Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 583 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 30  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 2:17 am 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
Green Habit wrote:
Some may believe that the cost of giving up certain freedoms is too much in exchange for mitigating certain externalities--they would prefer to deal with them instead.

the cost of 'dealing with them' would be much higher. that's bad economic management by these people.

_________________
Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear,
Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer.
The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way
To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 2:28 am 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
vacatetheword wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
Some may believe that the cost of giving up certain freedoms is too much in exchange for mitigating certain externalities--they would prefer to deal with them instead.

the cost of 'dealing with them' would be much higher. that's bad economic management by these people.


I'm not talking strictly economics here. We all place higher value on certain aspects of life. Some are willing to spend extra on transportation costs if it means living in a nice-sized house. Others are more than content to buy a smaller dwelling for the same price if they get to live closer to certain amenities they like.

I'm sure almost everyone outside this forum thinks we're nuts for the value we put on Pearl Jam related objects and activities.

The trick is to find the right formula to convince enough people to do something without having them reject the proposal due to a sacrifice they deem too much.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 4:00 am 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
Clive Hamilton, executive director of The Australia Institute writes:

Among all of the bleak commentary on global warming, today’s third report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides some very good news. In contrast to previous reports of the IPCC’s Working Group III, the latest is much more optimistic about the prospects of avoiding the worst effects of global warming.

It concludes that sharply reducing global Greenhouse gas emissions over the next decades can be achieved at very low economic cost. For example, cutting emissions by 50% by 2050 can be had by sacrificing only one to two years’ economic growth.

Put another way, if the world economy grows at 3% per annum through to 2050, then, without any measures to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions, global GDP will be around 350% higher than it is now. With measures to stabilise the concentration of Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 550 ppm, the report’s figures indicate that global GDP will be 'only' 348% higher.

But 550 ppm is still too high to avoid dangerous climate change. The report of Working Group I in February indicated that stabilising at 450-500 ppm would be much less dangerous. According to today’s report, measures to keep Greenhouse gas concentrations to this more stringent target would see global GDP grow by 'only' 345%'.

The report suggests that the carbon price needed to achieve the reduction to 550 ppm would be in the range US$20-50 per tonne of carbon dioxide. This would see petrol prices increase by 4-10 Australian cents a litre and electricity prices for householders rise by 2-5 cents a kilowatt hour on top of the 12 cents or so they pay now.

These are only the economic costs of cutting emissions, without taking account of the economic benefits of avoided climate change. Although cautioning about the uncertainty in making judgements in the absence of more studies, the IPCC report concludes that “even for the most stringent of stabilisation pathways assessed” the costs of reducing carbon emissions are comparable to or lower than the economic damage avoided.

This is the same conclusion as the Stern Review; even in purely economic terms, it makes sense to sharply cut emissions.

How will the Howard Government react to the new report? It should welcome it as it eliminates the main reason the Government has given for refusing to take measures to cut Australia’s burgeoning emissions.

But it is more likely that it will attempt to ignore, reinterpret or dismiss the IPCC report. After all, the report undermines the Government’s criticisms of Labor’s target of 60% cuts by 2050. That now seems eminently achievable economically.

Clive Hamilton is the executive director of The Australia Institute and the author of Scorcher: The dirty politics of climate change, published by Black Inc last week

_________________
Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear,
Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer.
The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way
To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 12:05 am 
Offline
Faithless
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 2623
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/science/16cnd-climate.html?hp
Billions of Dollars Pledged to Cut Urban Energy Use

A coalition of 16 of the world’s biggest cities, five banks, one former president and companies and groups that modernize aging buildings pledged today to invest billions of dollars to cut urban energy use and releases of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Under a plan developed through the William J. Clinton Foundation, participating banks would provide up to $1 billion each in loans that cities or private landlords would use to upgrade energy-hungry heating, cooling and lighting systems in older buildings.

The loans and interest would be paid back with savings accrued through reduced energy costs, organizers of the initiative said at a news conference in Manhattan. Typically, such upgrades can cut energy use and costs from 20 percent to 50 percent, they said.

Making more efficient use of energy is considered by many scientists to be the best starting point for addressing global warming, particularly because there is a potential immediate financial payoff along with the long-term environmental benefit.

At the news conference, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said that investing in retrofitting existing buildings was vital because they will make up 85 percent of the buildings that will stand in New York City in 2030.

He said banks and corporations appeared to be grasping the importance of considering long-term environmental risks when making investments. “Major business and financial institutions increasingly understand that shrinking the world’s carbon footprint is a pro-growth strategy, indeed the only pro-growth strategy for the long term,” Mr. Bloomberg said.

Energy use in buildings accounts for about a third of global releases of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. In densely populated older cities, like New York City and London, buildings are the dominant source of greenhouse gases.

The first targets under the initiative, organizers said, would be municipal buildings in the participating cities, which are: Bangkok; Berlin; Chicago; Houston; Johannesburg; Karachi, Pakistan; London; Melbourne, Australia; Mexico City; Mumbai, India; New York; Rome; São Paulo, Brazil; Seoul, South Korea; Tokyo and Toronto.

The project is aimed at propelling energy-saving investments that otherwise tend not to happen even when long-term financial benefits are clear — because cities or property owners lack access to capital, organizers said.

Also today, the National Academy of Sciences and the scientific academies of 12 other countries issued a joint statement calling on world leaders to address global warming by boosting energy efficiency, promoting a shift to less-polluting energy sources, and intensifying research into new energy technologies that produce no emissions.

“Increasing energy efficiency is a first crucial step toward solving the climate-energy problem,” the statement said. It emphasized the importance of developing financial mechanisms for encouraging such investments and on sharing technology and information that could spur such changes.

The plan was announced at the end of a three-day meeting of mayors, business leaders and environmental experts organized by former President Bill Clinton’s foundation and other partners as part of a two-year-old initiative aimed at advancing local actions that could blunt global warming.

“Climate change is a global problem that requires local action,” Mr. Clinton said. “The businesses, banks and cities partnering with my foundation are addressing the issue of global warming because it’s the right thing to do, but also because it’s good for their bottom line. They’re going to save money, make money, create jobs and have a tremendous collective impact on climate change all at once.”

Mr. Clinton’s remarks on climate change have been a talking point this spring for his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, as she pursues the Democratic nomination for president. Because Mrs. Clinton has yet to give a major speech on climate change, her campaign views Mr. Clinton’s highly visible work on the matter as a political plus.

Advisers to Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, are keen to avoid ceding the political issue of global warming and climate change to another Democratic candidate — or, especially, to former Vice President Al Gore, who has turned climate change into a civic and political cause worldwide.

As president, Mr. Clinton drew some criticism for not seeking Senate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, the climate treaty that requires industrialized countries to cut emissions. The Bush administration has rejected the treaty.

Today, Mr. Clinton said the strength of the new initiative was that it would quickly produce concrete change on the ground, demonstrating that a transition away from fossil fuels need not be a burden on economies of rich or developing countries.

“We all know that this is a global problem that requires a successor to Kyoto and national legislation, but we also know that as you reduce greenhouse gas emissions you must do it place by place, specifically company by company, building by building,” he said. “The mayors are in a remarkable position to do this.”

Several experts not involved with the Clinton Foundation’s new project said it appeared to be a valuable initial step in limiting the human impact on climate.

One challenge, said Thomas J. Wilbanks, an expert on energy and climate at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is that the accelerating building boom in fast-growing developing countries means that investing in making new buildings energy efficient will be far more important in the long run than tightening up old ones.

“Potentials for energy-saving retrofits are significant in industrialized countries, but the real challenge in rapidly growing developing countries is increasing the efficiency of new building construction,” Dr. Wilbanks said.

Dr. Wilbanks, who was also an author of one of the recent United Nations climate reports, said that “the greatest value of this initiative is that it jump-starts an inevitable global process of making buildings more energy-efficient.”

The first step under the Clinton foundation’s retrofitting project will be energy audits of older municipal buildings, identifying systems or structures that could be replaced, organizers said.

The financial instruments for paying for the upgrades are being designed by the Clinton Climate Initiative, set up by the foundation and Hannon Armstrong, a company specializing in arranging such investments, along with the participating banks: Citigroup, UBS, Deutsche Bank, ABN Amro and JPMorgan Chase & Company.

The upgrades would be done by four international energy-services companies that are already seeing a booming business in these types of conversions. They would guarantee a certain level of energy and monetary savings for particular projects under the plan.

The influx of capital from the new project could potentially double global business in such energy upgrades, which is several billion dollars a year now, bankers and business representatives said.

“I’ve been involved in a couple billion dollars worth of projects in the last several years,” said Bob Dixon, senior vice president of Siemens Building Technologies, one of the energy-services companies. “They’ve all paid for themselves in energy savings.”


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 11:23 pm 
Offline
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:08 pm
Posts: 1664
Location: sarnia
Image


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:46 am 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
Power your home with green energy! http://www.greenenergychoice.com/

_________________
Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear,
Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer.
The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way
To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:27 pm
Posts: 1965
Location: 55344
in last week's economist there was an interesting article in the science and technology section on one scientist's proposal. it is admittedly pretty unproven at this point, but i thought it was interesting at least.

Quote:
Global warming
A stairway to heaven?

May 31st 2007 | ACAPULCO
From The Economist print edition
Earth has a natural transport system standing ready to get rid of carbon dioxide. Here is how it might be turned on

MOST solutions to the problem of global warming are tediously, almost oppressively, quotidian. Switch the lights off. Stop using fossil fuels to make electricity. Run an efficient car. Don't fly. A few grandiose projects have also been suggested, such as giant parasols in space or adding iron to the ocean to encourage planktonic algae to grow and soak up carbon dioxide. On the whole, though, those big ideas are either mad or could have dangerously unpredictable consequences.

That does not mean that lateral thinking about the problem has no place. And the idea proposed by Alfred Wong of the University of California, Los Angeles, at last week's meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in Acapulco, is about as lateral as they come. Dr Wong reckons the problem is not so much that CO2 is being thrown away, but that it is not being thrown far enough. According to his calculations, a little helping hand would turn the Earth's magnetic field into a conveyor belt that would vent the gas into outer space, whence it would never return.

The site of the conveyor Dr Wong is proposing to build is the Arctic. More specifically, he is suggesting it be over one of his workplaces, the High Power Auroral Stimulation facility near Fairbanks in Alaska that he set up 20 years ago to stimulate and study artificial auroras.

The Arctic sky is special because it is one of the two places (the other being the Antarctic) where the magnetic shield of the Earth opens up to outer space. Auroras, such as the one pictured above, pleasingly testify to a stream of particles from the sun that gets through and hits the atmosphere. These particles bring with them many gigawatts of power that Dr Wong wants to harness to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Going up in the world

His idea starts with the fact that CO2 molecules like to team up with loose electrons, to form CO2 ions. A few percent of the CO2 molecules in the air manage to find such electrons. As a result they become negatively charged.

The second piece of luck is that all over the Earth there is a constant vertical electrical field. The surface and the atmosphere form a giant battery, as the lightning discharges of thunderstorms demonstrate. This field tends to make negatively charged ions, such as those of CO2, drift upward. At first this happens slowly, because collisions with other molecules keep throwing the drifting ions off course. But after a few days they arrive at an altitude, about 125km up, which is so rarefied that an ion can move freely about. This is when the last stage of their one-way trip into space begins: sailing along the magnetic field of the Earth.

High in the polar regions, the lines of magnetic force point almost straight upwards. When a charged particle is in a magnetic field, it tends to travel along that field's lines of force, spiralling as it goes. In the case of a CO2 ion at an altitude of 125km, it spirals round 17 times a second.

However, as it travels upwards, it experiences a weakening field. It must then make fewer turns per second, in obedience to a law of physics called the conservation of magnetic moment (this is similar to the law of conservation of angular momentum that slows a spinning ice dancer down as he spreads his arms). And because it cannot just shed its energy of movement, it is forced to travel faster and faster in the direction of the field. The eventual result is that it is ejected into space.

That, at least, is the theory. And although CO2 is too rare even in today's atmosphere for the phenomenon to be detected by existing satellites, an equivalent ejection of oxygen, a far more abundant gas, can be detected from space. So it seems more than likely that Dr Wong's analysis of what is going on in nature is right. The question is, can CO2 molecules be given an artificial leg-up into space, so that they leave the atmosphere in sufficient numbers to make a difference to climate change? Dr Wong thinks they can.

The leg-up he proposes comes in two stages. First, he has to ionise more CO2. There are many ways this might be done, but for a first experiment Dr Wong proposes zapping dust in the atmosphere with powerful lasers, to release electrons that can then combine with CO2. Having created the ions, he will then nudge those that have drifted upwards to the appropriate height with radio waves of exactly 17 cycles a second, which will give them a nice stock of energy at the beginning of their spiralling phase.

Once they are there, Dr Wong expects the incoming stream of charged particles that cause auroras to deliver the bonus that will make the whole thing work, by dumping some of their energy into the spiralling as well. This should happen through a process called stochastic resonance: the spiralling molecules get preferential treatment, so to speak, because they stand out in what is otherwise an environment of random movements.

So far, Dr Wong has only rough calculations of the energy needs of his scheme, but these suggest that his lasers and radio transmitters, even if powered by fossil-fuel generated electricity, should cause far less CO2 to be put into the atmosphere than they ship out of it. The key to this efficiency is the free energy arriving by stochastic resonance. If the particles do their bit, he thinks that a few dozen megawatts of additional electrical power is all that will be needed to make a dent in the amount of CO2. Exactly how big that dent would be, he is not yet sure. But he is pretty sure it would be big enough to help.


http://www.economist.com/science/displa ... id=9253976


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:34 am
Posts: 12029
how come people care more about global warming than peak oil, which is a more immediate problem and possibly more devastating? is it because of the publicity of global warming? because its more trendy?


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:21 am 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
ledbutter wrote:
in last week's economist there was an interesting article in the science and technology section on one scientist's proposal. it is admittedly pretty unproven at this point, but i thought it was interesting at least.

Quote:
Global warming
A stairway to heaven?

May 31st 2007 | ACAPULCO
From The Economist print edition
Earth has a natural transport system standing ready to get rid of carbon dioxide. Here is how it might be turned on

MOST solutions to the problem of global warming are tediously, almost oppressively, quotidian. Switch the lights off. Stop using fossil fuels to make electricity. Run an efficient car. Don't fly. A few grandiose projects have also been suggested, such as giant parasols in space or adding iron to the ocean to encourage planktonic algae to grow and soak up carbon dioxide. On the whole, though, those big ideas are either mad or could have dangerously unpredictable consequences.

That does not mean that lateral thinking about the problem has no place. And the idea proposed by Alfred Wong of the University of California, Los Angeles, at last week's meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in Acapulco, is about as lateral as they come. Dr Wong reckons the problem is not so much that CO2 is being thrown away, but that it is not being thrown far enough. According to his calculations, a little helping hand would turn the Earth's magnetic field into a conveyor belt that would vent the gas into outer space, whence it would never return.

The site of the conveyor Dr Wong is proposing to build is the Arctic. More specifically, he is suggesting it be over one of his workplaces, the High Power Auroral Stimulation facility near Fairbanks in Alaska that he set up 20 years ago to stimulate and study artificial auroras.

The Arctic sky is special because it is one of the two places (the other being the Antarctic) where the magnetic shield of the Earth opens up to outer space. Auroras, such as the one pictured above, pleasingly testify to a stream of particles from the sun that gets through and hits the atmosphere. These particles bring with them many gigawatts of power that Dr Wong wants to harness to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Going up in the world

His idea starts with the fact that CO2 molecules like to team up with loose electrons, to form CO2 ions. A few percent of the CO2 molecules in the air manage to find such electrons. As a result they become negatively charged.

The second piece of luck is that all over the Earth there is a constant vertical electrical field. The surface and the atmosphere form a giant battery, as the lightning discharges of thunderstorms demonstrate. This field tends to make negatively charged ions, such as those of CO2, drift upward. At first this happens slowly, because collisions with other molecules keep throwing the drifting ions off course. But after a few days they arrive at an altitude, about 125km up, which is so rarefied that an ion can move freely about. This is when the last stage of their one-way trip into space begins: sailing along the magnetic field of the Earth.

High in the polar regions, the lines of magnetic force point almost straight upwards. When a charged particle is in a magnetic field, it tends to travel along that field's lines of force, spiralling as it goes. In the case of a CO2 ion at an altitude of 125km, it spirals round 17 times a second.

However, as it travels upwards, it experiences a weakening field. It must then make fewer turns per second, in obedience to a law of physics called the conservation of magnetic moment (this is similar to the law of conservation of angular momentum that slows a spinning ice dancer down as he spreads his arms). And because it cannot just shed its energy of movement, it is forced to travel faster and faster in the direction of the field. The eventual result is that it is ejected into space.

That, at least, is the theory. And although CO2 is too rare even in today's atmosphere for the phenomenon to be detected by existing satellites, an equivalent ejection of oxygen, a far more abundant gas, can be detected from space. So it seems more than likely that Dr Wong's analysis of what is going on in nature is right. The question is, can CO2 molecules be given an artificial leg-up into space, so that they leave the atmosphere in sufficient numbers to make a difference to climate change? Dr Wong thinks they can.

The leg-up he proposes comes in two stages. First, he has to ionise more CO2. There are many ways this might be done, but for a first experiment Dr Wong proposes zapping dust in the atmosphere with powerful lasers, to release electrons that can then combine with CO2. Having created the ions, he will then nudge those that have drifted upwards to the appropriate height with radio waves of exactly 17 cycles a second, which will give them a nice stock of energy at the beginning of their spiralling phase.

Once they are there, Dr Wong expects the incoming stream of charged particles that cause auroras to deliver the bonus that will make the whole thing work, by dumping some of their energy into the spiralling as well. This should happen through a process called stochastic resonance: the spiralling molecules get preferential treatment, so to speak, because they stand out in what is otherwise an environment of random movements.

So far, Dr Wong has only rough calculations of the energy needs of his scheme, but these suggest that his lasers and radio transmitters, even if powered by fossil-fuel generated electricity, should cause far less CO2 to be put into the atmosphere than they ship out of it. The key to this efficiency is the free energy arriving by stochastic resonance. If the particles do their bit, he thinks that a few dozen megawatts of additional electrical power is all that will be needed to make a dent in the amount of CO2. Exactly how big that dent would be, he is not yet sure. But he is pretty sure it would be big enough to help.


http://www.economist.com/science/displa ... id=9253976

well, so long as he doesn't take out too much co2 and the world becomes uninhabitable

_________________
Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear,
Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer.
The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way
To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:24 am 
Offline
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:08 pm
Posts: 1664
Location: sarnia
invention wrote:
how come people care more about global warming than peak oil, which is a more immediate problem and possibly more devastating? is it because of the publicity of global warming? because its more trendy?



i would say because global warming affects everyone on the planet where as peak oil affects a way of life basically.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:34 am
Posts: 12029
corky wrote:
invention wrote:
how come people care more about global warming than peak oil, which is a more immediate problem and possibly more devastating? is it because of the publicity of global warming? because its more trendy?



i would say because global warming affects everyone on the planet where as peak oil affects a way of life basically.


peak oil is still going to affect everyone and it'll be within the next 10-20 years where most global warming estimates are long range effects drawn out over the next 100 years. i don't see what your point is when peak oil could cause a global depression in 1/5 the time that global warming would take. it doesn't just affect a way of life, its much bigger than that.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:15 am 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
invention wrote:
corky wrote:
invention wrote:
how come people care more about global warming than peak oil, which is a more immediate problem and possibly more devastating? is it because of the publicity of global warming? because its more trendy?



i would say because global warming affects everyone on the planet where as peak oil affects a way of life basically.


peak oil is still going to affect everyone and it'll be within the next 10-20 years where most global warming estimates are long range effects drawn out over the next 100 years. i don't see what your point is when peak oil could cause a global depression in 1/5 the time that global warming would take. it doesn't just affect a way of life, its much bigger than that.

our reliance on oil is one of the causes of global warming. mitigating the worst impacts of global warming will involve us ceasing our dependence on fossil fuels and adopting different energy sources- so by dealing with this problem, we're actually solving the oil one.

if you need more detail than that it will have to wait for another day, just giving a three second summary here

_________________
Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear,
Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer.
The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way
To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:24 am 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/t ... 0607.phtml

Top Ten President Bush Global Warming Solutions:

10. Instead of "Partly sunny," have weatherman say "Partly cloudy"

9. Stop using Air Force One for Texas barbecue runs

8. Replace dangerous CO2 in the atmosphere with more eco-friendly CO1

7. Encourage people to walk more by distributing free Dr. Scholl massaging gel inserts. Are you gellin'?

6. Watch Al Gore movie one of these nights instead of "Dukes of Hazzard"

5. Bob Barker's free. Get him workin' on it

4. Send more troops to Iraq

3. I dunno, tax cuts for the rich?

2. Reduce hot air emissions by canceling "The View"

1. Resign

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:52 am 
Offline
User avatar
Menace to Dogciety
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:54 pm
Posts: 12287
Location: Manguetown
Gender: Male
i only use florescent (i never know how to write this shit even in portuguese) bulbs at home, and nobody can complain of them being cold, because there are already yellowish ones.

_________________
There's just no mercy in your eyes
There ain't no time to set things right
And I'm afraid I've lost the fight
I'm just a painful reminder
Another day you leave behind


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 6:14 am 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am
Posts: 7189
Location: CA
Human Bass wrote:
i only use florescent (i never know how to write this shit even in portuguese) bulbs at home, and nobody can complain of them being cold, because there are already yellowish ones.


I don't mind florescent unless it is the commercial tube type that never seem to get replaced when they start flickering incessantly. :(
Perhaps custodians derive some sick pleasure in leaving malfunctioning bulbs in service.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:34 am
Posts: 12029
vacatetheword wrote:
invention wrote:
corky wrote:
invention wrote:
how come people care more about global warming than peak oil, which is a more immediate problem and possibly more devastating? is it because of the publicity of global warming? because its more trendy?



i would say because global warming affects everyone on the planet where as peak oil affects a way of life basically.


peak oil is still going to affect everyone and it'll be within the next 10-20 years where most global warming estimates are long range effects drawn out over the next 100 years. i don't see what your point is when peak oil could cause a global depression in 1/5 the time that global warming would take. it doesn't just affect a way of life, its much bigger than that.

our reliance on oil is one of the causes of global warming. mitigating the worst impacts of global warming will involve us ceasing our dependence on fossil fuels and adopting different energy sources- so by dealing with this problem, we're actually solving the oil one.

if you need more detail than that it will have to wait for another day, just giving a three second summary here


yes, but dealing with the causes of global warming is a long term exercise. most estimates of when oil supply will peak are between now and 15 years from now, i'm just wondering why the focus isn't on peak oil when its a much more immediate and serious problem. politicians, policymakers, and the media aren't publicly discussing this when it has the potential to destroy our economy within 10 years. we only have bush saying that we need to cut foreign oil dependence, cheney making speeches about peak oil years ago which are now ignored by both the media and government, and global warming advocates who frame the oil debate as a climate issue when its actually much more serious and immediate than long-term climate disruptions.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Menace to Dogciety
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:54 pm
Posts: 12287
Location: Manguetown
Gender: Male
I just read about some incredible dispotive that converts heat in electricity! So in a very near future, computers wont need no more coolers for example.

It was developed by some dudes of the Utah University.

Well, the page i read is on portuguese, but here is the link anyway http://tecnologia.terra.com.br/interna/ ... 01,00.html


Edit - english page http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=053007-1

_________________
There's just no mercy in your eyes
There ain't no time to set things right
And I'm afraid I've lost the fight
I'm just a painful reminder
Another day you leave behind


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/re ... y?id=48921

National RPS to Include Coal & Nuclear?

Energy policy is once again up for debate on Capitol Hill with Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) expected to introduce an amendment today that would require 15 percent of electricity generated in the U.S. to come from renewables by 2020. The legislation will be countered by Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who is planning to offer a "weaker" amendment that defines coal and nuclear as clean energy, and eligible for renewable credits.

_________________
Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear,
Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer.
The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way
To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:02 am 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
I'm just curious. Have any of you global warming crowd folks ever even considered the developing world when it comes to this?

Just curious.

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:55 am 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am
Posts: 19477
Location: Brooklyn NY
LittleWing wrote:
I'm just curious. Have any of you global warming crowd folks ever even considered the developing world when it comes to this?

Just curious.


God I hate you. Leave.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 583 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 30  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 10Club Management and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 8:59 am