jul 7, 2008)

Cause that extra blinding light isnt going to penetrate substrate.


----------



## Joels fish (Nov 17, 2007)

> I also dont see the efficiency of one. It would still need to charge a battery as wind is not constant. Therefore we go right back to the solar power debate


 Very true , the catch 22 of home scale green energy is that for it to be most efficient it requires the capture and storage of the harvested energy. Dirrect setups remove the need for the storage but give no benefit when conditions aren't favorable for generation . Batteries let you store energy you harvest but have the downside of needing monitoring and maintenance to be most efficient . not to mention that they are boxes of toxic material and have to be treated as such when it's time to dispose of them.

I think the best renuable energy source we currntly have is the huge untapped politi-thermal energy pool in Washington. If we could just tap into all that "hot air" , we would have an endless supply of cheap relatively clean energy . I think it's worth researching. Now let the grant writing begin :lol: .

I'm with you on the chillers *JWerner2*. They are expensive , and do require a good bit of power to opperate. If you have a reef tank with high output lighting and multiple filters heating the water to dangerous levels , then they make sence and if you have all that suff your not going to be so worried about the added expence anyway. For freshwater tanks though they just aren't needed for the most part. An unheated tank in a cool room in your house normally does the trick for natives. I've done the native thing but I used a pond , the ultimate "green" aquarium. No heating ,no cooling, no lights,and if it's big enough , no filter.


----------



## JWerner2 (Jul 7, 2008)

I say we just deal with it and make the ones that supply us with energy figure it all out.


----------



## lloyd (Aug 24, 2005)

JWerner2 said:


> Cause that extra blinding light isnt going to penetrate substrate.


 i mentioned utilizing a glass bottom. :roll: 
simple as this:
http://www.makeitsolar.com/science-fair ... -light.htm
and matching with this:
http://www.specialty-lights.com/aquariu ... -faq3.html



JWerner2 said:


> I say we just deal with it and make the ones that supply us with energy figure it all out.


that's what they want. lemmings with cheque books. =D>


----------



## JWerner2 (Jul 7, 2008)

lloyd said:


> JWerner2 said:
> 
> 
> > Cause that extra blinding light isnt going to penetrate substrate.
> ...


Umm buddy, all our tanks have glass bottoms. It would have made more sense for you to have mentioned bare bottom :roll: :roll:

Considering lots of us have tanks for display purposes I dont see that as a practical invention, sorry.

Lemings? No the average _consumer_ does want more from the power companies for less. That along with a purer cleaner system of obtaining energy is the whole point!

Let them figure out a way for us to get clean energy cheaper! :roll: :thumb:


----------



## lloyd (Aug 24, 2005)

JWerner2 said:


> Considering lots of us have tanks for display purposes I dont see that as a practical invention, sorry.


 i used to keep discus in glass bottom tanks. i apply the same benefit to my 300gal. stingray and 360gal. datnoid tanks now. pretty much any species intolerant to pollutants, or too valuable to risk illness, are best kept without substrate. obviously, a solar powered filtration system would also need a glass bottom application.
my hypothesis is viable. (JWerner2: that means it will work.  ) practicality has little to do with innovation. in fact, most energy conservation tools require a degree of sacrifice to convenience.


----------



## JWerner2 (Jul 7, 2008)

It would work. Im not saying it wont but for those of us that keep some tanks for display like I mentioned its the practicality of the matter.

Im not willing to sacrifice aquascaping and I know lots of others arent especially those that have plants but for those that have multiple tanks for breeding, fry, and or harder to keep species maybe it is. I dont see it as practical for my taste.


----------



## lloyd (Aug 24, 2005)

i thought it was a fun idea to throw into a 'go green' fish keeper's post.


----------



## RyanR (Apr 29, 2008)

lloyd said:


> i thought it was a fun idea to throw into a 'go green' fish keeper's post.


It's a good idea, though I wonder how much light gets lost on its way to the bottom of the tank and what you recover.

There are definitely solar options, using some sort of passive convection system to heat the tank. There are lots of neat systems out there... we even have a "green" house (not a greenhouse) here on campus with lots of smart and innovative ways to power and heat the house. I wish it was cost effective for individuals like us to do some of this.

-Ryan


----------



## tankhead (Aug 8, 2008)

I feel no guilt for using some water and electricity. I pay for both and am keeping myself healthy by maintaining a wholesome, family oriented hobby. This hobby is better than many things going on and is a good way for a son and father to spend time together - Cost? priceless!


----------



## lloyd (Aug 24, 2005)

RyanR said:


> It's a good idea, though I wonder how much light gets lost on its way to the bottom of the tank and what you recover....


 depends on depth of water, i suppose, but reflectors on 3 sides could also help to boost efficiency. i'm going to try it, if i can score one of those solar camping gadgets. watch for me in the DIY index. :thumb:


----------



## Joels fish (Nov 17, 2007)

I doubt that the Lighthood has enough output to allow the photo-electric cells in a solar panel to generate any current. However that doesn't mean you couldn't put a solar panel outside somewhere . Still though ,one small solar pamel won't do very much.


----------



## earth intruder (Oct 14, 2008)

JWerner2 said:


> Im not willing to sacrifice aquascaping and I know lots of others arent especially those that have plants


Could keeping plants in aquariums have the advantage of preventing wasted water? I know I do _much_ smaller water changes on my planted tanks, probably 30% less.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

I think a lot of people believe you should change the same amount of water in planted tanks. Nitrate is just one indicator, there are probably other pollutants that need to be eliminated by removing and replacing the water.


----------



## JWerner2 (Jul 7, 2008)

earth intruder said:


> JWerner2 said:
> 
> 
> > Im not willing to sacrifice aquascaping and I know lots of others arent especially those that have plants
> ...


No, there is many reasons for water changes. Planted or not.


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

There is the idea of the 'natural aquarium' ... no heater, plants, no filter, little to no water changes. I don't subscribe to it myself, but it's been done many times before successfully (years and years at a time).


----------



## bntbrl (Apr 23, 2009)

My 29 gallon planted tank gets one or two 50 percent water changes a week. I use the water to water all my plants and fill my hydroponic setup. My other tanks I use the water to water houseplants and the outside plants as well. The hydroponics grow herbs, lettuce, and stuff liek that. Bell peppers and some oother things. The CF lights are on for 8 hours a day.

The compact flourescents have mercury in them. We are trading off energy for piling up mercury in a landfill somewhere. Whats worse? Its the chicken or the egg thing.

I breed some fish and other things also. However I dont breed any endangered species, but Im sure some do and it would be good to have them at least in captivity. Like the Endlers per se.

I sell plants and fish to offset my electric bill. I dont run other stuff when Im not using it, like the bathroom light, the tv, or the 'puter.

Not sure how my compressed co2 would add into the co2 footprint, however ther are plenty of worthless SOBs out there making plenty of CO2.

Theres a lot of the Go Green that is 4 feet up a bulls rump. The CF spiral bulbns have mercury, so we are trading them in for landfill material later. The reusable bags are all made in china also. The solar batteries are toxic. Much of the metals for making batteries are getting in limited supply anyway. Where do you find a balance?

Hunting is a natural renewable resource use.


----------



## Joels fish (Nov 17, 2007)

Right now there is no easy answer to the going green thing. Mostly it's hype and completely impracticle. You are absolutely right about the CFLs , technicly they are toxic waste once they're spent. No one is talking about that end of things. Most of the reusable batteries are little cylinders of toxic swail, and yet these sorts of things are pushed on us in an effort to "save the planet". Makes little sence to me. Even worse is the nonsence that CO2 is killing the planet. It's not and never has been. The Earth is cooling all on it's own(the warming that started all this hooha ended 10 years ago) and not because anyone started driving fuel efficient cars, it was in spite of it.

I'm all for conservation, it's just a good idea , but the concept that all this "green" stuff is mandatory for our world to continue is bull. It just gives environmentalists and government another way to force their will on us without our representation. That's just wrong.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

Joels fish said:


> Right now there is no easy answer to the going green thing. Mostly it's hype and completely impracticle. You are absolutely right about the CFLs , technicly they are toxic waste once they're spent. No one is talking about that end of things. Most of the reusable batteries are little cylinders of toxic swail, and yet these sorts of things are pushed on us in an effort to "save the planet". Makes little sence to me. Even worse is the nonsence that CO2 is killing the planet. It's not and never has been. The Earth is cooling all on it's own(the warming that started all this hooha ended 10 years ago) and not because anyone started driving fuel efficient cars, it was in spite of it.
> 
> I'm all for conservation, it's just a good idea , but the concept that all this "green" stuff is mandatory for our world to continue is bull. It just gives environmentalists and government another way to force their will on us without our representation. That's just wrong.


*clap*clap*clap*stand*clap*clap*clap*.........

Have you ever compared the numbers on the CO2 produced by a volcano to that of any man made source? It's likely that Yellowstone National Park creates more CO2 per year than all man made sources in the US combined...

Waste management industries have refined landfills to the point where ponds on adjacent properties are not polluted by them and once the landfill is considered "full" they build parks on top... I think the world could use more clean parks 

I do agree that underdeveloped countries are creating pollution and not managing it responsibly... but increasing our guilt/costs isn't doing anything to solve that...

But there is no profit/control gained by promoting such information...


----------



## bulldogg7 (Mar 3, 2003)

I agree with George Carlin on the save the earth thing. I try to conserve but only to conserve my wallet.


----------



## frank1rizzo (Mar 14, 2005)

My wife and I are only going to have 1 kid. That does more for the environment than any cut backs on my tanks could ever do. :lol:


----------



## RyanR (Apr 29, 2008)

Joels fish said:


> Right now there is no easy answer to the going green thing. Mostly it's hype and completely impracticle. You are absolutely right about the CFLs , technicly they are toxic waste once they're spent. No one is talking about that end of things. Most of the reusable batteries are little cylinders of toxic swail, and yet these sorts of things are pushed on us in an effort to "save the planet". Makes little sence to me. Even worse is the nonsence that CO2 is killing the planet. It's not and never has been. The Earth is cooling all on it's own(the warming that started all this hooha ended 10 years ago) and not because anyone started driving fuel efficient cars, it was in spite of it.
> 
> I'm all for conservation, it's just a good idea , but the concept that all this "green" stuff is mandatory for our world to continue is bull. It just gives environmentalists and government another way to force their will on us without our representation. That's just wrong.


Holy schmoly,

I'm a liberal leaning guy, but I'm also an edumacated individual, so I totally agree that the the "green" movement is not the way to go... lots of those ideas aren't doing us any good. I'm definitely frustrated. :?

but... but (!), as researcher in geology and biology (my day job), I can say that the evidence for human induced climate change is pretty overwhelming. You're welcome to believe the regurgitated mumbo-jumbo that tells you what you want to hear, but the actual evidence and records for "recent" climate go back an easy 120,000 years.

I have a feeling that a moderator will lock this thread real soon. :lol:

-Ryan


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

RyanR said:


> I have a feeling that a moderator will lock this thread real soon. :lol:


To prevent that from happening...

Regardless of environmental or political ideals...

I think we can all agree that lowering our electrical usage can be beneficial in several ways... As some areas have experienced drought conditions in recent years I think we can agree that reducing 'wasted' water is also of value...

Despite why we conserve... I think we all can appreciate practical conservation!


----------



## Joels fish (Nov 17, 2007)

As an edumacated person I would feel that you would know that when something has overwhelming evidence, it requires further scruteny. I lean towards no left or right, just what makes sence . I've done a fair amount of research on the subject and can't find any real evidence that what has been experienced is anything other than normal fluctuation in climate. CO2 levels have increased but not hand in hand with global temps ,as we have ben lead to believe. It's also been shown that the data used to prove the GW/CC theory was not reliable. Also it's hard to explain the current cooling with that data which would predict continued rise of temps. One thing we can say for certain on this subject is that we still have a lot to learn about climate and it's dynamics before we can make any real hard and certain predictions about what it will do . Untill that time Both sides of the argument are mumbo jumbo.

To keep this thread from falling into the abyss of locked conversations, if you would like to further this side discusion PM me. we may just learn a few things from each other. :thumb:


----------

