|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1349
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lekizz
millennium club
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 1212
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:22 am Post subject: |
    |
|
Four apparently random words written in lower case ...I'm surprised you didn't delete your own post as potential spam, Kevin ;o)
Interesting, though bewildering blog (for someone new to the 'wedge' idea), I guess this is an attempt to rationally quantify the global warming solution, another sort of global warming 'currency'? Who is this Joe Romm chap?
I'm trying to recall the name of the Scottish guy who attempted to develop a measure of 'value' of our environment. He was active in the US in the mid 1960's, one of the first intellectuals to rail against the environmental damage we are doing. First name Ian, I think, surname something strange like Haag or McHaag ...ah, just found it using Google ...Ian McHarg "Design With Nature".
Interesting this Romm guy is talking about a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050, when Obama is proclaiming 80%! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lots of people seem to really believe in technology as our GW savior. We will not achieve anywhere close to an 50% reduction through technology alone and it is a very expensive solution.
I was just watching a news story that said 1/2 of the worlds Lithium supply comes from a salt flat in Bolivia. Exactly how much of the stuff do we have and what is the environmental impact?
One thing from that article that I do agree with is that we are most likely at peak oil and this will have a huge impact by 2030.
The fact is that currently we do not have the technology we need to make these wedges possible. Simply stating that we need to build 1 million wind turbines and the fact that we know how to build one does not mean that it is practical.
Well once again I have to say that the solution is:
80% conservation
20% clean energy
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
First let me say that climate change in itself does not scare me. The Earth has gone through numerous periods of heating and cooling and it will be fine. Humans are also highly adaptable and we will survive anything but an extreme event like a very large meteor. Until we get actual negative effects that are clearly a result of global warming, people are not likely to make any drastic changes to counteract it (even if they believe that it is possible).
We need to take more a realistic, rational, pragmatic and scientific approach towards identifying what we want as a society and how these goals are then best achieved. Climate change may not even be the most immediate threat. Over population causes a tremendous amount of stress. We are rapidly depleteting extremely useful natural resources which are not easily replaced. Technology has provided us with many useful things but it probably is not going to solve all of our problems alone and is often over estimated.
I believe the answer to most of our ecological problems is going to be through conservation and the answer to most of our social problems is through education. Conservation saves money and uses resources in the most efficient manor. Education unleashes our potential. What we need is a total rethinking of what we are doing, why we are doing it that way and what we want the future to be.
There is often to much bias and confusion in current debate. Taking two extremes of any issue does not in itself create a balanced discussion. We often substitute a particular ideology for scientifically based understanding of human behavior.
What constitutes true quality of life? What is the destiny we want for humanity? Are we evolved to a state that we can as a majority be forward thinkers or do we need more time and motivation for natural evolution to occur? Perhaps we are in the end, when all as said and done, just like any other animal on this planet. Governed by natural instinct to exploit our surroundings for our immediate benefit.
I believe we will know the answer to at least some of these questions within this century. Events may be converging that will either galvanize us toward a better society or scatter us like frighten animals.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a list of things we need to do to lower pollution, carbon emmissions and waste:
Redesign the transportation fleet (more like the Aptera less like the Volt)
Stop building large SF houses.
Redesign products to last and be reparable and then finally to be recycled.
Discriminate against companies who do not produce products that are green no matter where in the world they are located.
Use the internet to take away the need for actual buildings and transportation.
Use as much sustainable energy as practical.
Research towards efficiency and sustainability.
(sorry that this does not include a bunch of geewiz gimmicks like carbon credits, carbon sequestration, a million wind turbines, a solar power plant for every house, etc..)
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
