Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!
From: The Ancient One (onlytheone_at_thetopknows.com)
Date: 01/28/05
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Brazilian UFO torsion metric engineering"
- In reply to: Thomas Palm: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Next in thread: Thomas Palm: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Reply: Thomas Palm: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:18:53 -0500
"Thomas Palm" <Thomas.Palm@chello.removethis.se> wrote in message
news:Xns95ECC6FC712AEThomasPalmchellose@212.83.64.229...
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in
> news:10vkvpqto488g0a@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> "Thomas Palm" <Thomas.Palm@chello.removethis.se> wrote in message
>> news:Xns95ECBE05C9C7ThomasPalmchellose@212.83.64.229...
>>>> (We tried Nuclear
>>>> power, but the eviromentalists shut it down, leaving several plants
>>>> half finished.)
>>>
>>> Well, that's hardly my fault,
>>
>> Never said it was. Why do you feel the need to take an adversarial
>> tone here? It's hardly my fault either, you are stating what you want
>> in a perfect world, I'm telling you how it is in the real world.
>> Change takes time, it won't happen oveernight no matter how much you
>> want it to.
>
> As far as I know nuclear power was invented by USA. I don't see any real
> reason why it should take longer there than here in Sweden.
>
See how much nicer it is when we all remain friendly. :-)
Nuclear power was derailed in the US because 1. People fear a Chernoble type
accident here.
2. People don't like having tons of radioactive waste with halflifes of
millions of years to dispose of "safely"
3. Because the vocal minority often overwhelmes the rational majority.
And comparing Sweden to the US is a bit like comparing Sweden to the entire
continent of Europe and Asia, no offense. Much larger country means much
greater diversity, and every region has it's own problems and ideas.
>>> Using a bike instead of a car would be one possibility, unless when
>>> you say
>>> truck you mean that you really need to carry a lot of stuff around.
>>> Without
>>> details it's hard to know how much more energy you can save. I assume
>>> you have a well insulated house, use low energy lamps, have energy
>>> efficient appliances etc?
>>
>> Use a bike, there's a laugh. How about offering a real world solution?
>> I bought a truck because I need a truck, I'm not some yuppie socker
>> mom who wants to look cool to her kids friends moms. I only need to
>> buy gas once a month, how often do you fill your tank?
>
> I don't own a car. I use a bike. (or the bus). That real enough for you?
>
I own a bike, but riding it to work would be impractical to say the least.
Then again I suspect you live in town, I own 80 acres of farmland and
commute to work. When I did live in an apartment during my college years I
rode a bike almoast everywhere.
>> I have used 130 gallons of heating oil in my home for the entire year,
>> most people in this area burn that in the month of November. How much
>> have you used? Or are you in a southern state where you run the A/C
>> all day?
>
> I live in Sweden as you might have figured out, and I live in an
> apartment which saves energy but means that I don't know exactly how much
> is used by my apartment.
>
Well trust me, overhere people are astonded to here how little it costs to
heat my home, many refuse to believe it without seeing the fuel receipts.
>> I work outdoors, I don't have A/C to work in, 100 in the
>> shade and I'm out working in it. Where are you on those days?
>
> Here in Sweden that isn't much of a problem, but I've never was a friend
> of A/C even when I lived in Florida a summer. The temperature swings are
> worse than just having it hot all the time.
>
I admit I hadn't yet figured out you were in Sweden, bet it's nice over
there. I like having seasons, winter cold and snow makes me appreciate
summer that much more, and summeres bugs and weeds, and the seemingly
endless mowing, makes me appreciate winters calm and quite.
>>> Much of the energy used in society is not used by individuals anyway
>>> but by
>>> industry, and there you will find a lot can be saved.
>>>
>>
>> Yea, don't buy the product, that's the only way I can affect industry.
>> You give me to much credit for being able to change the world, I'm
>> doing my part.
>
> I wasn't expecting you, personally to do much about that more than
> possibly vote for a party that encourages conservation and write to your
> representatives urging them to encoure energy savings in industry.
>
I'm all for conservation and recycling, but when voting there's more than
one issue to consider, although I've noticed few people do so. Last spring
when the Liberals began chanting "anybody but Bush" I warned them the
strategy was wrong, they needed someone better than Bush. Kerry was the
worst possible candidate they could have picked, an extreme Liberal with
close ties to Communism.
Hopefully in 2008 they will choose a better candidate, we will see, if I'm
still here anyway.
>
> Alternatives exist, and in Europe we are using them even if they may put
> us at a very slight disadvantage. In many cases, however, they don't.
> Industry isn't as perfectly rational as you seem to think. Often they
> just keep doing what they have always done even if there are better
> solutions available. They need a kick in the behind to get going. Maybe
> the government puts up some money that they can borrow at low interest
> rates for energy saving projects.
>
Industry can be wrong and usually are, but simply mandating a change doesn't
always work.
The Government, in an attempt to force water conservation, mandated toilets
use much less water per flush. Trouble is the mandated amount allowed was to
small, so people are forced to flush two or three times to empty the bowl,
actually increasing water use.
That is why it's better to allow change to happen when it's technically
feasible rather than mandating it without a thought to the side effects. I
would love to generate my own power here, but there is no cost effective way
to do it. Solar cells cost a small fortune for a few watts power, and there
are few clear days.
Wind is seldom strong enough here to ruin a windmill and my little creek
won't support hydroelectric.
Fifteen years ago I read an article that stated, in 5 years fuel cell
powerplants the size of dishwashers would be available for around $4000.00
that would run an entire household with power left over to sell back to the
grid.
Where are they? I'm still waiting to buy one.
Did the technology fizzle, or did the power companies squash them to
maintain their monopoly on power. I don't know, never heard from the project
again.
>>>> I'm all for reducing pollution
>>>> and cleaning up the enviroment, but lets do it responsibly, and not
>>>> throw the baby out with the bath water. Change is happening, we are
>>>> polluting much less then we did even a few years ago, and as
>>>> technology improves cleaner alternatives will become cheaper and
>>>> more popular. People just need to learn a little patience, and not
>>>> expect overnight miracles.
>>>
>>> Do you have any source that supports your claim that US CO2 emissions
>>> have dropped over the last few years? It is contrary to what I've
>>> seen.
>>
>> I never made that claim, I said we are polluting far less than we were
>> even a few years ago.
>
> This is a thread about global warming, not pollution in general. It's
> nice for USA if you have cleaned up Lake Erie, but it is hardly going to
> help the world climate.
Anything that reduces overall pollution helps the climate, and life in
general.
>
>> And the EPA/Bush comments demonstrates you total lack of understanding
>> about the entire conversation, you aren't here to discuss anything,
>> you are here to argue and bully.
>> Sorry, won't work. Goodbye.
>
> The comment about Bush was unfortunately perfectly relevant. He has
> turned back environmental regulations decades. His approach to global
> warming is to force EPA to stop talking about it.
I could spend a month telling you why that statement is wrong but I avoid
Political discussions that serve no purpose. Lets drop it before this
degenerates into a flamefest. ;-)
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Brazilian UFO torsion metric engineering"
- In reply to: Thomas Palm: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Next in thread: Thomas Palm: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Reply: Thomas Palm: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|