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 ... 30  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:40 am 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
corduroy11 wrote:
vacatetheword wrote:
corduroy11 wrote:
About 35% of all energy consumption is related to the construction and operation of buildings.

what are you including in this?


I was using the figures for Canada. In Canada, buildings account for:

- 30% of total energy consumption
- 50% of total electricity use
- 30% of total GHG emissions

The operation/construction phase takes into account heating, cooling, lighting, etc.

Also, buildings account for over 40% of the world's raw material resources.

ok thanks.

i should have mentioned materials in my opening post, but i have an inherent electricity bias ;)

so, bringing this down to a level of GHG emissions, how would you propose reducing the emissions related to buildings?
i'm guessing sustainable, so called "green" buildings which maximise energy efficiency, run on renewables, use recycled materials... that sort of thing? in concert with large scale changes to the urban model, involving more public transport and so on?

_________________
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 Apr 23, 2007 3:42 am 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
corduroy11 wrote:
About 35% of all energy consumption is related to the construction and operation of buildings. Therefore, designing a more sustainable built environment at the macro level (i.e. urban planning) and micro level (energy efficiency, life-cycle analysis, embodied energy, net-zero energy buildings, etc.) is the most important, in my opinion. That is why I think the LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) rating system is so important, because it takes into account the entire built environment, from the transportation to mechanical design to water efficiency aspects of buildings. Check 'em out: http://www.usgbc.org , http://www.cagbc.ca


:thumbsup:


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:45 am 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
Green Habit wrote:
I haven't heard about compressed air, though--I guess I need to research that further.

i don't know too much about it myself, but here's a starting point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_car

_________________
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 Apr 23, 2007 3:51 am 
Offline
Faithless
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 2623
vacatetheword wrote:
corduroy11 wrote:
vacatetheword wrote:
corduroy11 wrote:
About 35% of all energy consumption is related to the construction and operation of buildings.

what are you including in this?


I was using the figures for Canada. In Canada, buildings account for:

- 30% of total energy consumption
- 50% of total electricity use
- 30% of total GHG emissions

The operation/construction phase takes into account heating, cooling, lighting, etc.

Also, buildings account for over 40% of the world's raw material resources.

ok thanks.

i should have mentioned materials in my opening post, but i have an inherent electricity bias ;)

so, bringing this down to a level of GHG emissions, how would you propose reducing the emissions related to buildings?
i'm guessing sustainable, so called "green" buildings which maximise energy efficiency, run on renewables, use recycled materials... that sort of thing? in concert with large scale changes to the urban model, involving more public transport and so on?


The LEED rating system has traditionally been used for new construction and existing buildings (i.e. doing retrofits). It has recently expanded to include different rating systems for homes, schools, and urban development. The LEED model is basically that each project attains a certain amount of credits related to its energy efficiency, water efficiency, materials used, the sustainability of the site (i.e. remediation of an existing industrial park or brownfield, landscaping, etc), and how it fits in the grand scheme of the urban environment (location with respect to mass transit and amenities). Therefore, the more levels it passes the more credits it receives and the higher rating the project gets (silver, gold, platinum, etc). It is a great model (and improving all the time) because it takes into account so many aspects of energy and the environment. And it isn't a pipe-dream like the "hydrogen economy". LEED is here, now, and it works. It will only get better.

I think one thing people need to do is stop waiting for the "silver bullet" solution. Too many people are waiting for the day when they wake up and find out that everything will run on hydrogen fuel cells (which in itself poses other problems). I think most people are waiting for a romantic solution to all of this, and think to themselves that they won't do anything about it until that day arrives.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
I may be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure I remember Sheryl Crow being a Republican and past Bush supporter...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-da ... 46501.html


Karl Rove Gets Thrown Under the Stop Global Warming Bus

Last night Thelma and Louise drove the bus off the cliff or at least into the White House Correspondents Dinner. The "highlight" of the evening had to be when we were introduced to Karl Rove. How excited were we to have our first opportunity ever to talk directly to the Bush Administration about global warming.

We asked Mr. Rove if he would consider taking a fresh look at the science of global warming. Much to our dismay, he immediately got combative. And it went downhill from there.

We reminded the senior White House advisor that the US leads the world in global warming pollution and we are doing the least about it. Anger flaring, Mr. Rove immediately regurgitated the official Administration position on global warming which is that the US spends more on researching the causes than any other country.

We felt compelled to remind him that the research is done and the results are in (http://www.IPCC.ch). Mr. Rove exploded with even more venom. Like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum, Mr. Rove launched into a series of illogical arguments regarding China not doing enough thus neither should we. (Since when do we follow China's lead?)

At some point during his ramblings, we became heartbroken to think that the President of the United States and his top advisers have partially built a career on global warming not being real. We have been telling college students across the country for the past two weeks that government does not change until people demand it... well, listen up folks, everyone had better get a lot louder because the message clearly is not getting through.

In his attempt to dismiss us, Mr. Rove turned to head toward his table, but as soon as he did so, Sheryl reached out to touch his arm. Karl swung around and spat, "Don't touch me." How hardened and removed from reality must a person be to refuse to be touched by Sheryl Crow? Unfazed, Sheryl abruptly responded, "You can't speak to us like that, you work for us." Karl then quipped, "I don't work for you, I work for the American people." To which Sheryl promptly reminded him, "We are the American people."

At that point Mr. Rove apparently decided he had had enough. Like a groundhog fearful of his own shadow, he scurried to his table in an attempt to hibernate for another year from his responsibility to address global warming. Drama aside, you would expect as an American citizen to be able to engage in a civil discussion with a public official. Instead, Mr. Rove was dismissive, condescending, and quite frankly a bully.

Ultimately, we were left wondering what on Earth Mr. Rove was talking about when he said "the American people." If more than 60% of American voters, the Supreme Court, over 400 cities, the US National Academy of Sciences, numerous major US corporations, and others don't constitute the American people, then what does? The truth is, if this administration cared one iota about the American people, they would have addressed this problem long ago, and the sad reality is that this problem has been left to us, all of us, since the current administration has abandoned this issue entirely. In the absence of true leadership, we must guide ourselves. We can solve this, but we had better act fast.

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org

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


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
yeah, i read that one, but i think the bottom line is that karl rove is a douche.

there is no depth that that administration (and my own here in australia) can sink to which would surprise me.

_________________
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: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:30 am 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
on this sheryl crowe thing- her credibility is taking a hit:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/people/lo ... 11060.html

Limit loo paper says singer

April 24, 2007 - 10:12AM

Sheryl Crow is suggesting a cheeky solution to wipe away global warming: limit each trip to the loo to one piece of toilet paper, according to a statement on the US singer-songwriter's website.

Crow said she had spent most of an environmental tour of US college campuses thinking of easy ways for people to battle climate change.

"Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of conserving trees, which we heavily rely on for oxygen," the signed statement said.

"I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting," she explained.

"I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required."

Other plans included not using paper napkins.

"I have designed a clothing line that has what's called a 'dining sleeve.' The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another 'dining sleeve,' after usage," she explained in the increasingly bizarre posting.

"The design will offer the 'diner' the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing out yet another barely used paper product... this idea could also translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold."

Her third idea was for a television reality show in which the winner would be the contestant who lives the most environmentally-friendly life. The prize would be a recording contract.

Crow's spokesman was not immediately available to elaborate on the singer's proposals.
__________________________________________________

For the record, i use this stuff http://www.safeforourplanet.com.au/prod ... sue_ub.htm ;)
Quote:
Safe Unbleached & Recycled Toilet Tissue

Safe Unbleached and Recycled toilet tissue is available in a 6 pack and 9 pack, wrapped in biodegradable paper. It is made from virgin plantation pine pulp and recycled clean office waste, this means no dioxins entering our waterways.

_________________
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: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
not a big Gay guy
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:52 pm
Posts: 8552
what, sheryl crow wasn't satisfied with wasting our time with her boring duets, now she has to muck up social issues too? god.

_________________
i was dreaming through the howzlife yawning car black when she told me "mad and meaningless as ever" and a song came on my radio like a cemetery rhyme for a million crying corpses in their tragedy of respectable existence


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
Laura,

I think your list is interesting, but it focuses a lot on the economically negative solutions. I have found to get people to do things, you have to reward them not punish them (with carbon taxes and restrictions on their behaviors). So I would suggest the following very achievable things that don't require joe-schmo-citizen to much of anything but still have substantial environmental benefits.

Encouragements:
    -interest free students loans for science/engineering students who agree to work for X number of years in the environmental technology sector after graduation. Similar to the AmeriCorp plan.

    -federal law allowing that local power generation can be fed back into national grid (like wind turbines or methane capture on farms)

    -institute Clinton's plan to subsidize solar panels on 1 millions US homes. This has the negative effect of spending tax money, but the very positive effect of establishing a residential solar power sector

    -as others have suggested, changes to the commercial building codes to require low emissions designs for buildings over a certain size.

    -corporate tax credits for money spent on "greening" existing buildings and plans that encourage employees to use mass transit

    -lowering regulatory hurdles and increase tax based encouragement for bio-engineering companies to develop GM crops that use less water/soil or (even better) that can grow in the ocean

    -corporate tax credits for money spent on farming automation technology that could harvest at night when emissions are less damaging or that could run on solar/waste-methane driven engines

    -increasing private conservation efforts, like those that buy up and preserve rainforests. This would require a respect for property rights that most of the world ignores, but that's a different issue :wink:

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:01 am 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
broken iris wrote:
Laura,

I think your list is interesting, but it focuses a lot on the economically negative solutions.

i respectfully disagree.

broken iris wrote:
I have found to get people to do things, you have to reward them not punish them (with carbon taxes and restrictions on their behaviors). So I would suggest the following very achievable things that don't require joe-schmo-citizen to much of anything but still have substantial environmental benefits.

Encouragements:
    -interest free students loans for science/engineering students who agree to work for X number of years in the environmental technology sector after graduation. Similar to the AmeriCorp plan.

    -federal law allowing that local power generation can be fed back into national grid (like wind turbines or methane capture on farms)

    -institute Clinton's plan to subsidize solar panels on 1 millions US homes. This has the negative effect of spending tax money, but the very positive effect of establishing a residential solar power sector

    -as others have suggested, changes to the commercial building codes to require low emissions designs for buildings over a certain size.

    -corporate tax credits for money spent on "greening" existing buildings and plans that encourage employees to use mass transit

    -lowering regulatory hurdles and increase tax based encouragement for bio-engineering companies to develop GM crops that use less water/soil or (even better) that can grow in the ocean

    -corporate tax credits for money spent on farming automation technology that could harvest at night when emissions are less damaging or that could run on solar/waste-methane driven engines

    -increasing private conservation efforts, like those that buy up and preserve rainforests. This would require a respect for property rights that most of the world ignores, but that's a different issue :wink:

good list, i agree.

_________________
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 Apr 26, 2007 12:30 am 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
vacatetheword wrote:
broken iris wrote:
Laura,

I think your list is interesting, but it focuses a lot on the economically negative solutions.

i respectfully disagree.


8)

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:56 pm
Posts: 19957
Location: Jenny Lewis' funbags
Does Sheryl Crow seriously expect me to wipe my ass with a single square of tp? This is a pointless proposition because I bet she shits like a dairy cow.

A more realistic would solution would be to implement a recycling program wherein anyone who has ever purchased a Sheryl Crow CD can return it for a package of toilet paper of their choice.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar
Menace to Dogciety
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:54 pm
Posts: 12287
Location: Manguetown
Gender: Male
Nuclear energy! Its quite effective and it pisses greenpeace what is fun.

_________________
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: Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:06 am 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
Gore calls Canadian climate change plan a 'fraud' designed to mislead citizens

AP | April 29, 2007 08:07 PM EST

TORONTO — Al Gore condemned Canada's new plan to reduce greenhouse gases, saying it was "a complete and total fraud" because it lacks specifics and gives industry a way to actually increase emissions.

Under the initiative announced Thursday, Canada aims to reduce the current level of greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020. But the government acknowledged it would not meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, which requires 35 industrialized countries to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

The country's emissions are now 30 percent above 1990 levels.

The conservative government's strategy focuses both on reducing emissions of gases blamed for global warming and improving air quality. But the plan failed to spell out what many of its regulations will look like.

Gore said the plan did not make clear how Canada would reach its 2020 emissions goal. He also criticized the plan for allowing industries to pollute more if they use emissions-cutting technologies while increasing production.


"In my opinion, it is a complete and total fraud," Gore said Saturday. "It is designed to mislead the Canadian people."

He said "intensity reduction" _ which allow industries to increase their greenhouse gas outputs as they raise production _ was a poll-tested phrase developed by think tanks financed by Exxon Mobil and other large polluters.

Canadian Environment Minister John Baird rejected Gore's criticisms.

"The fact is our plan is vastly tougher than any measures introduced by the administration of which the former vice president was a member," Baird said in a statement.

Baird also invited Gore to discuss climate change and the government's environmental policies with him.

Gore was in Toronto to present his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," at a consumer environmental show. He acknowledged that as an American, he had "no right to interfere" in Canadian decision.

However, he said, the rest of the world looks to Canada for moral leadership, and that was why Thursday's announcement was so "shocking."

Canadian opposition Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said Sunday that Gore was right.

"Mr. Baird is embarrassing Canada around the world," Dion said. "The world expects Canada will do its share _ more than that, that Canada will be a leader and we are failing the world. We are failing Canadians."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wire ... nvironment

_________________
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 Apr 30, 2007 4:04 am 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
Dutch plan restricts biofuels that damage environment

April 29, 2007

The Netherlands has proposed a system to reduce the environmental impact of biofuels production. The country becomes the first in the world to establish such guidelines.

Environmentalists have expressed increasing concern for the establishment of energy crops in biodiverse and carbon-rich ecosystems like the peatlands of Indonesia and the Amazon rainforest. They say that conversion of these forests for oil palm and soybeans is threatening endangered species and worsening global warming. Further, they warn, demand for such biomass energy products is driving up prices for food crops.

The new Dutch initiative, put forth by a commission led by Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer, draws up a framework by which companies can measure the sustainability of crops used for biofuels.

"Biomass production should not come at the expense of environmental damage and it should lead to less emissions of greenhouses gases than fossil fuels," the report said.



Oil palm plantation in Malaysia. Malaysia is currently the world's largest producer of palm oil, though Indonesia is soon expected to surpass it in production. Photo by Rhett A. Butler
"The framework evaluates emission reduction compared with fossil fuels and whether the crops supplant other land uses such as food production," reported the Associated Press. "It also looks at whether the crops reduce biodiversity, damage the environment or use pesticides."

The system would initially be voluntary in order skirt World Trade Organization (WTO) regulations.

"As long as it's a voluntary system, we don't have a problem," Minster Cramer told the Associated Press.

A draft version of the initiative sets forth criteria for biofuels production including the impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, local food supplies and prices, biodiversity, water supplies, soil quality, and social well-being of workers--important measures given that soy and oil palm cultivation have increasingly been linked with worker abuse, land rights violations, and environmental degradation.


Photo by Rhett A. Butler
Environmental groups expressed guarded enthusiasm for the proposal.

"[We support] the use of bio-fuels as an alternative to fossil fuels, as long as it can be proved that these bio-fuels are truly sustainable," said Wetlands International, a Dutch-based organization that has been instrumental in highlighting problems associated with unsustainable palm oil production. "Although the NGO is relieved that palm oil from peatlands is no longer supported in the Netherlands, Wetlands International supports other NGOs in their criticisms of some other elements of the report."

Wetlands International goes on to say that the commission is too lax with regard to deforestation for energy crops and addressing poverty concerns.

"Support to bio-fuel production displaces food production in some areas and leads to higher food prices," said the group. "There are no criteria presented to ban bio-fuels that do compete with food production in developing countries."

Greenpeace and Environment Defense were also critical according to the Associated Press (AP).

"In essential areas, the plans fall short," the groups told the AP. "Rain forests can still be cleared for new plantations."
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0429-dutch.html

_________________
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 Apr 30, 2007 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am
Posts: 7189
Location: CA
It must be wonderful to pass legislation that has absolutely no impact on one's economy and turn around and claim to be taking a moral stand or making necessary sacrifices. How many people even commute via cars in the Netherlands?


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:18 pm 
Offline
Faithless
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 2623
To pig out on burgers is bad, but the professor says it's up to you


Roslyn Guy
February 17, 2007

For a man best known as an animal-rights campaigner, Peter Singer is remarkably sanguine about McDonald's, the global fast food empire that specialises in hamburgers and every year buys millions of tonnes of meat from factory farms.

Professor Singer gives cautious support to the tick of approval the National Heart Foundation recently awarded the restaurant chain for parts of its menu. He says it is a sign that McDonald's is trying to be more responsible about food.

"The thing is, McDonald's is here," he says. "They are not going to disappear next week and it's worth trying to make their stuff better, to encourage them to serve healthier meals."

He is also pleased that, following campaigns in which he was involved during the 1990s, the company appointed livestock consultant Temple Grandin to audit a slaughterhouse used by one of their suppliers.

Her revelations — including evidence that animals were being skinned and dismembered while still conscious — led the company to demand better processes from abattoirs.

Professor Singer, who divides his time between the Centre for Human Values at Princeton University in the United States and the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University, will speak on the ethics of food at the Sustainable Living Festival at Federation Square tomorrow.

Since he came to prominence with the publication in 1975 of his book Animal Liberation, his views have often been controversial — from advocating euthanasia for severely disabled babies to failing to condemn bestiality — so it should be no surprise that his opinions sometimes defy expectations.

Not that he is a fan of fast food. Aside from deploring the way animals are treated in its production, Professor Singer condemns it as expensive and often unhealthy. It is a fallacy to think poor people cannot afford healthy, organic food, he says.

"Taking family meals at McDonald's is cheap in terms of dining out but not in terms of how you could feed your family at home using things that you could buy very cheaply in bulk: grains and lentils and things of that sort that actually provide very good protein and very good nutrition."

Born in 1946, Professor Singer grew up in a fairly typical "heavy meat-eating" Australian family. As a graduate student at Oxford University in 1971, he became a vegetarian after learning about factory farming.

"It wasn't so much that we kill animals for food; it was more the idea that they just have miserable lives and we're really doing this for something that we don't need to eat," he says.

He is realistic about the chances of the world rejecting meat-eating any time soon — although he does see hope in the changed attitudes to the consumption of whale meat. In the meantime, he is confident that the climate-change debate may cause people to give more thought to their food choices.

By buying their products, people contribute to the environmental damage done by food producers. "By making more thoughtful choices in many ways — and going vegetarian or getting closer to being vegetarian or vegan — is an important way of reducing that harmful impact that you are having on the planet," he says.

He admits the issues are complicated but Professor Singer would like people to reflect on the implications of the origins of their food and the environmental damage of manufacturing and transporting it.

Most attention has been paid to "food miles" — the distance food travels before it reaches the dinner table; but that doesn't mean that locally grown is better. Take rice, for example. Given Australia's water shortages, he says it is probably better to buy rice from Bangladesh, where "they just use the water that floods their rice fields. In addition, you're helping people — who are much poorer than most Australians — to develop an export industry."

Another concern is the unsustainable number of cattle in the world. A 2006 United Nations report, which concluded that cattle-rearing generates more global-warming gases than transportation, sparked discussion in the US about the relative merits of giving up meat or trading in gas-guzzling cars. The issue was summed up by the slogan "vegetarianism is the new Prius", Professor Singer says.

"If you want to cut your emissions, for the typical person who eats a lot of factory-farm food, being vegetarian or vegan is probably a more effective change than swapping your car for a Prius (an eco-friendly car)."

As befits a philosopher, Professor Singer is a patient man who does not expect all to follow his path, but hopes they will take "steps along the journey".

"It's about making choices that have a less harmful impact on the environment and on animals," he says.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/to-pig-out-on-burgers-is-bad-but-the-professor-says-its-up-to-you/2007/02/16/1171405442629.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
Image
Image


Student design of turbines on highways that could capitalize on airflow generated by cars in addition to wind. Putting turbines in the medians on highways seems like a pretty good space saving idea for greener pwoer generation. Of course this doesn't punish anyone (like greedy capitlists or murderous meat eaters), so it probably won't be popular with the libs.


I think it's pretty smart idea to go ahead with a Mahatten Project style program for alternative fuels, but sponsering student design contests is smart too.

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Needs to start paying for bandwidth
 Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 5:20 am
Posts: 31173
wouldn't it be much more efficient, and generate faster if you put panels in that frame?


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:35 pm 
Offline
Faithless
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 2623
broken iris wrote:
Of course this is alternative energy, so it probably won't be popular with the right.


*fixed


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

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


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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 Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:03 am