Science to save the world from environmental disaster

[Greadius]

Okay, so maybe I'm a little too optimistic.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/28/sugar.cars.reut/index.html

Cars that run on glucose and produce water? It'll happen within my lifetime. The demand is great enough, and the technology is moving right along.
This type of innovation, not Kyoto Treaty, or that goofy conference in South Africa, will save the world from environmental disaster.

 

[G-Man]

I think it's a waste of money. If half the money people spend on developing and the extra cost of these things were turned to help Africa it would've reduced the amount of pollution a lot more than these things.

 

[Vengeance]

I heard about this in April. The only thing was that in the documentary a German organisation was doing the tests to break down sugar into component pieces.

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

Originally posted by Greadius
Okay, so maybe I'm a little too optimistic.


Cars that run on glucose and produce water? It'll happen within my lifetime.

Does this mean I'll be able to run my car using diabetics?

Sick, but could be useful.

 

[Jimcat]

Originally posted by G-Man
I think it's a waste of money. If half the money people spend on developing and the extra cost of these things were turned to help Africa it would've reduced the amount of pollution a lot more than these things.

If a tenth of the money people spent on automobiles had been spent on birth control, the world wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

Originally posted by Jimcat

If a tenth of the money people spent on automobiles had been spent on birth control, the world wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

If people didn't have thumbs...

 

[Toasty]

We've always have had the technology to save the enviornment, we've just been too lazy (and too greedy) to implement it.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Jimcat

If a tenth of the money people spent on automobiles had been spent on birth control, the world wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

But that would limit people. I'm talking bout something that won't limit people - instead of driving a small slow "envioument-friendly" car, drive a nice big diesel - and for the same costs you'll still have better effect on the economy.

 

[Padma]

Originally posted by Greadius
Okay, so maybe I'm a little too optimistic.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/28/sugar.cars.reut/index.html

Cars that run on glucose and produce water? It'll happen within my lifetime. The demand is great enough, and the technology is moving right along.
This type of innovation, not Kyoto Treaty, or that goofy conference in South Africa, will save the world from environmental disaster.

I'm with you, Greadius. People can call me a blind optimist if they want, but I would rather trust to improved technology and innovation than a bunch of hand-wringers saying we should give up what we already have.

 

[Jimcat]

Originally posted by G-Man


But that would limit people. I'm talking bout something that won't limit people - instead of driving a small slow "envioument-friendly" car, drive a nice big diesel - and for the same costs you'll still have better effect on the economy.

Having too many people limits people. I can't get a house within 20 miles of New York City because all the good land is taken up by rich @#$%s or ghettos. If there were fewer people, everyone could live at American consumption levels and not have such a drastic effect on the environment.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Jimcat
Having too many people limits people. I can't get a house within 20 miles of New York City because all the good land is taken up by rich @#$%s or ghettos. If there were fewer people, everyone could live at American consumption levels and not have such a drastic effect on the environment.

If there were fewer people each country would produce less. Also, I doubt it's possible for everyone to live at the US's consumption level. The only reason the west world can is because there are so many other nations and immigrants from these nations that are willing to do the "dirty" jobs. Today the biggest source of income to the US is probably paperwork...

 

[Perfection]

Yeah, they keep tryin' new fuel sources and maybe someday they'll find one they like

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by Greadius
Okay, so maybe I'm a little too optimistic.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/28/sugar.cars.reut/index.html

Cars that run on glucose and produce water? It'll happen within my lifetime. The demand is great enough, and the technology is moving right along.
This type of innovation, not Kyoto Treaty, or that goofy conference in South Africa, will save the world from environmental disaster.

produce water?under what form?steam i guess which is a greenhouse effect gas.And carbon dioxid(CO2) is absorbed by plants but there's a limit,therefore don't believe the propaganda of oil companies with their 'for a green earth' campaigns.

There were docs on it on ARTE,a french-german channel,a few days ago.

 

[Perfection]

No you see CO2 is absorbedby planta but when they die its released. Burning it or not its the same amount

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

Originally posted by Perfection
No you see CO2 is absorbedby planta but when they die its released. Burning it or not its the same amount

The solution is obvious. We turn all the CO2 into dry ice and use it to replace the melting polar ice caps.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Toasty
We've always have had the technology to save the enviornment, we've just been too lazy (and too greedy) to implement it.

Not true at all. The emissions from factories and cars today are many times less polluting than they were 30 or 40 years ago. The number and size of them has increased, so the overall effect has still been positive.

I'd buy an electric car right now if I was in the market or had the money. These things are even better (and will be available right around the time I'm ready to purchase my next car).
There is great demand for these type of products, then the supply will follow suit. There is profit in environmentalism.

Originally posted by Damien
produce water?under what form?steam i guess which is a greenhouse effect gas.And carbon dioxid(CO2) is absorbed by plants but there's a limit,therefore don't believe the propaganda of oil companies with their 'for a green earth' campaigns.

Okay, I know very little about science, but I do know a few things.
How can steam be a greenhouse GAS, its the same elemental as heated water. More rain, assuming the steam actually leaves the atmosphere.
Or the west products could just be funnelled through the AC system and your car doubles as an ice-machine

And the CO2 absorbtion I believe has to do with the 'waste' material used in the fuel. I believe they say the CO2 emissions are identical to those of the natural decomposition process.

 

[sniping_people]

Originally posted by Jimcat

If a tenth of the money people spent on automobiles had been spent on birth control, the world wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

I hope you're not Catholic



By the way, the Johannesburg thing was about third world hunger, not the environment.

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by Greadius
How can steam be a greenhouse GAS, its the same elemental as heated water. More rain, assuming the steam actually leaves the atmosphere.

>>>steam creates clouds and clouds enhance the greenhouse effect.

 

[The ANZAC]

Originally posted by sniping_people
By the way, the Johannesburg thing was about third world hunger, not the environment.

Yeah but it got turned into an america/capitalist bashing conference

Also I have confidence that there will be improvements to cars: humans have always made advances and we will continue to do so.

Hopefully they will switch to non-fossil fuel sources before the supply runs out, because then we'll get to see the Arab princes really drink their oil!!

but if these new technologies come around say goodbye to sports and exotic cars.

 

[sniping_people]

Originally posted by The ANZAC


Yeah but it got turned into an america/capitalist bashing conference

Could that be because the US Govt sent no representatives to the conference?