Idea to save $$$ and enviroment

[AssassinCow]

I just had an idea!!!

Ok so it might take a while to catch on but if we all just think about it this just might work.

Overview:
Currently we are killing the ozone layer causing the world to heat up.

And how dose this affect us???
With the world heating up most of our bills for cooling our houses / apartments is going up.

After thinking about this I saw a pattern if we use more energy to cool our houses / apartments then we are also contributing to killing the ozone. This causes us to use even more energy for cooling and the pattern continues.

So whats my Idea?
If we can start using less energy, start helping the environment, stop killing the ozone, etc... then we can start to reverse this pattern of using energy and killing the ozone.
By doing this we are not only helping the environment, and the ozone. but we are saving money that would otherwise be used to pay cooling bills

[Prinzy2]

Assuming everything you said is true it sounds like a good idea.
But I like having a cool house in the summer, so I'm out.

[AssassinCow]

At 6/8/08 02:52 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: Assuming everything you said is true it sounds like a good idea.
But I like having a cool house in the summer, so I'm out.

I see what your saying but that's not the only way to help.
there are also many other ways to do this.

Example: Ride with a friend to school or work instead of driving alone

[AapoJoki]

Actually, the ozone layer is not the biggest problem any more. The holes in the ozone layer were largely caused by the use of CFCs, which we have been reducing since the early 90's. As a result, the ozone layer is now recovering. The current threat is the greenhouse effect, not ozone depletion.

[ForkRobotik]

An easy way to fix things is to put the cost of environmental damage into the cost of the product with a tax. You'll be paying 20 bucks for a battery, but maybe then people will start to think about what's actually going on and how we're all contributing to our own destruction. This probably wont happen though, so long as corporations are allowed to "lobby" politicians with money.

Another good idea would be to recreate the 40billion dollar fund that Clinton created when he was in office (and Bush destroyed when he first came to office) that was to be used for hydrogen power technology. It makes alot more sense than government subsidies for corn oil, which is not only driving up the cost of food(corn by the ton has double in 2 years), but also alot more effective as there are no emissions and hydrogen powered cells are almost equally efficient to corn oil, as it costs almost as much energy to create the oil as it gives us. Thus, hydrogen cells produced with solar power technology makes alot more sense then corn emissions.

[AssassinCow]

At 6/8/08 03:17 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Actually, the ozone layer is not the biggest problem any more. The holes in the ozone layer were largely caused by the use of CFCs, which we have been reducing since the early 90's. As a result, the ozone layer is now recovering. The current threat is the greenhouse effect, not ozone depletion.

Ok so i messed up but the idea that i am trying to get across still works because the greenhouse effect causes the atmosphere to heat up.

[Sajberhippien]

Who's alt is this?

[SmilezRoyale]

Cutting Back on energy is not a solution, you CAN'T cut back on energy without creating HUGE costs... this solution doesn't 'save money'; it's not a solution at all.

And many people here don't even think carbon emissions are caused by humans.

If you want an easy solution to your invisionment of global warming, how about this;

Nuke 3/4 of the population.

Less polluters, and you'll get a nuclear winter which should reduce the looming threat of global warming.

TBh, killing people with nuclear weapons is actually cheaper than the trillions of dollars that your quasi-kyoto protocol solution provides.

[hippl5]

At 6/8/08 04:20 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: If you want an easy solution to your invisionment of global warming, how about this;

Nuke 3/4 of the population.

Less polluters, and you'll get a nuclear winter which should reduce the looming threat of global warming.

TBh, killing people with nuclear weapons is actually cheaper than the trillions of dollars that your quasi-kyoto protocol solution provides.

Yes! Agreed! Cutting back on energy methods, even if they do work, seem to be too small to have any real effect. Besides, I like using energy.

[jew193]

At 6/8/08 04:28 PM, hippl5 wrote:

At 6/8/08 04:20 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: If you want an easy solution to your invisionment of global warming, how about this;

Nuke 3/4 of the population.

Less polluters, and you'll get a nuclear winter which should reduce the looming threat of global warming.

TBh, killing people with nuclear weapons is actually cheaper than the trillions of dollars that your quasi-kyoto protocol solution provides.

Yes! Agreed! Cutting back on energy methods, even if they do work, seem to be too small to have any real effect. Besides, I like using energy.

I agree. Also, people aren't going to stop using energy because it MIGHT save energy in the future. People want things now, and they're not going to stop using energy now to maybe help cool down the Earth a couple of degrees. By the way, your idea of having people not using the air conditioner to help cool the world down is idiotic. Thats not the only thing causing global warming. Also, the air conditioner is only ONE thing in our homes that use energy. What about the refrigerador, lights, stove, computer, printer, television, and so much more? You're naive if you think that by cutting down on the amount of time we use our air conditioners, we can cool down the earth.