Re: Adressing Global Warming
Charlie Bell wrote: > > Yeah. The point of solar hot water is it's so cheap, and pays for > itself very quickly (3 - 5 years) if it's installed in a new house. So > while it'll never amount to a huge percentage, it's still an > inexpensive way of saving a significant amount of energy. So, like > mandating loft and wall insulation and double-glazing (and rainwater > tanks) these are small but significant contributions that everyone can > do. Reducing the total energy consumption of a house by 15 - 20% is a > lot of energy that you don't need to generate! > Yeah, place every single family of the 6 Giga humans in houses with solar power... This would be very friendly to the environment! Seriously, if we want to save the planet, domestic solar power should be banned! People should live and work in the smallest possible area, and it means packing families in huge buildings. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Adressing Global Warming
Great idea! I'm looking forward to meeting your extended family in your new tenement apartment. Especially the little kids. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > Subject: Re: Adressing Global Warming > Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:36:53 + > > Charlie Bell wrote: > > > > Yeah. The point of solar hot water is it's so cheap, and pays for > > itself very quickly (3 - 5 years) if it's installed in a new house. So > > while it'll never amount to a huge percentage, it's still an > > inexpensive way of saving a significant amount of energy. So, like > > mandating loft and wall insulation and double-glazing (and rainwater > > tanks) these are small but significant contributions that everyone can > > do. Reducing the total energy consumption of a house by 15 - 20% is a > > lot of energy that you don't need to generate! > > > > Yeah, place every single family of the 6 Giga humans in houses > with solar power... This would be very friendly to the environment! > > > Seriously, if we want to save the planet, domestic solar power should > be banned! People should live and work in the smallest possible area, > and it means packing families in huge buildings. > > Alberto Monteiro > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Adressing Global Warming
On 28/04/2008, at 12:36 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: > Charlie Bell wrote: >> >> Yeah. The point of solar hot water is it's so cheap, and pays for >> itself very quickly (3 - 5 years) if it's installed in a new house. >> So >> while it'll never amount to a huge percentage, it's still an >> inexpensive way of saving a significant amount of energy. So, like >> mandating loft and wall insulation and double-glazing (and rainwater >> tanks) these are small but significant contributions that everyone >> can >> do. Reducing the total energy consumption of a house by 15 - 20% is a >> lot of energy that you don't need to generate! >> > > Yeah, place every single family of the 6 Giga humans in houses > with solar power... This would be very friendly to the environment! > > > Seriously, if we want to save the planet, domestic solar power should > be banned! People should live and work in the smallest possible area, > and it means packing families in huge buildings. Solar hot water, not solar electric. Black pipes in a glass cabinet on the roof. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Adressing Global Warming
Charlie Bell wrote: > >> Seriously, if we want to save the planet, domestic solar power should >> be banned! People should live and work in the smallest possible area, >> and it means packing families in huge buildings. > > Solar hot water, not solar electric. Black pipes in a glass cabinet on > the roof. > Does it matter? The more area of the surface each family takes, less surface is available to the environment. People can live well in packed spaces, wildlife can't. So, it's immoral to allow people to live in houses with gardens and pools. Alberto 'must update my list of the 100 things I will do when I become the Evil Overlord' Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Adressing Global Warming
At 10:48 AM Sunday 4/27/2008, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: >Charlie Bell wrote: > > > >> Seriously, if we want to save the planet, domestic solar power should > >> be banned! People should live and work in the smallest possible area, > >> and it means packing families in huge buildings. > > > > Solar hot water, not solar electric. Black pipes in a glass cabinet on > > the roof. > > >Does it matter? The more area of the surface each family takes, >less surface is available to the environment. People can live well >in packed spaces, wildlife can't. So, it's immoral to allow people to >live in houses with gardens and pools. Which brings us righ back to the dirty little secret of the environmental movement: that the real underlying problem is that there are by about an order of magnitude just too darn many people already, particularly darker-complected ones with no money who don't speak English well. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Adressing Global Warming
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > > Which brings us righ back to the dirty little secret of the > environmental movement: that the real underlying problem is that > there are by about an order of magnitude just too darn many people > already, particularly darker-complected ones with no money who don't > speak English well. > Yeah, bwana, an whail we remane poor and unpoluising, we coze no poblema to the envrinoment. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Adressing Global Warming
At 07:39 PM Sunday 4/27/2008, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: >Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > > > > Which brings us righ back to the dirty little secret of the > > environmental movement: that the real underlying problem is that > > there are by about an order of magnitude just too darn many people > > already, particularly darker-complected ones with no money who don't > > speak English well. > > >Yeah, bwana, an whail we remane poor and unpoluising, we coze >no poblema to the envrinoment. > >Alberto Monteiro Just to be clear: you speak (or at least write) English well. And obviously have enough money to have a computer. (TTBOMK I have never seen you so I have no information concerning the other item. :)) The point, however, is that you seldom hear of any rich, white, American environmentalists offering to stop polluting and green the planet by composting themselves . . . ;) . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Adressing Global Warming
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > >> Yeah, bwana, an whail we remane poor and unpoluising, we coze >> no poblema to the envrinoment. > > Just to be clear: you speak (or at least write) English well. > That's natural: English is almost a second language, professionally it sometimes becomes the first language, and I write in English from 10% to 25% of everything I write. Reading English takes even a higher percentage. > And obviously have enough money to have a computer. > That's not an obvious consequence. I could be writing from my job's computer (not mine), or from Web Cafés. > (TTBOMK I have never seen you so I have no information > concerning the other item. :)) > FWIW, I am "melanine challenged", which is an environmental risk for someone living in the Tropics. I avoid the Sun as much as I can, which is very difficult. > The point, however, is that you seldom hear of any rich, > white, American environmentalists offering to stop polluting > and green the planet by composting themselves . . . ;) > Aren't enviromentalists like anyone else? Brazilian environmentalists who live in Rio or São Paulo (2500 km away from the Rain Forest) are very talkative about protecting the Rain Forest, while those that live right there in the hot spot usually are more concerned about bringing themselves to the consumer society. A recent issue was raised by a general that works with native brazilians in Roraima [NB: if you have no idea where or what is Roraima, don't be too worried: probably most brazilians don't know either]. Most environmentalists want to "protect" the natives, keeping their culture and traditions. The natives want to buy cars, mp3 players, computers, etc. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Adressing Global Warming
On 28/04/2008, at 1:48 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: > Charlie Bell wrote: >> >>> Seriously, if we want to save the planet, domestic solar power >>> should >>> be banned! People should live and work in the smallest possible >>> area, >>> and it means packing families in huge buildings. >> >> Solar hot water, not solar electric. Black pipes in a glass cabinet >> on >> the roof. >> > Does it matter? Yes, if you want a hot shower. > The more area of the surface each family takes, > less surface is available to the environment. People can live well > in packed spaces, wildlife can't. Even tower blocks in Cyprus had solar hot water. > So, it's immoral to allow people to > live in houses with gardens and pools. And what if my garden doesn't have a pool, but does have food growing in it? Charlie. Organic Vegetables Grown At Point Of Consumption Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Adressing Global Warming
In a message dated 4/27/2008 6:37:07 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The point, however, is that you seldom hear of any rich, white, American environmentalists offering to stop polluting and green the planet by composting themselves . . . ;) . . . ronn! :) I pay no attention to anyone who talks about Global Warming without mentioning Abbot Charles Greeley 431 titles via Addall.com/used Then search again with "sunspot" or "solar variation" for the title. Zero. It's a Men In Black conspiracy, I tell ya. So what if the sun has an 11 3/4 year peak energy cycle. That's a 91 year cycle for peak solar output to hit the Pacific at just the right time. Gotta go now--there's a knock at t Vilyehm **Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp0030002851) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Adressing Global Warming
Ronn! wrote: > > > The point, however, is that you seldom hear of any rich, white, > American environmentalists offering to stop polluting and green the > planet by composting themselves . . . ;) > The message I'm getting is that you think environmentalists are inherently racist, but that seems to be a rather bizarre opinion. Care to set me straight? Doug > > > > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Adressing Global Warming
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 6:14 AM Subject: Re: Adressing Global Warming > Ronn! wrote: > >> >> >> The point, however, is that you seldom hear of any rich, white, >> American environmentalists offering to stop polluting and green the >> planet by composting themselves . . . ;) >> > > The message I'm getting is that you think environmentalists are inherently > racist, but that seems to be a rather bizarre opinion. Care to set me > straight? > > Doug Seems to me, he is just pointing out the irony in the fact that the Green Movement is a product of affluence which is a product of technology. And more specifically that the Green movement is antipathetic to the technology that has given them the time and resources to become environmentally aware. Am I right? Regards, Wayne Eddy. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Adressing Global Warming
Wayne wrote: > > Seems to me, he is just pointing out the irony in the fact that the Green > Movement is a product of affluence which is a product of technology. And > more specifically that the Green movement is antipathetic to the > technology > that has given them the time and resources to become environmentally > aware. > > Am I right? > > But that's a false dichotomy. We've become environmentally aware because > the technology is what fouls the environment. The first time I flew into LA > in 1970 there was a thick, foul, yellow-brown haze that enveloped the city. > Did they figure out that millions of cars spewing lead tainted toxins was at > the root of the problem because they had "the time and the resources"? > > Are we then saying saying that dark complected people that don't speak > English very well are too stupid to understand why the food tastes funny and > makes you sick when you shit in the river upstream of where you draw your > cook-water? > Doug Common Sense Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Adressing Global Warming
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wayne wrote: > > > > > Seems to me, he is just pointing out the irony in the fact that the > Green > > Movement is a product of affluence which is a product of technology. > And > > more specifically that the Green movement is antipathetic to the > > technology > > that has given them the time and resources to become environmentally > > aware. > > > > Am I right? > > > > But that's a false dichotomy. We've become environmentally aware > because > > the technology is what fouls the environment. The first time I flew > into LA > > in 1970 there was a thick, foul, yellow-brown haze that enveloped the > city. > > Did they figure out that millions of cars spewing lead tainted toxins > was at > > the root of the problem because they had "the time and the resources"? > > > > > > Are we then saying saying that dark complected people that don't speak > > English very well are too stupid to understand why the food tastes funny > and > > makes you sick when you shit in the river upstream of where you draw > your > > cook-water? > > > > Doug > Common Sense Maru > I suspect that people who are caught up in the daily struggle of survival, getting shelter, water, some grains to eat aren't placing the same weight on environmental issues as we in the affluent countries are. john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Adressing Global Warming
John Garcia wrote: > > I suspect that people who are caught up in the daily struggle of > survival, > getting shelter, water, some grains to eat aren't placing the same weight > on > environmental issues as we in the affluent countries are. Shelter, water and food _are_ environmental issues aren't they? But let's go back to Ronn!'s original argument; that the dirty little secret of the environmental movement is that we have too many (poor, dark skinned, non-Anglophile) people. If we use the river analogy again, would the "dirty little secret" be that there are too many people, or that more sanitary habits should be enforced? By the same token, is the key to a clean environment a reduction in the number of people or a responsible stewardship of the planet? I believe that with proper management we could sustain a much larger population than we have now, but that without proper stewardship you could have a much smaller population and _still_ screw up the environment. It's true that if the Chinese continue to adopt modern technology without heeding environmental concerns, the environment is in trouble, but the answer isn't in denying them technology, it's in convincing them that they must adopt the technology in a responsible manner. We might be able to convince them the importance of the later, but short of nuclear annihilation the former is next to impossible. Ronn!'s argument seems to imply that the environmental movement requires some sort of eugenics to succeed and I find the implication offensive. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Adressing Global Warming
Original Message: - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:29:54 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Adressing Global Warming >It's true that if the Chinese continue to adopt modern technology without >heeding environmental concerns, the environment is in trouble, but the >answer isn't in denying them technology, it's in convincing them that they >must adopt the technology in a responsible manner. >We might be able toconvince them the importance of the later One of the themes of my very long post that started this was that we could do this _only if_ we could develop a green energy source that was inexpensive enough to be a reasonable alternative for developing countries. The reality is, for China, solar power is something to export to rich countries for foreign exchance. Coal makes sense locally. With China's cost structure, I'd guess that the difference in cost is more than a factor of 10. I also took Ron's comment as alluding to some of the same actions by rich Western countries that I discussed did when I was accused of a crime a while back here. I never did folllow up with the data on that because I think that, short of the 18 minutes of secret tapes :-), it would be very hard to get my point about the relative political power of the environmental movement and the interests of Africans in the US and the EU. My daughter, who sat in on US congressional committee meetings and has been working for years with NGOs, lobbying the US government, etc. was considered (in a post) a scurrious source, not worth mentioning. (Personally, to have someone connected to me with a MA in ecconomics and professional understanding of the actual workings of Afican aid facinates me, but maybe that's just me. So, I see Ronn's point. I think he overstates the situation a bit for effect, but I think that the average American or European worry more about low possibilities of undemonstrated risks to them and their own than real deaths of others who are not like them. And yea, I do take this personally. Dan M. As an aside, some of Charlie's posts are not replied to _yet_ because I wanted to set out my own position on global warming first before responding to what he saidand I'm fortunate enough to be a bit busy now. So, in case he's wondering, I do not consider him as one of the average Americans or Europeans referenced above. :-) Rather, he seems like a reasonable chap who I differ with on some issues from time to time. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Adressing Global Warming---L4
On 27/04/2008, at 9:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As promised, I looked into at what I think is the most expeditious > plan to > handle global warming. Actually, I was asking if you could look at the weaknesses of the powersat idea and offer possible solutions - it's often revealing to see what comes out of the mind of someone who has been critical of an idea. But anyway, this'll be interesting. > Now, lets get to some other green energy sources that have been > discussed. > Solar heating has been mentioned, and it works in some market as a hot > water source. But, its applicability is limited. China (which is > cited as > representing 80% of solar heating use) is increasing its CO2 > production at > a breathtaking rate. There is nothing I’ve seen that indicates that > solar > heating will represent more than a fraction of a percent of energy > consumption. Yeah. The point of solar hot water is it's so cheap, and pays for itself very quickly (3 - 5 years) if it's installed in a new house. So while it'll never amount to a huge percentage, it's still an inexpensive way of saving a significant amount of energy. So, like mandating loft and wall insulation and double-glazing (and rainwater tanks) these are small but significant contributions that everyone can do. Reducing the total energy consumption of a house by 15 - 20% is a lot of energy that you don't need to generate! > Geothermal works well where the temperature gradient in the earth is > high. > But expansive use is not practical….the best sites are already used, > and > low gradient geothermal isn’t efficient at all. > > One sees arguments for wave, current, and tidal electricity, but > those are > still vaporware. Except where they're not. There are small scale commercial wave farms being constructed in Portugal and Scotland, after successful pilots. However, it's true that no matter how successful these new ventures are, they will always be confined to limited suitable areas. > > Unfortunately, the ones that have been produced and that have worked > have > been extremely susceptible to infestation by fungi. A group that > Gautam > knows (he knows the founder personally) has come up with a novel > solution. > They are in the process of building a right-handed version of this > algae. > It’s fairly well known that DNA and proteins are left handed. But, > according to many in the field, there is not an a priori reason why > this > must be so. Thus, it should be possible to construct mirror image > duplicates of the DNA and assorted proteins that will function in > the same > manner. Yes. It's plausible, but difficult. The biochemical pathways are well understood, but extremely complex. > > > One other solution that has some promise is the sequestering of CO2 > in the > earth. And feeding some of it to the algae. If hydrocarbon generating algae are a success, there's no reason that the output from carbon-burning power couldn't go to the algal vats. > > I certainly could go on, but this is L4 in length already. Just to > summarize, I don’t see any single magic bullet. There isn't one. As you say, lots of small measures add up to a lot. Good post. C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Adressing Global Warming---L4
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote lots of interesting stuff which raised a couple of quick questions for me: 1. Why the time limit on nuclear energy? Even if every capable nation ramped up plant construction enormously (and I hope they do), there is enough uranium in Australia alone to supply their reactors for far more than a century, plus Russia has massive reserves. Even with the current 439 reactors, 34 under construction, 93 planned and 200 odd proposed we are still only talking about 64 tonnes per year. No doubt there are other reserves that could be tapped if needed. Plants like Olkiluoto (online 2011??) have been designed to last 100 years, but there is no reason to think we can't keep building them during that time. 2. I would question the writing off of hydrogen as a storage method. Whether we talk about using peak power generation for the liquefication of hydrogen for subsequent combustion, or simple separation for fuel cell processing during peak load, either would work with technology that has been proven, if not production ready. One significant advantage is its usefulness in commercial applications - development is already being funded by private enterprise. As an example, even though BMW and Mercedes Benz have completely different ideas about the future of hydrogen, both have working prototypes in advanced testing. 3. You seem to be advocating government support for wind power, but the experience thus far suggests is doesn't do diddly for AGW. Vencorp (Victoria, Australia) and Denmark are clear examples of adding wind power to the grid with a zero impact on hydrocarbon-fired plant CO2 output - they simply can't be ramped up and down to match the variations in wind turbine output. Is the Texas experience that coal/oil/gas power plants can be scaled back because of wind turbine power? Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
