Ya’ll have heard me say many times that I think this medium is being wasted.

That the thinking people of the world should use this technology to further the cause of mankind.

The problems facing us are within our grasp. All it takes is for us to get together and make it happen.


http://www.earth-policy.org/

No ones posting.

Kraj,
I expexcted your ensight here.

Look slike one of those muckity muck prof's vision of the future stepped in fantasy but not using the real world. Oh I have a better idea, if EVERYONE would just listen to ME! Sounds like Rich!

Looks like a money making scheme for Lester R Brown.

Let me guess he is heavily involved in Cancer reearch too?

Certainly Lester Brown does not have all the answers; but as this forum so aply demonstrates, it’s more fun to argue about gun ownership, the welfare system, and terrorism, then face the real challenges the human race faces.

As I keep saying, we will face them sooner or later. My sad conclusion is always the same.

Given imminent demise; humans will take a wait and see approach.

Have you bought the books?

Any good? - Perhaps SJ Abney can add some non fiction to his review list?

Have you bought the books?

Any good? - Perhaps SJ Abney can add some non fiction to his review list?


A few years ago I started shooting a documentary on energy. It eventually failed to get completed.

Life gets in the way of some project. Maybe I’ll revisit it soon.

Anyway during this time I met some of the people at Earth Policy, they are an extremely dedicated and intellectually capable bunch.

And yes I have read some of his books and get their, I guess, quarterly news letter.

I still find it appalling that we continue to ignore the inevitable. The right wing control of the country is raping the future for our children, and borrowing huge some of money from them and we bicker about the stupidest things.

We deserve what we are going to get. Unfortunately we won’t pay the price, someone else will.

Kraj,
I expexcted your ensight here.
To be honest, when it comes to the environment I'm a both of a pessimist and skeptic. I'm a skeptic because there are so many "end of the world" environmentalists out there that they may just as well be weird-os standing on the streets covered in poster board. On the other hand, I really do believe we're on a slow road to creating an uninhabitable enivornment for ourselves, but much like an addict we won't be able to make any real changes until we hit rock bottom.

we bicker about the stupidest things.
OK I agree on this point
I still find it appalling that we continue to ignore the inevitable. The right wing control of the country is raping the future for our children, and borrowing huge some of money from them and
How ever I do have to disagree SOME WHAT on this point.
We like to blame the XX wing for things, yet both are guilty in many ways.
Just as an example, Global Warming, if you listen to the left, we are going to die of global warming in 5 years, the right, it is a normal cycle we have no control over. Since most of the information supplied on this subject is more left wing oriented, the general thinking is it's screwing up the world. Is it, well I fall back on my Mother Nature will decide and I think we give outrselves too much credit. That also said I don't see where the right in this country is really hurting the environment. First contrary to popular belief by Rich, the right actually lives here also. They are not some alien life dectating from an off world source and so are not effected by it. The left how ever has a slight tendency to preach gloom and doom, so they holler about the degrading environment. Every thing either side does all relates to votes and power. Also if you choose to listen to either side of the argument, with an open mind, each makes a good case. Example, Doom and gloomers, the earth's tempature has risen 2 degrees in the last 100 years, other side, the rise in tempature is due to a normal cycle tracked over history and we have no control. As with most things I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Money and Power drives this mostly I am thinking, and in some cases fame (leads back to money). Listening to one side gives you a lopsided opinion.

To be honest, when it comes to the environment I'm a both of a pessimist and skeptic. I'm a skeptic because there are so many "end of the world" environmentalists out there that they may just as well be weird-os standing on the streets covered in poster board. On the other hand, I really do believe we're on a slow road to creating an uninhabitable enivornment for ourselves, but much like an addict we won't be able to make any real changes until we hit rock bottom.

Hence my new signature.

I simply found the most intelligent person I know and quoted him. :p

Given imminent demise; humans will take a wait and see approach.
I think it should be:
Given imminent demise; humans will:
1 - 10% Run and Hide
2 - 25%, Gather and Pray
3 - 2%, Fight Back
4 - 63%, Gather and scream the government is not doing enough and blame GWB

I think it should be:
Given imminent demise; humans will:
1 - 10% Run and Hide
2 - 25%, Gather and Pray
3 - 2%, Fight Back
4 - 63%, Gather and scream the government is not doing enough and blame GWB

Thank you for the lead in FOFA,

No Question about all that.

But I wonder why republican always bring up global warming as if it is the only problem.

Probably because it is the only one where nature could be the cause.

Why don’t republicans site the fact the mercury contamination is growing in American waterways and the fish in over half of our fresh water contain dangerously high doses of it. There is absolute scientific proof that the cause is from burning coal in power plants that do not have the legally required filtering systems.

And since you’re still defending the right, please explain why the GWB administration terminated the prosecution of several power plants that the Clinton Administration had under indictment?

And if 63% disapprove of him, what does that tell you?

And since you’re still defending the right, please explain why the GWB administration terminated the prosecution of several power plants that the Clinton Administration had under indictment?
I did not say I was defending the right, I really said I don't belive what either the right nor the left is saying on these issues. Are there issues, yes, some the left did not move on (for the same reasons the right doesn't, money) and some the right doesn't move on (money again). Some the left moved on were right leaning instatutions (a penality maybe?), or may have caused issues in other places (the BIG picture we most likely do not have). But one thing I did say is that no matter which is in charge, most anything we get is politically motivated, so you have to take with a grain of salt (should that be in the slang thread?). Since all of them live on this planet, you have to wonder if they are that mis-informed, or are we? Would you let a corp. dump a bunch of poison in your yard, where you live, for some cash or votes? Is ther mercury poisoning in the lakes, maybe, but I bet it didn't happen just under GWB is all I am saying. Did he say "Oh go ahead and poison my lakes", I don't think so. There maybe more involved than outward appearances show.
And if 63% disapprove of him, what does that tell you?
Bunch of wussies, besides like Rich's statistics, I just pulled a number out my butt.

They have medicine for that you know.

My contention is this.

The people of the planet (not just Americans) are content to let this over exploitation of resources go on unchecked.

As the industrialization of the world continues we must find methods to ameliorate the loss of natural resources.

The things the Earth Policy advocates are things like population control and more regulation of fishing, mining, drilling, and forestry operations. It does not necessarily mean government control; it means economic control. We have to discover new ways to fuel our economies without the depletion of natural resources.

I don’t pretend to have the answers and I’m sure the World Policy Institute’s remedies are in need of trial and error. But surely all thinking people will agree we need to devote more intellectual and economic resources to making profitable businesses out of saving resources, as well as exploiting them.

Over 100 years ago companies like Weyerhaeuser and Georgia Pacific invented tree farming. The United States now has more forestry than it did in the late 1900s... Profit from conservatism.

In the late 80s Texas put a limit on the catch of King Mackerel; they came back to their former levels.

There is much evidence that conservation and business profit does not have to collide. We just need to be the generation that does the work. Then our legacy can be one of leaving it better than we found it.

I sound like an idealist, actually I’m not. I don’t advocate that we should throw out the market. I say we should use the market to achieve better results.

The things the Earth Policy advocates are things like population control and more regulation of fishing, mining, drilling, and forestry operations. It does not necessarily mean government control; it means economic control. We have to discover new ways to fuel our economies without the depletion of natural resources.
During the Olympics, GM were running those "Yellow" commercials a lot. Sure looks good on the outside. Raise corn, create fuel, screw the middle east's oil (OK I added that part). But some whee in the back of my mind I remember something about it takes more energy to create fuel form biosources than you save in the first place. So why would GM be playing this part in these "yellow" ads? I mean why not hydrogen, or methane?
Inquiring minds want to know.

I found this link (http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/8.23.01/Pimentel-ethanol.html)on the subject to be very interesting.

It does seem like a pretty dumb direction to go, assuming a more efficient refining process is not invented, but honestly it's not any dumber or more resource inefficient than a beef-based diet.

I can't say why GM chose to focus on ethanol for the ads. Perhaps it's because of the government puch to increase ethanol content in gasoline mixtures. Or maybe they wanted a "green" commercial that was differentiated from hybrid cards, which are already somewhat associated with the term. Or maybe they wanted to run some ads that would improve their public image even if they have no intention of pursuing that particular avenue. I don't think that's likely, but dumber things have been done before, so...

I was wondering about that too, since I had read something similar a while back about it being inefficient to produce that kind of fuel. Interesting.

On a similar but unrelated topic, I've been checking into having some of these (http://www.uni-solar.com/interior.asp?id=102) installed for energy purposes. Of course, since we're getting ready to put our house up for sale in the next 1-2 months I wouldn't invest in it right now, but it is something I've definitely been thinking of for our next house. Granted though, I have the selfish reasons of wanting to lower our electric bills. :o But I know that it would also be good for the environment to have a renewable power source and also to not be completely dependent upon the local power grid.

One thng about photocells, they produce DC current. Your house runs on AC current. Most people just convert the DC to AC and sell it back to the power company (little power plants). This has the effect of lowering your electric bill. How ever it does not always help during an outage (depends on your setup). The inital cost can rise to a real unaffordable price the more you try to make it do. Of course there is always the completly off the "the grid" version where you run the power into batteries and setup your house to run DC. But that has a lot of problems also (every see a 12 or 24 volt DC oven). I'm no expert but have done a little research as we were thinking about making our off the grid shack at our deer lease solar. Coleman laterns were a lot cheaper.

A college here has just installed two wind powered turbines here at a cost of £53,000 ea. They will save appr. £1,000 per year off their electricity bill :rolleyes:

So £106,000 to save £1,000 a year. Humm with a payback of over 100 years seems a little far fetched. Just had money to burn or what?

All being driven along by global warming, what these people don't realise is that wind not being a constant, conventional electricity generators have to keep going all the time regardless

One thng about photocells, they produce DC current. Your house runs on AC current. Most people just convert the DC to AC and sell it back to the power company (little power plants). This has the effect of lowering your electric bill. How ever it does not always help during an outage (depends on your setup). The inital cost can rise to a real unaffordable price the more you try to make it do. Of course there is always the completly off the "the grid" version where you run the power into batteries and setup your house to run DC. But that has a lot of problems also (every see a 12 or 24 volt DC oven). I'm no expert but have done a little research as we were thinking about making our off the grid shack at our deer lease solar. Coleman laterns were a lot cheaper.

I'm not an expert either as I'm just starting to research it after seeing something about it on Discovery Channel or somewhere like that. I know they have some kind of converter box that transforms it into power that the house can use and the extra goes back to the grid (or something like that). I'm going to check into it though for our future house. Anything I can do to make it more energy efficient would be fantastic and the sun is the most renewable source of energy we have right now.

All being driven along by global warming, what these people don't realise is that wind not being a constant, conventional electricity generators have to keep going all the time regardless

I always thought that wind wasn't the most effective method of generating power anyway, as you have to have so many of such a large size to make a difference with anything. :confused:

Just curious, how large were the turbines that the college installed?

As an aside, a university in Michigan did the same type of thing with the solar shingles I was looking at: Oakland University (http://www.oakland.edu/energy/solar.htm)

The more interesting things are what we normally do not think of. I once saw a guy basically turned his basement into a cold storage area for cooling in summer. He filled it with water and using freon in a closed pipe with small radiator fins outside, he froze the snot out of the water during winter, then during summer circulated antifreeze through the ice to cool his house.
But I think the most interesting one I have seen I think was in a Mother Earth news back in the 80's where when they built a house, they create 2 large heat sinks by isolating two internal walls, making those walls concrete, and sinking them 8-10 feet into the ground. Of course the house was energy effecient, but had regular cooling and heating. But the large mass buried in the groud transfered a stable core temp. from the ground into the house and reduced the heating/cooling requirements by something like 70-75% (going on memory so that could be inaccurate). Plus the cost of the two "heat sinks" was not that much comparativly speaking.

It makes you wonder why they don't do that kind of thing more. I guess they think oil and gas are going to last forever. :rolleyes: