Jump to content

Recommended Posts

asperity    266

There would be a case for so called "green energy" if it wasn't so inefficient and expensive, as well as creating more pollution than the fossil fuels it purports to replace. But you members of the green church carry on with your illogical worship, don't let common sense get in your way B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎01‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 7:14 AM, Evil Sid said:

Came across this ingenious but rather expensive bit of tech to help combat pollution in cities.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-40433931/unleashing-the-power-of-moss-to-clean-cities

found it under a title "scientists re-invent the tree"

Here is an example of a Living Green Wall on the sides of M&S Newcastle Store's building http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/newcastles-marks--spencer-store-8947375

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confused52    10

According to Columbia University, NY some 3% of the earths surface is urbanised. Given the size and longevity of the forests that gave us coal and oil compared to the 3% and 83 years to the turn of the century I think we could describe the efforts in Newcastle as "****ing in the wind", don't you?

Further, according to a paper in the American Chemical Society journal Environmental Science and Technology such planting can make the effect of pollution and ozone production worse in heat waves. The research was EU funded in Germany by a number of Universities.(http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b06514)

What this shows is that the usual claim of "well at least I doing something" may not be something to be proud about!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm glad you are making an effort with your research but like everything it has to be placed in context. The natural way needs help from man.

"The results of our study suggest that reduction of anthropogenic sources of NOx, VOCs, and PM, for example, reduction of the motorized vehicle fleet, would have to accompany urban tree planting campaigns to make them really beneficial for urban dwellers."

One thing by itself is no good it has to be a joined up approach across say a continent.

Nothing is in isolation as you seem to believe or am I misreading your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confused52    10

You really are a glass half full sort of fellow aren't you? What it actually says is that just planting urban greenery doesn't actually make things better, those who suggest it are wasting time and money. The idea of needing to be joined up across a continent is your own invention. Urban areas are not joined up across such distances.

There is however a provable notion that doing things in isolation can cause trouble elsewhere so careful study is needed beforehand. Examples abound; alcohol fuels and maize prices, CFC bans and exploding fridges to name just two!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you looking in the mirror?

I think the main thing is that writing on discussion forums means that statements are so easily misinterpreted and misunderstood.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×