Doing my part for energy conservation (merged environmental threads)

[KimTjik]

I respect your explanation and I very much agree with your statement:

KimTjik, yes I am very sceptical about the information that makes media reports.

There’s too much of extortion in the field of pseudo-science and a great temptation to make a headline, which might give some quite obvious personal gains. That said I would take into the equation the following misbalance: the greatest money is still – even though this might change - not made on being a hard-core environmental activist (which I'm not), but in supporting business which cause pollution (no matter to what extent it would be viewed harmful to planet earth). I’ve read some of your previous posts about a sober view on how corporations act, hence I would like to clarify that I don’t see successful corporations as evil personified, but I realize the difficulty in making choices which would at least for the moment harm business and therefore upset the shareholders.

 

Thus when evaluating information we have to bear in mind the current power balance; when it changes our perspective has to likewise. All have an agenda, which we might like or dislike, but it does still not necessarily nullify the validity. Just the indifferent don’t have an agenda, but will neither contribute with clarifying findings or information.

 

Overall, whatever the absolute truth might be, my principle of life is to better demonstrate precaution when dealing with a possible danger. If the danger proves to be exaggerated I’ve at least avoided doing something stupid.

[red930]

If the danger proves to be exaggerated I’ve at least avoided doing something stupid.

Ah, that's the conundrum.

 

Do you err on the side of saving the environment at all costs or do you err on the side of continued economic growth at all costs?

 

For many, this is an all-or-nothing issue when it really doesn't have to be so.

 

As an aside, I have great faith in the ability of people to make good decisions when presented with all the facts based upon research using sound scientific principles.

[KimTjik]

As an aside, I have great faith in the ability of people to make good decisions when presented with all the facts based upon research using sound scientific principles.

Let me quote your words: Ah, that's the conundrum (in the context I like that wording).

 

You’re a believer. I’m not?

 

The difference might be that I don’t view it as a wise approach to put hope in man without trying to do what we already are able to do. Why hesitate to use well working technology and instead go on being very dependent on for example oil. You could simplify it into two questions:

 

- Am I prepared to change my lifestyle if that might be in the best interest of humankind (or why not narrow it to my family, community or something else)?

- Or am I against any change since I view as my right to live as I want?

 

These questions are valid even if we exclude global warming or some other global issue. The affect on humans exposed to different kinds of pollution aren’t farfetched and doesn’t need great scientific research. Sometimes the necessity for proof goes to absurdum; how long did it take to actually prove that tobacco is dangerous to health?

 

Even if you don’t agree with some of the reports about environmental issues, I still can’t understand why it should be so difficult for the richest nations to make adjustments, which could be viewed as common sense.

 

Many people around here are using a technique for heating, where you take advantage of the few degrees of warmth earth gives. The investments aren’t enormous and the long time economic benefits are great. My parents did that some time ago and even if they have about -30 C in wintertime, they have too hot water and a really warm house. All what you need is in comparison very small amounts of electricity for a pump and some equipment. Taking into account the electricity that has to be generated, this technique still cuts down pollution to very low levels.

 

In many aspects it’s all about a choice. If you’re a believer or not isn’t relevant.

[red930]

@KimTjik

 

It ain't easy being me! LOL

[MoJo Risin&#39]

Okay, I’m painting a big red bull’s eye on my chest. Have fun. Here’s my zero cents follow up on the KP (in other words, just my gut feelings). I doubt most here will agree, and I don’t care. My vision prescription is different than most here on the street. By the way, I haven’t read all of the posts, so if I’m redundant, again I don’t care.

Explain to me how the countries of the EU, Japan and other industrialized capitalist, democratic countries classify as a communist countries. If the Kyoto Protocol is really as biased as you think it is, then why on earth would these countries sign something aimed at "punishing" them? Surely you're not arguing that they are masochistic?

 

…I read all of the stuff on Wikipedia and I still don't see anything that backs these statements of it being a tool used to oppress capitalism.

For starters, see my post #97 to KT.

 

As for the fact that the non-socialistic countries of the EU, Japan and others chose to accept this rubbish is their problem not America’s (although for some countries it can be considered a gift not a problem). It becomes America’s problem when we decide to give credence to this farcical accord. (Which I personally hope never happens unless drastic changes are made.) In addition, if they can get America to sign on, the KP is framed so we will end up paying for the biggest part of the tab while they can sit there and claim they’re doing their part to “Save the World”. The result is they are hoarding and concentrating beaucoup science bucks to one program (which I do not view as being imminently urgent) that could be better used to further much needed science elsewhere.

I'm not arguing that the KP is not flawed and in need of some revision and The section on developing countries clearly states that as these economies reach certain levels of sophistication the countries will be required to meet the standards of the protocol.

Up until that point the CDM policies will guide the development of those countries to ensure that they pursue commitments to cleaner sources of energy and more eco-friendly policies as part of their development process.

Some revision? How about a major overhaul?

 

CDM policies will guide? Oh thank heaven, I’d certainly sleep much better at night knowing that such a credible organization as the CDM would be looking out for the world’s best interests and helping dictate the fiscal policies of the plan. Oh, pardon me while I call my broker and tell him to invest more in the Euro and the other foreign currencies that will benefit from this accord at the expense of the U.S. Cha-ching, I think I see a cash cow for me in the making.

Environmentalists take a lot of flak when they phrase their arguments in terms of imminent perceptible climate change. This kind of stuff occurs gradually and saying that certain things will happen at a certain year dooms their movement to failure because when that prediction is inaccurate (as climate predictions so often are) people seize upon that as evidence that nothing is happening.

And they deserve all the flak that is thrown at them when they decide to abandon established scientific methods, procedures and facts, and go off base on a loosely founded conclusion in the pursuit of trying to make a ground breaking, profound statement or finding.

The point is that whatever research is being analyzed is going to be biased in one way or another. People inject their bias into everything they do and that includes analyizing data sets. So take everything with a grain of salt, but the point is not the magnitude at which human activity contributes to global warming but the fact that it does.

I realize science can be more theory than fact when trying to determine or explain a certain phenomenon. The problem lies in the fact of putting bias in your conclusion and then passing it off as proven science, instead of stating that it is simply a worst case scenario or possibility in a multitude of other possible theories. I take exception to scientists who observe a particular condition, selectively extract certain data while ignoring other relevant data, and then extrapolating the selective data and concluding the results are credible.

Whether you agree with the Kyoto Protocol as it currently stands or not, the important point is that we must do something.

I’m sure you know my feelings on Kyoto by now.

 

The U.S. is doing things. We’re just doing it by our rules. Sure, some other countries and environmental activist groups might not like it, but I don’t agree with their methods or solutions either. I will agree that they are entitled to their position, just as we are entitled to ours.

The earth is huge and can absorb massive amounts of abuse from us, from volcanoes, fires and anything else. But there are systems at work that are very fragile and a change of 2-3 degrees can be the difference between triggering an ice-age and preserving our current condition. I agree that we cannot fully understand the impact of human society on the earth's climate, but do we can say without a doubt that what we do has some impact.

I believe our planet is extremely resilient, just as I believe mankind also has an inherently strong survivor capability or characteristic. I also believe the earth is perpetually changing, albeit sometimes a slow change for certain phenomena, but change nonetheless. Whether it involves the atmosphere, climate, magnetic poles, the ice caps, its inner core and makeup, whatever, it’s always changing to some degree. Some of these changes cycle in different time frames, and even then, scientists can’t agree or say with any precision what those time frames are, or what changes are going to occur, much less what the effects of those changes will be within a system or across multiple systems and over time. Some changes even inexplicably reverse themselves. Earth science is still infantile in comparison with the age of the earth and how the planet has evolved/adapted throughout its existence. Because of this, it is hard for me to endorse any pragmatic philosophy or forecast. Realistically, in the scheme of events there’s not that much of a reliable, conclusive basis to draw on.

 

With all the natural events that happen, I just don’t see mankind being able to either adversely or favorably tip the global scales one way or the other. However, I can see man possibly changing or affecting a certain region(s) of the world, but I can’t see us globally affecting all regions. It’s also possible that an initially perceived negative situation in one region might even end up causing a positive result in another region. Who really knows? To me it’s too much theory and speculation. I have more faith in nature’s strength and ability to adapt, than man’s ability to undermine it at this time.

 

Different strokes for different folks. Take all the shots you want, but I doubt I'll be responding. And yes, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” I'm not saying that I have an educated mind, but I will privately entertain your thoughts. And no, you won’t change my mind. I’m feeling too old and cranky right now. I heard too much speculative, unfounded dribble in college in the 60's and 70's, so to me it's deja vu. I feel I need to give something back to nature. Pardon me while I use the head. 10-4, Mojo over and out.

[red930]

Why hesitate to use well working technology and instead go on being very dependent on for example oil. You could simplify it into two questions:

 

- Am I prepared to change my lifestyle if that might be in the best interest of humankind (or why not narrow it to my family, community or something else)?

- Or am I against any change since I view as my right to live as I want?

 

...

 

...

 

Even if you don’t agree with some of the reports about environmental issues, I still can’t understand why it should be so difficult for the richest nations to make adjustments, which could be viewed as common sense.

 

I think you grossly overestimate the technology that we have. Yes, we have alternative methods of heating, yes each of us can do a lot of small things individually to help out. This 'well working technology' perhaps is well working in practice, but not nearly so when you need to apply it to millions of homes. Take your water heating for example, which isn't nearly as high tech as some ideas they have...

 

1. Current homes can't use it. Obviously rough to dig up your foundation and run tubes through it. It'd be cheaper to build a new house.

 

2. I don't care what you use to heat your house - as long as you have the same insulation you need the EXACT SAME amount of energy inserted into your home to keep it at 'x' degrees. Whether you use a standard gas furnace, gas waterheater, or electric waterheating, in the end you're getting the same amount of power and since you're likely using a coal power plant nearby, the electric heater doesn't save the environment at all.

 

The other problem is it isn't the question of whether you're WILLING to change - because very few will VOLUNTARILY do it. Even little things like cutting down on unnecessary driving, power use, increased recycling - that kind of stuff. It doesn't matter if a few do it, I don't care about people claiming they 'make a difference' because its not. The only way it'll actually help is if everybody is forced into it. People are too complacent and uncaring (myself included) and sure, some people would complain, maybe even a lot of them. But honestly the government is here for a reason, and it is supposed to keep us in order, and the evironment is obviously becoming a big enough concern that maybe it should step in and put its damn foot down. Fricken regulate how much gas you can buy a month, I don't know. whatever. The point is the EVERYBODY needs to help, not just .001% of us.

 

By the way, my personal idea is to FORCE all new homes to be capable of producing, I don't know...30% if its own power (maybe more, don't know how much that requires) via solar panel or some such technology. Have this in effect a year or two from now. I'm sure people would classy lady aobut the increased cost of the house though.

 

Step 1 complete...

[KimTjik]

1. Current homes can't use it. Obviously rough to dig up your foundation and run tubes through it. It'd be cheaper to build a new house.

Even if you say that an individuals choice doesn’t have any value when it comes to a question like this, I’m sorry to say but you’re statement above is totally wrong.

- First my parents didn’t do this because they think that their action “will make a difference”. They don’t have such an ego. Now to the technical side of it:

- Their house is built 1891 and it’s a huge two floors timber house including an old fashioned basement. It already had – of course this wasn’t built in 1891! – old fashioned pipes for transporting heat though out the house. Sir, that’s all: the equipment don’t take up more space than did the old junk and 3 meters from the house is it drilled two 120 mm holes in diameter.

 

2. I don't care what you use to heat your house - as long as you have the same insulation you need the EXACT SAME amount of energy inserted into your home to keep it at 'x' degrees. Whether you use a standard gas furnace, gas waterheater, or electric waterheating, in the end you're getting the same amount of power and since you're likely using a coal power plant nearby, the electric heater doesn't save the environment at all.

 

You got something wrong here. Electricity will be generated somehow. We’re clear on that. Let’s say we have to get electricity from coal, which is a bad alternative. If I use 30 % of the previously needed amount of electricity plus I don’t need any supplies of oil anymore, we do save coal and oil and therefore lowering the levels of pollution, don’t we? So what’s your argument? I can’t see it. What I’m talking about is a decrease in the total use of energy. I think this is very understandable for most of us here since we do refer to the efficiency of PSU’s. Some methods are more efficient than others. You know the simple input/output calculation.

 

In my example above I used coal as the energy source for electricity, but as you all know there exist better alternatives. I understand that running for example Time Square in New York sucks a whole lot of energy… or Las Vegas which consumes ridicules amounts of energy… but are we now talking about really necessary matters.

 

This is not high-tech, and I didn’t choose it so say “hi everybody my parents will save the planet for you”, but too many are simply assuming that it’s sooooo difficult to on a personal level do something. You could say my parents are greedy as well, because they will save about 4 000 $ per year!

 

Governments? We are back to the question of having faith, but on the other hand you don’t have it in ordinary humans, so to be fair the chance is slim, or what do you think? Governments are anyway made up of humans like we and elected by humans like we.

 

 

 

@KimTjik

 

It ain't easy being me! LOL

 

As I understand you’re good chef. Cheer up with some nicely fried spicy scrimps and some good wine.

 

You’re appreciated.

[Evil_inc]

In recet news about the rotating boycott on fuel companies (shell, Exxon, Mobil, etc...) The idea is to hurt the companies by staying off of their fuel for one day at a time. But dosent this just give more profits to the companies that arnt being boycotted that day? The concept behind the boycott is a good one, keeping off of certian gas companies to lower the gas price BUT,

 

The gas compainies do not make that much of a profit anyway as discussed before in this thread

 

By rotating it only hurts the company for a day, not in the long run and not enugh to get the to lower prices.

 

The same amount of cars are still on the road using the same amount of gas and producing the same amount of polutants.

 

I just dont see the logic behind the rotating boycott, and i feel that it would be entirely more effective if we had something like a national "no driving" day on which no one would drive a car, truck, or suv and just use public transportation or there own power (except for emergencies of cource).

 

People try to find the source of a problem and will always refuse to think that it is themselves. In this case it is. WE decided to drive up gas prices by demanding it more and more by driving huge suv's everywhere we go. The only thing we can do at this point is to STOP DRIVING SO MUCH AND STOP USING LARGE CARS. I know its not cheap and people wont like it but its cheaper to crap in a bucket and throw it into the street than to put in plumbing and use two gallons of water to flush everytime. But the cheaper verson almost killed us. Learn from the past.

[red930]

Boycotts are useless in this instance.

 

If the general public understood the economies of the oil business the media wouldn't be able to whip up this .-storm they've created.

 

Oil companies have been doing business the very same way for decades. When the price of crude oil is low and the oil companies are barely able to survive no one says a thing.

 

When oil prices rise, the companies are able to make a profit and invest in new refineries and processes to help them over the next drought.

 

Oil companies make the same 8 cents per gallon on refined gas whether oil is $10.00 per barrel or $100.00 per barrel.

 

Their profits come from the price per barrel which is set on the open market. US companies have less than 20 percent of the known reserves under their control.

 

There has been consolidation in the industry over the past 20 years that have lead to great savings for the oil industry and consumers. Now the same people that enjoyed the lower prices this gave them are screaming that consolidation is bad because it's causing high prices. Well, you can't have it both ways.

 

It's a crying shame that more people don't understand the economics of the situation. There are market forces outside of the oil companies control driving the price of crude oil to record heights. China has control over the Venezuelan government and their oil reserves. Iran isn't helping with it's nuclear desires.

 

If the majority of U.S. crude oil production wasn't concentrated in the Gulf Of Mexico, hurricanes wouldn't affect oil prices so much. Oil production in the Gulf will take another 10 months to recover to pre-Katrina levels.

 

Add in the change from MTBE to Ethanol additives, refineries still shut down or running at reduced capacity from hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the fact that many refineries delayed scheduled maintenance/upgrade work last Fall and you have a situation where demand vastly outstrips supply in the market place.

 

Not accounting for the current shortage in gasoline production, the price of regular unleaded should be about $2.75 per gallon just based upon inflation and the price of crude oil.

[Evil_inc]

On the topic of global warming which was the original topic of my thread before it was merged, I have found another this this has effected.

When tropical sea temperatures vary, even 1 degree celcius over the summer season, it allows a strand of bacteria called V. Sholi to penetrate the protective membrane of coral structures. These V. Sholi will destroy or remove the zooxantheallae alge (that is the thing that gives the coral its color and without it, it is bone white) in the coral structures leaving it bone white and over time it will kill the coral organism itself. This is called coral bleaching and has produced some of the following results from colorful vibrant reefs.

 

I am curently using this as a topic for a research article. Does anyone have a viable solution to stop golbal warming without a huge economic impact? [hehe, its a big question that many people have been trying to answer but it would be great to know]

[Angry_Games]

The problem with hybrids is they cost so much more you can use the extra money for the gas.

actually they only cost about $1000 more than the regular models (for the Honda anyway)

 

I do not see what the hype is surrounding hybrid cars. Everybody wants one!

 

I mean, its awesome people like to cut down on gas usage (and the dent in our pockets) but at the end of the day it takes up as much energy to build and dispose of these cars as any other vehicle.

 

ah

 

but

 

we don't buy a new car every other day...we on average buy a car about every 3-5 years I think...so if it takes just as much energy to build one as a normal car...that's ok, because it does not use as much energy as a normal car...and you USE the car every day pretty much for 3-5 years (you taking math in school right? lol)

 

if everyone buys into hybrids or E85's etc, then the mfgs will have no choice but to switch to them *cough socket AM2 cough* and in the process the R&D to make them better and more efficient would be #1 priority since everyone is buying them...so you'd want to be the company that could tout that your hybrid/E85 is more efficient and more everything good than the next competitor's car, and you'd be more efficient at building them, and each technological step would probably reduce waste and energy necessary to actually build them, thereby making them in the long run less costly and less energy to build them than even normal cars are today.

 

 

What you need to realize is that a company will only R&D and then mfg products that are popular and people want in volume...

 

We don't really want to move to socket AM2 for DDR2 on the Athlon64...because we see no benefit right now.

 

However, AMD sees the benefit in the long run as DDR1 memory reaches it's limitations, or worse, it's cost-effective ratio. What happens when DDR1 costs more than consumers will pay for it just to get to the same 800Mhz speeds that DDR2 can easily reach at higher latencies?

 

Exactly. Intel saw this a long time ago...they just didn't introduce a new cpu to go along with it (they stuck to the stupid P4 architecture...but they realized their mistake and have moved to the Conroe *P3 type* architecture...and they have 1000Mhz bus speeds or more, which Intel chips need because they don't have integrated memory controllers, which means they were wise to move to DDR2 and get all of their cpu's and chipsets and mfg plants all setup for DDR2-based products.

 

Now they might be ready for DDR3 while AMD is just moving to DDR2...but there again, the difference in the cpu is that AMD cpu's have the integrated memory controller, so they don't need those 1500Mhz+ bus speeds.

 

 

 

now

 

 

wtf does that have to do with cars and why am I going off on a slant in this thread about hybrids?

 

 

 

I shouldn't be...this should be a separate thread honestly...but the original poster will bear with me this one time as here's my opinion lol:

 

a hybrid car now will do your part to reduce emissions and make everyone else interested in them since it will be a big topic of discussion

 

"hey man I heard you bought a Hybrid Toyoya Camry....is it like a weak battery car or what?"

 

 

 

 

making a choice that is good for your wallet in a society where gas is $3.00 a gallon in the US, and no sign of it really going back under $2.50/gal is a good choice.

 

making a choice that reduces your country's dependence, even if only a fraction of a fraction of a percent, on foreign energy, is a good choice for not only you, but the rest of the country (keep in mind there's about 300,000,000 citizens in the USA...so a fraction of a fraction can still equal a lot)

 

making a choice that is good for those two things and spreading the word to others who trust you or like you and getting them THINKING and DISCUSSING is a good thing.

 

 

 

but

 

 

 

thats just me...I'm not so super gung ho about hybrids or E85 that I would turn down a free car of any type....but I am just pretentious enough, and actually care enough, that I would try to trade it in for something like an Accord or Camry...hybrid/E85 if possible...but if not, then at least a Honda or Toyota.

 

I mean, no offense American car mfg's...but other than Dodge, and the Ford Mustang, your cars are ugly, unattractive gas guzzling piles of junk that tend to break down more often per car than any 50 Japanese cars of decent quality.

 

I do dig the Dodge Magnum wagon thing...looks like a chopped '48 Ford or something but it eats gas =(

 

I totally dig the Ford Mustang now that it is awesome and retro...but if I buy one, I want the V8...because buying a Mustang or any 'muscle' car and getting a sissy engine is...well...sissy...and a nice fast V8 Mustang or V8 Dodge Magnum or V8 Dodge Charger...well...that totally goes against my hybrid preaching, as well as changing all my incandescent light bulbs in the house for low-watt flourescents...all the things I do to try and decrease my energy consumption.

 

 

We Americans live a fine line between gluttony and conservation...but we tend to err on the side of gluttony. I try to err on the side of conservation. I break the line often enough to feel guilty...but there are still gluttonous choices out there for me to wrongly choose...if there were alternatives that were just too good to pass up, I bet myself and many others would definitely err more often than not on the side of conservation.

 

 

 

that's just my $.02

 

i was gonna post this in the 'which car should I buy' thread but decided to copy and move it the 'energy conservation' thread we already got going on

[Torch]

What's this?

Real Thinking or Ignorance?

 

 

http://streams.cei.org/