The great thing about the corona virus

gordo

Well-known member
The virus has demonstrated that some 8 billion people can within a week completely change their lifestyle to combat an eminent global threat.
Imagine if the same response was directed at another eminent global threat - climate change. We can already see the side effects of the corona response to the environment - clear skies over Chinese cities, fish and dolphins returning to the now clear Venice canals, etc.
 

Erik Nikkanen

Well-known member
The virus has demonstrated that some 8 billion people can within a week completely change their lifestyle to combat an eminent global threat.
Imagine if the same response was directed at another eminent global threat - climate change. We can already see the side effects of the corona response to the environment - clear skies over Chinese cities, fish and dolphins returning to the now clear Venice canals, etc.
Just shows that people respond to what they see as real problems and don't respond to what, in their hearts, they don't see as real problems. People unconsciously calculate the cost/benefit ratio and how it will affects them and even their children.
 

gordo

Well-known member
Just shows that people respond to what they see as real problems and don't respond to what, in their hearts, they don't see as real problems. People unconsciously calculate the cost/benefit ratio and how it will affects them and even their children.
Not sure that's the reason. I think it's just human nature of most people to think in short term increments. If an event is not an immediate threat then it can be ignored. It's why, for example, people build houses on earthquake fault lines and flood plains. Earthquakes, floods, climate change, etc., are not immediate threats so they don't register as a problem. Corona is an immediate threat so there is a response.
Frog in the pot syndrome.
 

gordo

Well-known member
Maybe that is why after years of preaching global warming is a danger, Obama bought a $6 million house on Martha's Vineyard?
No. More like, for one example, a politician promoting coal as an energy source by using the marketing term “ beautiful clean coal” to benefit himself immediately by swaying public opinion in order to gain votes while ignoring the long range negative impact of the use of that fossil fuel.
 
Last edited:

Erik Nikkanen

Well-known member
As I see it, eventually there will be a need to obtain energy from non fossil fuel sources. Not because of CO2 but due to the lack in the future of available cheap fossil fuels. I think the window is only about 100 years.

CO2 is considered an issue but CO2 is generated naturally all the time. It is a cycle. It is generated by nature and absorbed by nature. Of the total CO2 generated, man made CO2 is only about 4% of the total.

So IMO, no matter what is true about climate, there is a very important need to develop sources that will provide cheap energy. I suspect it will be nuclear of some sort. That needs to be researched. Money should not be wasted on renewable non-solutions that are proposed now.

If energy can be made cheap enough, the public will go for it.
 

Slammer

Well-known member
The problem is simple, we can have very cheap and abundant energy but finate and dirty, or clean and environmentally safe but very expensive.
There is no third option with existing technology and there won´t be any magic cure, maybe a tweak here and a tweak there but there is, for instance, only so much energy you can pack in a chemical reaction like in a battery. Which ever way you look at it fossils as an energy source are on the way out, we won´t actually run out of them, but the cost and energy required to produce it will very soon be equal to the net energy output, after that a fossils are no longer a viable energy source but an energy sink. Then we will need renewables, but we need to develop the tech now and not when it is too late.
 

smalloffsetpressexperts

Well-known member
Gordo let me ask you a question. Your entire family and loved ones are on a bus, the bus crashes all people require a hospital. The hospitals power is down 70% due to no wind and cloudy days. the battery's are drained.
There is a pile of coal or other fossil fuel that would restore all power. Your choice is wait for a windy, sunny day to supply power and hope the loved ones do not perish. Or use the fossil fuel and save them all, how would you decide?
 

smalloffsetpressexperts

Well-known member
No. More like, for one example, a politician promoting coal as an energy source by using the marketing term “ beautiful clean coal” to benefit himself immediately by swaying public opinion in order to gain votes while ignoring the long range negative impact of the use of that fossil fuel.
Is that what your government officials do, besides smoking weed?
 

gordo

Well-known member
Gordo let me ask you a question. Your entire family and loved ones are on a bus, the bus crashes all people require a hospital. The hospitals power is down 70% due to no wind and cloudy days. the battery's are drained.
There is a pile of coal or other fossil fuel that would restore all power. Your choice is wait for a windy, sunny day to supply power and hope the loved ones do not perish. Or use the fossil fuel and save them all, how would you decide?
Seriously?
Fossil fuels are going to be with us for generations to come. This issue is not of usage per se - it's one of scale of usage. By analogy, you can choose to eat a couple of candies a day but if you choose candies as your main nutritional source of calories then you are going to develop health issues.
There are many choices everyone of us makes each day, from what we eat to our mode of transportation that cumulatively can negatively impact the environment minimally or in a significant way. The impact of virus just demonstrates that people have the opportunity and can change the living choices they make when they become aware of the personal health impact of their choices.

RE: Your second post -

In Canada, 9% of electricity is generated with coal.
In the U.S., 27% of electricity is generated with coal.
In 2018, the Government of Canada announced final regulations to phase-out traditional coal-fired electricity by 2030. So, rather than encouraging its usage we're actively discouraging it. Even the US was able to change how it burned coal in order to moderate its negative impact - for example with the clean air act of 1990 ( Acid Rain )
 

achatwin

New member
The virus has demonstrated that some 8 billion people can within a week completely change their lifestyle to combat an eminent global threat.
Imagine if the same response was directed at another eminent global threat - climate change. We can already see the side effects of the corona response to the environment - clear skies over Chinese cities, fish and dolphins returning to the now clear Venice canals, etc.
I read a National Geographic article that the fish and dolphins returning to Venice are false. The article basically asked why people would want to circulate such falsehoods.
 

Puch

Well-known member
People changed their lifestyle because they were ordered to do so. It wasn't their choice. They are threatened by the government (like in France and Belgium, where they have to pay a hefty penalty if one dares to go out), they're suffocated by the massive layoffs. Gordo, did you read the news that 6 million asked for unemployment welfare in the US? Yes, it is a kind of 'change of lifestyle' if you like to say it that way. Most other people owning or working in a small business are on a very thin ice - we can only manage 2-3 months with the current trickle of jobs. If the Christmas season will be postponed (stating that the 'virus' is still at large), then we have to close up shop.
 

gordo

Well-known member
I read a National Geographic article that the fish and dolphins returning to Venice are false. The article basically asked why people would want to circulate such falsehoods.
You are right. I was infected by a viral tweet.
 

gordo

Well-known member
People changed their lifestyle because they were ordered to do so. It wasn't their choice. They are threatened by the government (like in France and Belgium, where they have to pay a hefty penalty if one dares to go out), they're suffocated by the massive layoffs. Gordo, did you read the news that 6 million asked for unemployment welfare in the US? Yes, it is a kind of 'change of lifestyle' if you like to say it that way. Most other people owning or working in a small business are on a very thin ice - we can only manage 2-3 months with the current trickle of jobs. If the Christmas season will be postponed (stating that the 'virus' is still at large), then we have to close up shop.
My point was only to say that people can change their lifestyle and that the change can be for the better. - they do have a choice. For example, rather than promoting and subsidizing fossil fuels, put the effort instead on encouraging the development of renewable and/or lower impact energy sources.
As far as government lifestyle initiatives is concerned - I don't think that shutting down entire economies or global enforcement of self isolation is warranted by the facts. See this video for a better explanation of why:


I'm guessing that politicians don't want to risk the political impact of of being seen by the voting public of not doing anything or enough. Their response appears to have little to do with the reality of the situation but more the public perception.
A great many small businesses - especially restaurants and goods merchants - will not survive the imposed loss of business.
Sad indeed.
 

smalloffsetpressexperts

Well-known member
Seriously?
Fossil fuels are going to be with us for generations to come. This issue is not of usage per se - it's one of scale of usage. By analogy, you can choose to eat a couple of candies a day but if you choose candies as your main nutritional source of calories then you are going to develop health issues.
There are many choices everyone of us makes each day, from what we eat to our mode of transportation that cumulatively can negatively impact the environment minimally or in a significant way. The impact of virus just demonstrates that people have the opportunity and can change the living choices they make when they become aware of the personal health impact of their choices.

RE: Your second post -

In Canada, 9% of electricity is generated with coal.
In the U.S., 27% of electricity is generated with coal.
In 2018, the Government of Canada announced final regulations to phase-out traditional coal-fired electricity by 2030. So, rather than encouraging its usage we're actively discouraging it. Even the US was able to change how it burned coal in order to moderate its negative impact - for example with the clean air act of 1990 ( Acid Rain )
The analogy of candy is kind of lame. Give people credit for common sense when it comes to eating candy which eating candy has no effect of running a business, trying to get to work, dropping the kids off to school and having enough Volts/Amperage to fire up these huge digital copiers to help produce junk mail mostly to get paid and get more candy to get fat. LOL

President Trump in my eyes is keeping us safe. He is aware we need all energy sources in use and stocked piled. That includes fossil fuels for now. We are all spinning on the same planet and yes I care to ensure our globe is kept safe. When my granddaughter was born and my wife and I saw her, I turned to her and said I want to save this world, now that she is a part of it.

So your point is Canada is better than the USA?
 

Puch

Well-known member
For example, rather than promoting and subsidizing fossil fuels, put the effort instead on encouraging the development of renewable and/or lower impact energy sources.
For God's sake, what can Average Joe/Jill do about energy sources? Just please, don't come up with the tired 'vote for the good' mantra, as all the so called democracies are just facades, where paid actors (the politicians) provide theathrical performances to befuddle the people, with the great help of the mass media. This is especially true in the US and in most of the EU countries, where all the parties are pushing the same agenda. If you need some hard facts, just look up what the the Green Party has caused to Germany, with their insistence of shutting down all the nuclear power sources, in the wake of Fukushima. They turned back to coal, emissing more than before. And yes, they are on the top edge with renewables, they produce a lot of energy with solar and wind generators, but that's not enough in all cases, as Smalloffsetexpert said.

A great many small businesses - especially restaurants and goods merchants - will not survive the imposed loss of business.
Sad indeed.
This is why I don't understand your hooray optimism.
 

gordo

Well-known member
The analogy of candy is kind of lame. Give people credit for common sense when it comes to eating candy
Correct, it was an analogy to illustrate an idea. Whether people have common sense regarding consumption is a different topic.

President Trump in my eyes is keeping us safe.
I specifically didn't mention Trump as it's not relevant to the point I was trying to make.

When my granddaughter was born and my wife and I saw her, I turned to her and said I want to save this world, now that she is a part of it.
Good! There's much you can do as an individual by the choices you make and the example you set.

So your point is Canada is better than the USA?
Nope. Wasn't my point.
 

So You Want to Invest In Inkjet

I Want to Invest in Inkjet, But…
Over the past few years I’ve watched a group of transactional and direct mail printers strategically shift from monochrome toner machines to full-color toner and inkjet presses. Most banished old black-only toner boxes but kept their color toner devices around because they anticipated needing both color inkjet and toner presses to meet customer needs. They were right then and continue to be right today. Because toner and inkjet can be better together. Read the Post

   
Top