Today we picked a new account. The company’s business is about clean energy.
The designer contractor wanted to prescribe their usual (ugly) artificial plants.
The client specifically asked for live plants because they wanted to look green
and be in line with their activity.
If they only knew...

If they knew what?

That live plants are not as green as they think.

ARE GREEN PLANTS GREEN?
Your client probably already knows:
- that plants create an aesthetically pleasing atmosphere…
- that plant improve people’s green perception of a facility,…
- and that plants increase profits through their positive effects on people.

They probably also know:
- that plants reduce employee stress…
- and reduce employee absenteeism…
- and improve their employees creativity and problem solving.
- and that when exposed to plant settings people just have more positive emotions!

BUT ARE GREEN PLANTS GREEN? WHAT IS GREEN ANYWAY? And what about its friends: sustainable; eco-friendly; cradle-to-cradle; up-cycle; recyclable; low VOC; carbon footprint etc., etc., etc.

Are green plants green?
We are part of what’s known as the Green Industry!
But are we green?

We place plants in sub-irrigated planters…..
(that allows us to reduce our on-site visits by 50%, that’s eco-friendly, that’s green)

We can use cast concrete planters…
(that’s an eco-friendly product, that’s green!)

Better yet we can use an aluminum planter
(that is up-cycled from aluminum cans and when we’re done with it it’s recycled, that cradle-to-grave, that’s green)

Or we could use a terra cotta planter…
(that is as earth-friendly as you can get, that’s green)

Did you know that a small 10ft. ficus tree has already sequestered 4 ½ #’s of carbon
(that’s a negative carbon footprint, that’s green!)

And that some plants are grown in recycled plastic containers, in composted soil and they use recycled or reclaimed water.
(those are sustainable practices, that’s green)

We know plants remove harmful toxins from the air…
(that’s negative VOC’s , that’s green)

Now everybody is calling themselves green!

So… are we Green?

We call it authentically green!

This message was brought to you and to HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of your prospective customers by Green Plants for Green Buildings (GPGB.org).

GPGB is an educational and promotional program to inform professionals and the public about the many benefits of interior plants.
- We TEACH people the importance of what we do.
- We SHINE a spotlight on our industry.
- We INSPIRE the growth of the Interior Plant Industry.
We are the efforts of GREEN PLANTS FOR GREEN BUILDINGS
(formerly Plants at Work)

DO YOUR PART TO SUPPORT THE EFFORT!

Geez McRae, that’s one hell of a response!!

I agree with some of your arguments but will definitely not try to contradict you on those I think are border line accurate or convincing (sub irrigation & container choices).
I still think that at this point, we are better off leaving people with their false (or are they right?) perception that indoor plants are greener than green.

However, I really appreciate the effort your organization is putting to promote the use of plants by trying to get them on the LEED list or by any other means you can think of.

SO, tomorrow, I will renew (I once was a member) my financial commitment to GPGB and I encourage everybody else to do the same.

In return I hope you will put some of your pictures on Flickr.com.
I heard you were pretty good at design... ;)

Green? Is everyone going to be running the hundreds of thousands of poinsettias to their nearest compost bin? Does everyone do the same with rotational colour? What about what happens to the plants in the nursery ie. chemical treatments? And the energy and material used to grow a plant for 6 to 8 months for a 3 or 4 week colour rotation. I hate to think how much natural gas or oil is used to heat greenhouses for poinsettia production. Who saves all their grow pots? Is the energy and material being used and thrown away in plastic pots being made up for in biweekly visits? Outta sight outta mind. I cut the tops of plants like poinsettias off and let the pots dry out then throw them outside in hedges, under shrubs etc. Any grow pots I use I take to schools, commercial greenhouses, hort societies etc. I also take old plants to nursing homes or just let people take them as long as they remove them from the building.
How much energy does a 10’ ficus require to produce? Remember energy is needed for cold nights where frost might threaten, to pump irrigation water, to produce the pot it is grown in, transport that pot from wherever to the site of production, transport the soil it is grown in as well. The plant has to be transported from the nursery to the point of use as well. Is it a negative footprint? There’s a story behind every "green" product. Look closely at "green" products and see where they are produced for instance. If at any time they require ocean or any other long transport in my mind it negates anything green about them. I saw biodegradable garbage bags last week made in China.

Trevor,
We can all participate in being less pollutant by taking some of the actions you are mentioning.
We are far from being perfect but here are a few things I try to do:
Reuse once and then recycle all paper sleeves and cardboard.
Recycle some grow pots.
Give away as many as possible old plants.
Recycle aerosol cans and anything else around the office.
Compost some seasonals.
Reuse some trash bags.

As Mcrae said, we can do our part to support the effort. (whichever it is)

But I agree with you, as a whole our industry is far from being green but just like anyone else we can lure people in letting them think we are.
I think most people do think we are and for now that’s what counts.
Patrice

Guys,

We might not be all that "green" by the LEED definition of "green", but let’s face it, there’s NOTHING greener than a plant and most people like them!

Plus - all that McRae so eloquently stated.

We need to continue lobbying the USGBC for the inclusion of professionally installed and maintained "LIVE GREEN PLANTS" for inclusion toward LEED certification points.

They’ve included "sightlines" to the green plants outside!

The Green Building Council of Australia recognizes the significance of live plants in the interior.

Support Green Plants for Green Buildings NOW so that we can keep working this thing.

http://www.gpgb.org

Steve,
all I am saying is that there is discrepancy between the public’s perception and the reality of our industry’s "greeness".(can’t think of a better word)
I hope for all of us that we will be on the LEED certification.
Patrice

I forgot to mention that some nurseries and interiorscapers us IPM and are totally pesticide free, and after all isn’t that what being green is really about? Changing the way we do thing so that we reduce our impact on our environment. Sure, we will probably not get "totally Green" but very few industries are going to reach that point. I don’t think we should beat ourselves up, but we should do what we can to be as green as we can be and there is nothing wrong with us extolling our greenness!

-McRae

FYI. If one of your goals is cutting down travel to lower your carbon footprint, all subirrigation products will help, but the Joeys in particular have some extra benefits. Using them can extend that time to three, four, even six weeks or longer between maintenance visits. And even if you still visit the plants every other week, using Joeys will cut the amount of time spent at each visit by a bunch as well as cutting replacements down to next to nothing. Plus, the product meets LEED qualifiers by cutting down the sum of water required by at least 30% and they are made from recycled plastic bottles, are recyclable, and are made right here in the good old United States of America (VA). And don’t even get me started about the Freedom Squares for Green Roofs. They conform to a whole slew of LEED criteria.

To address the above points about how much energy is used for a service or product, no one, nothing, can be 100% Green. It takes some form of energy to manufacture, ship, install, and maintain everything. It is all a matter of degree and constantly striving to improve it. Hopefully, GPGB arguments will be listened to and accepted so our very Green Product will continue to be thought of as Green.

Can’t wait to see your products at the TPIE!

I just want to make the distinction that IPM stands for integrated pest management and the practice of it is multi-faceted that can incorporate many methods of control. It is not necessarily pesticide free. An IPM program can be pesticide free, but is not restricted to that.

At my recommendation, Southeast Growers has on occasion used predator mites as an "in between" spray application approach.

Other than perhaps King’s Foliage, does anyone know of a pesticide free nursery? I am curious, and have not heard of that before. I know that Butler’s was or is using nematodes for fungus gnats, but that was not to say the whole nursery was pesticide free.

"Green" is a very relative term...if you’re rigorous about evaluating whether a product or a process is "green" or "more green" or "less green" than an alternative, you need to account for ALL of the "carbon costs", energy costs, materials costs, transportation costs, etc. that go into that product or service compared to its competitors. Nobody has really done that, they just tout the "greener" aspects of their product or service and neglect to mention a full accounting of its negatives as well as its positives.

An interesting note about perceptions of "green"...a year or two ago, "Global Warming" was the catchphrase of the movement to reduce the carbon footprint of the human race so as to try to slow, stop or reverse the alleged trend toward catastrophic global warming...now it’s changed to "Climate Change", because recent data are confirming that the earth is actually COOLING, not warming. Which is funny, because climate is ALWAYS changing, never stagnant or in a state of perfect equilibrium.

So there’s really no "there" there.

Clem

Clem, I recently heard that the "gas" emitted from cows and pigs is considered to be a cause of global warming and that the producers are being charged an environmental fee of $75 per pig and $125 per cow.I am cutting back on a couple of my favorite dishes,blackeyed peas and pinto beans, so as to avoid possible taxation or fees for the "end product"which they produce.I also feel it is my civic duty to avoid such foods to help decrease the effects on global warming.It is my goal to become gas neutral by 2010.My wife is fully supportive of my efforts.Won’t you please join me in achieving the goal of "gas neutral" and donate to the ’cow and pig Gas-ex fund" today.You can send your donation to me and I will be sure it reaches those cows and pigs that are in such need.There is no word yet on the progress of stoping the millions upon millions of cubic feet of gas that has been emitted into our atmosphere for the past 20 thousand years or so in the artic reaches of our planet and continues still today.This is a real emergency and unless we get it controlled by the year 2012, which is when the Mayan calender ends,we are doomed.

Jerry,
You actually had me laughing out loud at the office this afternoon when I read this :) I *was* looking forward to meeting you next month at TPIE, but now I’m thinking... unless we can schedule an outdoor venue we just might want to put things off for a couple years!

Clem,
I was wondering when you’d pop into this thread :)
Are you suggesting a good sales strategy would be to extol the "negatives" of our product or service? Tell you what, you try it out first and then get back with us on how things worked out!

You made me smile too :)

Happy weekend to all.

Steve

Steve:

Thanks for the "heads up" for the TPIE meeting. Agreed, open air might be the
way to go! What with the "off gassing" and all! :)

Re: global warming? How come all those brilliant minds met in Kyoto and
Buenos Aires? WHY DID THEY NOT JUST LISTEN TO A GUY WHO WORKS FOR A
FLOWER SHOP IN NEW JERSEY AND SAVE THEMSELVES ALL THE TROUBLE?

Some things simply do not make sense.

"I want to talk right down to earth in a language that everybody here can easily understand."

Let’s say that pumping polluting gases into the enivornment isn’t changing the climate now.

How long do you think humans can keep polluting the environment before the climate does change?

Are you REALLY naive enough to believe that we can pollute our environment and NOT have a climate change?

"Oh, that’s years into the future"

"We don’t inherit the earth from our ancestors
We borrow it from our children"

My scientifically naive friends,

The planet earth has withstood "catastrophic" climate change, seismic activity, meteor impacts, wild electrical storms, toxic offgassing from volcanoes and other sources from within its own interior, and countless other "challenges" to its existence for hundreds and hundreds of millions of years...in fact, many of these "catastrophes" have actually shaped our planet’s evolution, even resulting in the creation of the first primitive life forms.

The earth is an unimaginably massive ecosystem with myriad mechanisms for maintaining a state of relative equilibrium at any given point in time, regardless of the challenges to that equilibrium...otherwise, we would not be here. To say that the addition of extra CO2 to the atmosphere will cause this heretofore resilient system to suddenly lose its ability to compensate and correct is simply disingenuous and is being done for a purely sociopolitical purpose that is equivalent to the motivations of the Flat Earth Society in times gone by.

Ironically, the present-day Flat Earthers are not holding to their "noble" course when they exempt the developing (non-developing?) nations of the Third World from participating in the "greening" process, otherwise we would not see the single most effective CO2 mediator, the world’s forests, being decimated on a daily basis. There would be no CO2 "crisis" if deforestation were slowed to a sustainable level, but that’s not politically correct (we don’t want to deprive other cultures of their opportunity to rape the planet just because they came to the party late, now would we?).

So let’s drop the pretense of nobility and call a spade a spade: there are geopolitical forces at work whose primary aim is to castrate the United States politically and economically so as to "level the playing field" (i.e., gain a competitive advantage and/or some revenge for perceived past injustices), and "catastrophic climate change" is just the latest weapon in their nefarious arsenal. If you support their campaign, be up front about it and don’t wrap yourselves in a green flag, because like it or not, when you support this kind of pseudoscientific con game, you support their agenda as well (even if it does make you feel good, or at least less guilty about being a prosperous American).

Clem

Although a little tongue in cheek, my post was completely legit.They are actually taxing cows and pigs because of the farts they emit.This is total insanity.The amount of gas they emit is so tiny compared to the estimated millions upon millions of cubic feet of gas emitted DAILY from natural causes primarily in the artic its not in the same ballpark.Its equal to someone being worried about the use of the natural resource to make glass[sand] becoming short in supply.Now I am not an expert on these gases and would need someone else to give the rundown on how these are similar.But I did watch a news program where they were standing over a blowhole of this gas in the artic that had been flowing forever and were worried about what it was doing to our planet.Maybe its part of a good thing for our planet but since they don’t know they cry the sky is falling..But when you disagree with the folks who promote this kind of wackery you are given the label of being "for" polluting our planet.No, Clem is correct. This is not about saving our planet.This is about power,control, money,and political gain.What else would Mr Gore get anyone to listen to him about? I am not saying there are not legit concerns about polluting our planet but this along with so many others is not one of them.

The point about "pollution" is that CO2 is a naturally occurring component of life processes and geological processes that cannot be controlled...and that’s what’s eating at the Flat Earthers...they want to control, restrict, regulate, tax and outlaw whatever they determine is "necessary" for "our own good". That’s not about science or good public policy, it’s about the power to control people’s lives.

One of the other scary boogeymen that is frequently cited by the Flat Earthers is the reservoir of methane that exists in deep ocean waters, tied up by cold ocean temperatures so that it doesn’t bubble up to the surface and enter our atmosphere, where it would presumably suffocate us or explode and incinerate us. We can no sooner control the ocean’s temperature at any given point in geological history than we can hope to stop the motion of the sun, moon and stars. Even if we were to completely eliminate all sources of greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, we would still be at the mercy of the many natural processes that cause fluctuations in the temperature of deep ocean waters that sequester methane gas, and no amount of handwringing or public service announcements on TV could do a thing about it.

My point is that if you hitch your wagon to a glue-factory nag, you will be painted with the same brush. Credibility in business is too important to squander on the ravings of false prophets and fraudulent Nobel laureates.

Clem

ocean methane? THAT sounds like a weapon of mass destruction.

Get a copy of the book, "Scared to Death", by Christopher Booker and Richard North (Continuum UK, 2007), if you want a quick and simple-to-follow history of global climate change facts without the spin. The book covers many such manufactured "crises" over the past few decades (mad cow disease, salmonella from undercooked eggs, global warming, etc.) and details the actual geological history of climate change since the time of early European civilization. Turns out that natural variations in climatic patterns have stimulated, positively or negatively for varying periods of time, the cultural, technological and political development of human cultures since several thousand years B. C. and before. It also points out the many times over the past couple of hundred years that authorities on climate and weather have predicted imminent ice ages or catastrophic warming periods (wrongly), only to have to eat crow fewer than two decades later when the "trends" reversed themselves WITHOUT human intervention of any sort, simply because aberrations from the current "norms" at any given time are just that themselves...normal, not signs of the apocalypse or predictors of future climatic conditions.

Anytime I hear proponents of a "scientific" principle say that "the debate is closed" or "the final data are in", I have to laugh and immediately dismiss them as charlatans. You should, too.

Clem

Clem, no one here is talking about "natural variation" in climate pattern over a LONG period of time.

We are talking about MAN-MADE variations occuring in a very short period of time.

CO2 HAS changed naturally over the EONS and evolution did adapt, positively or negatively (and of course that would depend on one’s point of view) but right now evolution cannot keep up with how fast the climate is changing and organisms will die off faster than they can adapt.

The same thing happened to the dinosaurs when there was suddenly a swift climate change due to a meteor.

Basically man-made pollution is the meteor and we are gonna be the dinosaurs.

It is about perception but a live plant is still "live" and it keeps growers in business rather than using more petroleum mixed with silk to create an artificial plant which will have no benefits at all other than getting dusty.

In most medium and large cities that if you can you may be able to use mass transit to service and if the density is such you may even be able to walk, that’s green(er)

Thanks for the opportunity to educate you with some facts instead of the propaganda we’ve been fed by the establishment media and global warming fanatics like Al Gore. Here’s something to consider, from the book I recommended ("Scared to Death"), referring to the research done by Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT in the early 1990’s (i.e., a REAL climate scientist, not a poseur):

"As one of the world’s most distinguished climatologists, Lindzen’s own doubts about the global warming thesis were profound. He did not deny that limited warming had taken place in the twentieth century, or that CO2 in the atmosphere had risen. But he believed that the computer models used by the global warming advocates to make their case were much too crude. By failing to appreciate the subtle complexities and interactions of the earth’s climatic system, their findings were demonstrably misleading.

"In particular, by concentrating their attention on CO2 and other man-made contributions to greenhouse gas, they had tended to overlook or to misjudge the part played by water vapour, by far the most important greenhouse gas of all, comprising all but a tiny fraction of the total. They had also failed to allow for the ’negative feedback’ effect of cloud-cover. In both these respects, the computer models had ’neither the physics nor the numerical accuracy’ to come up with findings which were not ’disturbingly arbitrary’. Put these two factors properly into the equation, argued Lindzen, and it could be seen that the ’greenhouse effect’ caused by rising CO2 levels had been wildly overstated. What was more, this could be demonstrated by running those same computer models retrospectively, to ’predict’ where temperatures should have been throughout the twentieth century.

"It became glaringly obvious that these over-simplified programmes failed to explain the actual variations, which had taken place in twentieth-century temperature levels. In the 1920s and 1930s, when greenhouse gas emissions were comparatively low, temperatures had sharply risen. But in the very years when emissions were rising most steeply, during the Little Cooling between the 1940s and the 1970s, temperatures were in decline.

"In fact, the assumptions on which the models were based would have led them to predict a twentieth-century warming four times greater than the rise that had been actually recorded (with most of that rise taking place before atmospheric CO2 had reached anything like its present level). On this basis, how could any trust now be placed in their attempts to estimate future rises?"

In other words, the global warming fanatics’ own computer models have betrayed them, by their failure to replicate, in retrospect, what SHOULD have been observed in the earlier decades of the 20th century. What the Flat Earthers don’t ever tell you is that water vapor (ever heard of clouds or evapotranspiration by plants?) is by a vast multiple the primary greenhouse gas that mediates temperature relations in the earth’s atmosphere (95 per cent of the "greenhouse effect" is caused by H2O vapor, while CO2 contributes only 3.62%, nitrous oxide 0.95%, methane 0.36%, and others, including CFC’s o.07%). Garbage in, garbage out.

To predicate massive social, political and economic upheaval on a scientifically discredited theory that cannot even validate its own predictions when real data is put into its computer models and comes out with incorrect calculations of actual past CO2 levels is irresponsible, maybe even to the point of being criminal, all in the name of "saving the earth". The tipoff should have been the proclamation by actor Robert Redford at his 1989 Sundance seminar on global warming that it was time to "stop researching and start acting" (as professor Lindzen commented at the time, a "reasonable suggestion for an actor to make")...whenever we hear self-proclaimed "experts" calling for an end to scientific inquiry and debate, be afraid, be very afraid, because what we’re hearing isn’t about science, it’s about crushing dissent and imposing the will of the few on the many.

Clem

I said it before:
"Are you REALLY naive enough to believe that we can pollute our environment and NOT have a climate change?"

I think we can both stipulate that there is no way in hell man-made pollution could have a positive impact on the earth so why are you so insistent that the default then must be a neutral impact.

Wouldn’t a much more probable impact be negative?

It’s not a matter of IF, but WHEN.

Clem,
I really don’t want to get too involved into this discussion but out of curiosity
what makes the scientist who wrote the book you are referring to and basing
your argument from more qualified than the other ones you are criticizing? (I am
not talking about self proclaimed experts nor Al Gore)
Patrice

"self proclaimed experts ...imposing the will of the few on the many"

Now that is really funny!

I need more coffee and then I’ll try to re-read that last post of yours Clem.

In other words, Huh??

:) Steve

"geopolitical forces at work whose primary aim is to castrate the United States
politically and economically so as to "level the playing field"

Clem,
Like many, you have a very narrow view of the world; there is life, prosperity
and intelligence outside the United States!
It is funny to listen to conservative in this country, they always sound so
paranoiac. They think if you are not one of them, then you must be anti
American or at least not patriotic. They think the media is against them
(Aren’t Fox, Rush and the others, part of the media??) And now they think the
whole climate change issue is a made up issue aimed at the destruction of
the US!!
And the other thing is, they, the conservative, always know better. Somehow,
the rest of us are un or miss informed, we are followers, manipulated and
idiots!!
LOL
It is unfortunate to see the climate issue being so politicized. May be Al Gore
was the wrong messenger, but you have to give him credit for raising
awareness on the issue.

Let’s not forget, the world out there is taking action, with or without the US.

Patrice

"miss informed"
Who is that?
Next time I’ll have my coffee first...

Patrice,Steve,and the "all or nothing" advocates.Are you in favor of or not in favor of an environmental impact fee imposed on cows and pigs? YES OR NO?

This is what we are talking about when it comes to pollution or climate change.The over reach of groups that have no scientific evidence and only narrow sighted theory about many of the issues.No one is suggesting that nothing be researched or that pollution is an issue we don’t want to address.But come on folks.To tax a pig for farting? The pig probably costs around $300 to produce. The cow about $500. You are in favor of taxing the pig $75 and the cow $125 ? And what is the money for? I would suggest it will be used pay for fart monitors so they can perpetuate this kind of nonsense elsewhere as well.In addition the time of raising a pig or cow to come to market is very short,a couple of years,compared to the 76 years of farting you may do in your lifetime not to mention that there are far more people than pigs.So it would make perfectly good sense to tax your farts wouldn’t it? This kind of thinking is what Clem and I are talking about.I don’t want to pollute our planet or cause it to warm but lets use our heads here.Stop supporting anything and everthing that comes along in the name of being environmentally aware just because someone tells you to.So I ask you...tax a fart?? ...is this being a good global citizen or is it simply nonsense?

I have raised cows and pigs so that I could have meat for friends and family that didn’t have steroids or whatever else they put in our meat.

Pigs - 90 DAYS from 45 pound weanling to 300 pound butcher size.

Cows - 18 months from birth to butcher size. As much as cows eat I am surprised beef doesn’t cost more.

Jerry,
I agree that there is a lot of non sense coming out the issue of global warming.
The question is do we recognize we have a negative impact on the ecological equilibrium of our planet? And are we willing to take action to prevent irreversible damage?
If we could first agree on that, then may be we could move on to the next question, what do we do about it?
Patrice

Jerry,
Frankly, I’m sick and tired of the infusion of political beliefs and philosophical ideologies being introduced into so many threads on this board!

There’s gotta be another venue where this stuff can be discussed without hijacking so many threads here. In fact, I volunteer to create a free discussion board where anyone that wishes to discuss such issues can discuss to their hearts content. I can have it up and running in 24 hours if you guys are game :)

Without putting words in Patrice’s mouth, I seriously doubt that where this discussion is now is what he had in mind when he posted his original comment.

Perhaps for the New Year we could all make some resolutions regarding being a little less opinionated about "off-topic" issues.

Just a thought.



Steve

PS... and btw, we may disagree on certain issues, but referring to people as "all or nothing" advocates and "fanatics" is not exactly why I participate in this Interiorscape Industry Discussion Board.

Happy Holidays to all!

Steve, a simple "YES,I AM FOR THE PIG FART TAX" would have been more direct.Funny you didn’t address the whole but instead someone who may disagree with you.If you noticed, Patrice {the post just before your last} is the originator and seems willing to discuss it. If you aren’t ...then don’t.If you want to be the self appointed moderator, I okay with that.

My remarks have nothing to do with whether one is conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican...they have everything to do with telling the truth and not trying to pass off social engineering as science-based policy. Maybe it’s because my educational background was in the life sciences that I’m more apt to look with skepticism on crusades wrapped in the mantle of science that have very little scientific foundation to their cause. Forgive me for being too logical about what is at its base an issue of science, not politics as it has been perpetrated by the factions who relish the opportunity to use "global warming" fears as an excuse to craft new taxes, regulations and restrictions on free enterprise that are not supported by climate science.

Professor Lindzen didn’t write the book I quoted, he was being quoted in the book from statements he made and articles he wrote in peer-reviewed scientific journals (you may like to know that certain publications refused to publish anything he wrote on the subject of the global climate change debate, painting him as the equivalent of a Holocaust denier in an attempt to silence him). He happens to be one of the world’s premier climatologists, one of a surprisingly small handful of perhaps a few dozen people on earth who are actually educated, trained and practicing climate scientists (unlike the Johnny-come-latelies to the party whose background is in unrelated fields). Another meteorological scientist who is worth hearing on the subject is Joe Bastardi, who is with Accuweather and does a wonderful job of presenting the issue in terms that laymen can easily understand.

And please, stop calling CO2 "pollution"...CO2 is a naturally-occurring atmospheric gas and is essential to life on earth! You breathe it out with every breath you take, it is a product of decomposition and of respiration by plants (they take it in during the day and release it at night), and is respired by animals, insects and microbes as part of their life processes. We can no sooner control the CO2 budget of the earth’s biosphere than we can control the rising and setting of the sun.

I also take exception to the short-sighted view that this discussion is not germane to this forum...if the draconian measures being demanded by the Kyoto gang and the Gore-ites are ever put into place in the United States, your little interiorscape businesses will surely feel the pain! Wouldn’t it be better to educate ourselves about this impending regulatory and tax chaos now, BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE (to borrow a favorite rallying cry of the global warming movement), than to wait until we cannot profitably run our businesses anymore because of the domino effects that restrictions on the use of cars and trucks, electrical generating facilities, home and business heating units, etc. begin to have on our companies and our clients?

I confess I’m surprised at the resistance some of you folks have to considering both sides of such a vital issue, and of being afraid to follow the scientific method of questioning the theory rigorously before accepting it on blind faith. I thought if any group would consider science before politics and social engineering, it would be a bunch of horticulturists who are entrepreneurs to boot.

Clem

And to the anon who said that I’d have to be a moron not to believe that "pollution" (meaning CO2, I guess) must have a negative impact on the earth, you’re assuming too much. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere actually stimulates plant growth, resulting in increased crop yields.

Basic crop science...Hort 101, if you will.

Clem

Not a problem, I won’t discuss it Jerry.

As far as being the "self appointed moderator", I’m not aware of the position being available :)

Take care.

Steve

Steve, after reading my post on the "all or nothing" advocates I wasn’t trying to put you or Patrice in that group. After reading it again I can see how you may have taken it that way. I was trying to address my comment to you both AND the all or nothing group. My appolgies if it was mis-understood.

Patrice,

All due respect, "the world is out there taking action, with or without the US"?!?! Since when is THAT any reason to go along with the crowd? Remember that old parental admonition, "so if everyone else decides to jump off a bridge, are you going to follow them?"

The rest of the world thought it was okay to let Hitler have just the Sudetenland...then just Poland...then you know how THAT worked out.

And at least Fox News gives both sides of the story (viz: Hannity and Colmes, Fox News Sunday, etc.)...tune to MSNBC sometime and see what passes for journalism on the other side of the aisle.

We need to start re-learning how to THINK for ourselves...don’t believe everything you read or hear...look before you leap...wow, those old adages sure are corny, aren’t they? It’s MUCH easier to become brain-dead and let some bureaucrat in Belgium or someplace decide for us.

Clem

Don’t worry jerry. No apology necessary, I’m pretty thick skinned ;)

Steve

Oh boy!

Co2 is anturally occuring thing, evrything on this earth is natural, even man made stuff is natural we change the environment around us everyday the only problem is we’re dealing with forces that are stronger than us and by doing large scale things that acutely chnage the environment create reactions in the opposite.

A volcano erupts, a natural occurence, and spews numerous chemicals into the air and covers the surroundeing area with ash and kills the surounding area covers it in lava etc... humans are changing the environment faster and in ways that are not recoverable from or able to adapt to.

It’s not doomsday yet, but I remember Detroit issuing ozone action days in the summer, we were encouraged to fill up only in the morning and evening and to refrain from using gas powered engines, lawn mowing, driving etc... it was laughable and sad that The Motor city had to issue an air quality warning because the conditions created by too much human activity was bad for humans.

Ozone air quality warnings are due to BOTH human activity and natural weather conditions...usually temperature inversions that prevent the low-level air from mixing with fresh air result in ozone warnings.

There’s no getting around it, unless we decide to live in mud huts and forage for wild hickory nuts, human endeavors on a planet containing six-plus billion people, their pets and farm animals, wild animals, insects and microbes will contribute something "unnatural" to the biosphere. However, you overlook the fact that nature has many mechanisms for sequestering or neutralizing many toxins and pollutants without human intervention. In fact, if we just left our forests alone for a few decades and reforested some of the unused acreage that exists worldwide, the plants would do the lion’s share of the air cleaning for us.

So, who’s in favor of putting an end to fossil fuel use via the nuclear electric generating route, combined with all-electric vehicles (except for aircraft), electric home and business heating/air conditioning, and nice, clean air with continued economic growth and prosperity?

Or will we be tethered to a windmill or rationing power like some third-world country?

Clem

Nuclear is the way to go

Sorry to be so long at responding, I was actually working....shame on me.
I really think it’s great to see a thread going from one topic to another and I
don’t take proprietorship into them. Where ever the flow takes us...(I could
spare the pig’s flatulence but oh well...)
As to political opinions and subject, since this is the only blog I participate
into, I personally enjoy the variety of topics it has to offer.(plants can really
be boring sometimes...)
We probably get a bit agitated at times but by now we know we all have
different views, back grounds and affiliations but we also know that we are all
friends, right?
I didn’t really want to get into this conversation but then this morning I woke
up with a combative spirit and yes Clem you are right, we need to not believe
everything that is being said or heard, and we need to think for ourselves.
These are words that I often tell my son. I really don’t have nearly as much
info as you have on the matter but everywhere I turn, wether it’s the
American news, the British news or the French news, I read about very well
respected scientists talking about the seriousness of the climate change and
of its implications, and really the biggest opposition I see to it, comes from
the conservatives in this country!
I find it hard to believe that there would be so little opposition to this idea
and that there would be such a global concern from scientist of all origins,
many of them having no interests in politics, if it was all bogus and the
products of a few having the vision to marginalize and castrate the United
States.

Patrice

btw Clem, it’s not nuclear it’s nucular ;)

Patrice I am sorry but it is nuclear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucular

Dan, I make plenty of mistakes but that one was meant as a joke (a reference to
our President’s mispronunciation)

I’m a stickler for spelling and pronunciation, but I did hear or read somewhere that the latest edition of one of the standard dictionaries now gives the acceptable pronunciation of "nuclear" as both "NU-klee-er" and "NU-kew-ler". And GW isn’t the first politician to mispronounce the word...Gerry Ford did it often, as have many Congressmen and Senators on both sides of the aisle.

As far as there being "so little opposition" to the idea of restricting carbon dioxide emissions, there is LOTS of it, only you don’t hear it in the mainstream media very much. Most regular Americans I know don’t believe that human-induced "global warming" exists at all...it’s just a creation of the environmentalist movement to scare us into accepting more government intrusion into our everyday lives, including taxing our use of utilities at a dramatically higher rate to generate revenues for the government to "burn" in their own inimitable style, as well as putting pressure on smokestack industries that would render them unable to operate in the US.

Funny, though, that last wouldn’t help the environment a whit...the steel, auto and other "dirty" industries will just continue to move out of the country to nations that don’t care about air and water quality, so the REAL pollution will only get worse...it just won’t be right under our noses anymore (nor will the jobs).

Clem

Patrice,Thanks for the green light on the morphing of your post.I agree it is interesting to see where these thing go.I also agree that we should be and are friends on here and its healthy to have an exchange of views from different vantage points.

Its interesting however to see the liberal view that its the "conservatives" that are to blame for any opposition while at the same time declare that partisanship should not play a role in our decision making.Not to single you out Patrice but the part of your post that reads "The question is do we recognize we have a negative impact on the ecological equilibrium of our planet? And are we willing to take action to prevent irreversible damage?" seems to be suggesting that the first thing we need to do is to agree with the premise proposed by the advocates of that "theory" that we are having an impact on climate change.It would seem the first thing we need to do is find out IF we are having an impact.Of course by the shear fact we live on the planet we have an impact on the eco systems of it.But to take it futher is what some others are having difficulty with.Also to suggest that the US is not doing anything for the environment is far from the truth and seems to be one way that some would try to play the guilt card in an attempt to gain support for their unproven theories beliefs.Not so many years ago the claim was made by some of the types of groups that the next ice age was coming.Again a theory that had no scientific evidence to support it.

I am totally for the research to find the answers to the questions but don’t want to ravage our economy in the name of being earth friendly without some kind of evidence.Its a good thing to conserve.Its a good thing not to pollute.Its a good thing to have an awareness of "potential" eco issues.But I don’t believe we should start with a premise that subtitutes theory for fact.

As for the pronuciation thing..Can you pronounce "transparency"?? It seems to be defined as "I can’t comment".

Actually we could leave our forest be but as you know a growing tree absorbs more Co2 than an old growth.

What we need is redundant sources of energy all connected.

And electric cars already have the infrastructure available to power them.

Since when did nuclear waste not become a problem?

If a significant percentage of our automotive fleet were to be converted to all-electric now without a commensurate increase in electrical generating capacity, the cost of electricity would skyrocket, and there would be brownouts and rolling blackouts due to undersupply and over-demand for power due to the addition of the electric cars...that’s why we need nuclear, in order to have a non-polluting, sustainable source of affordable electric power.

Nuclear waste is not a problem...the solutions for its disposal and/or recycling have been worked out, but the government is afraid to sign off on letting the industry (a) recycle fissionable materials or (b) encapsulate waste and deposit it in a secure facility somewhere in the US, due to the inevitable outcry from "greens" and local residents who live near proposed sites of plants and waste depositories.

As for reforestation, I’m all for it as I said. And old-growth forests also include young trees as a part of the ecosystem, but only if they are all left to grow and reproduce. Clear-cutting opens potential sites for reforestation, but only if that’s the intent...as a rule, it’s not, rather it’s an opening for development, ranching, etc.

Do I sound as though I have an answer for every challenge? Maybe it’s because I do my homework, on an ongoing basis, on this and other issues that I consider crucial to our well-being as a society and as the human race. And I don’t mean just by watching MSNBC and Nova...we all need to take an active role in becoming well-informed, independent thinkers, or the carny pitchmen will sell us our own coffins.

Clem

and you would welcome one of those nuclear depositories next to your home clem?

Jeffie or whoever,

I live in New Jersey. There are already four currently operating nuclear generating stations in my state, so I’m not just blowing smoke when I say I advocate more nuclear plants.

As for the waste, there wouldn’t ever be nuclear waste processing and/or holding facilities located in any populated areas. The Yucca Flats facility that has been in the works for many years (but is still not online due to protests by environmental groups and others) would sequester containment vessels in such a manner as to limit public exposure to any contamination to less than 1 millirem per year for the first 1,000,000 years after the storage dump closes, or 15 times LESS than the EPA’s 2001 final dose rule limits.

So unless you plan to live in the remote Nevada desert at Yucca Flats, you won’t be neighbor to a nuclear waste facility anytime soon.

NIMBY is the reason things cost so much to build and run, if they ever get done at all.

Clem

I believe that nuclear energy is a logical answer and NIMBY is not an issue for me either. I live so close to Three Mile Island that I have received Iodide (not sure of the form) pills for free from the government, in case of another problem. The form of energy is not the issue. It is, as usual, the people who work there are the ones who make me nervous. We are also not far from Peach Bottom, another plant, and it is a little scary how many people who are to be monitoring the gauges there are caught literally sleeping during their shift. Unfortunately, that can happen in any industry. I am not quite sure how to solve that problem.

Julie

Julie, as usual, sums up the issue with elegant wisdom...there is risk in EVERYTHING we do in life, whether it be teaching our kids to ride a bike (or...shudder...drive a car!) or deciding to build a nuclear power plant in our home state. The risk isn’t the problem...MANAGEMENT of risk is. Because our standards for employment have sunk so low in the era of "I’m okay/you’re okay" and employee litigation syndrome, we are saddled with one of the most undereducated and unmotivated workforces in the world today. But at least we don’t have to feel guilty that our abandonment of the "best and brightest" standards of old won’t hurt anyone’s feelings nowadays. "Good enough" is, apparently, good enough for most of us.

Apply the same standards you use in running YOUR business when you consider public issues and the quality of government we receive. All of you cowboys and cowgirls who’d be quick on the draw when it comes to your own employees’ negligence or incompetence need to extend that "tough love" to our politicians, bureaucrats, public employees, etc. and DEMAND EXCELLENCE. What we get for our tax dollars falls far short of that, mainly because we don’t demand better.

Clem

Getting even a little more off topic...
remember the huge power failure in August of 2003 was it? NYC, Toronto, Detroit and I think parts of Ohio and Pennsylvania had NO power for 3 or more days now if we had more auxiliary power generating systems, solar, wind, and geo thermal (which Detroit is sitting on) it would have been a "bump" not a massive shutdown.

Yes if we all converted at once it would be too much to handle but if we do things systematically we wouldn’t be crying over $4 a gallon gas or throwing out food that spoiled from a power failure or having a bailout for the auto industry.

And I would like to be able to save money and have cheap gas so when I get enough money saved up I can buy my ’71 Chevelle and drive down Route 66. :-)

The national electric power grid has its pluses and minuses...on the plus side is that, many more times than we even hear about in the news, the grid compensates for local or regional problems by shifting capacity to areas experiencing temporary power demand surges without the consumer noticing. Otherwise, there would be many more localized blackouts and brownouts due to regional differences in demand for power on any given day or at any given moment.

On the minus side, the grid makes it possible for a huge, monopolistic industry (although somewhat less so now that you can pick your electrical generating supplier from a short list in your area) to control the means of acquiring electrical power...that’s not always a good thing.

I favor individual solar electric systems for homes and commercial buildings as a way to both compete with the monopoly for affordable power and as a self-sufficiency option (if you have storage batteries, you can have power when your neighbors don’t, say, due to downed power lines in a storm or a utility blackout). This is one area in which a government grant/loan/tax credit program like the one a few years ago should be made permanent to encourage more homeowners and small businesses to install systems.

But nuclear is the way to go if we are to accommodate electric cars in the next few decades...otherwise, there won’t be a clean way to provide that kind of capacity to the grid to handle the huge increase in demand for power related to plug-in electric vehicles. Solar/wind/geothermal just can’t make up that shorfall.

Clem