An Inconvenient Electric Bill

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
INDY500 said:


I don't think it's wasting, it's using resources to the best of our technology. That we now use energy consuming machines to do what 100 years ago required the physical labor of a man or animal...is a good thing. An advancement.

But technological advancements come with a trade-off don't they?
Fossil fuels pollute and may cause global climate changes. Ok, let's switch to nuclear power. No, that's too icky we're told.

So, do we listen to the alarmists that warn us to cut back on our energy use and therefore slow our progress and lessen our prosperity. Or do we go forward, trusting in the same technology and ingenuity that transformed the world of poverty, filth and sickness that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution, to today's standard of living---to find solutions.

Using it to the best of our technology would mean to use more hybrid cars such as Toyota or Lexus, and from the car builder to really invest in consumtion saving cars. So many cars still use 10+ liters on 100km when they also could use engines that are smaller, but consume less.
But people want these three tons, 150PS cars because they don't see that these leads to a greater discharge of CO2.
How many people that are driving a SUV really need it? How often do you drive when you don't need to. Many American citizen goes by car for distances as short as three hundred metres, or even less. And, sadly, this already spread to Europe.
People are going by car in the cities, even though they are faster with public transportation or even by bike.
If we used state-of-the-art technology every time we would save much money. But the ar manufacturers, oil companies, and all the other manufacturers would have to invest more money into D&R and the profits would decrease.
Also it's still great advertising with such data as 150PS and so on.

People don't see the correlation between their fuel consumption and the damage to the earth.

A very interesting column on this is written by Bill Bryson, and called "The Waste Generation".
 
AEON said:
I do honestly believe that we ARE designed to be good stewards of the planet.

May I ask on what grounds have you arrived at this remarkable conclusion?
 
In fact, to step back to the Roman Empire for a moment, it's theorized that Christianity actually hastened the demise of the empire, because of complacency. After all, "Jesus was going to come again," so why care all that much if your empire is falling apart at the seams?)
I would have guessed the cause of the Roman Empire downfall to be:
1) a bloated bureaucracy
2) ever increasing taxes
3) The rejection of the necessity of a well maintained military.
4) moral depravity

Which, incidentally, sounds suspiciously like the Democratic Party platform.
 
INDY500 said:
So, do we listen to the alarmists that warn us to cut back on our energy use and therefore slow our progress and lessen our prosperity. Or do we go forward, trusting in the same technology and ingenuity that transformed the world of poverty, filth and sickness that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution, to today's standard of living---to find solutions.

And just to comment on this specifically...

There's such a thing as "diminishing returns." A good corporation never sits on its laurels, riding the wave of its past successes. And I believe that's what's been happening here.

Frankly, environmentalists won't kill our economy. Fat, happy, lazy corporate types only interested in the next quarter's profits will do us in instead.
 
randhail said:


Why does cutting back on energy have to slow down progress? It's actually just the opposite - it would spur great new technological advances, while you're actually advocating maintaining what we have now. That's not progess to me.

Exactly. How much energy do we consume being unproductive?

Seriously, think about it...
 
INDY500 said:

I would have guessed the cause of the Roman Empire downfall to be:
1) a bloated bureaucracy
2) ever increasing taxes
3) The rejection of the necessity of a well maintained military.
4) moral depravity

Which, incidentally, sounds suspiciously like the Democratic Party platform.

actually, the romans had a hard time collecting taxes at their downfall. thats part of the reason why they couldnt maintain the military.
 
Renewable energy on a large scale is still a lot more expensive. That's why the industry is growing slowly.

Let's say the Gore estate buys all of it's power from Greenswitch. According to this site, http://www2.kub.org/webreview/includes/greenpowerQA.html, utilities in the Tennessee Valley add 4 bucks to your bill for every block of Green Power you consume. A block equals 150 kWh. Take the 221,000 kilowat hours Gore burned up in a year, that comes out to 1473 blocks, and an extra $5900.00 on his light bill for the year.

The article says that Gore's average bill was $1359.00, that's about $16,300.00 for the year. That would mean that Green Power boosted Gore's electric bill by over 35%.

I think I got that math right. Anyway, Gore can afford it. But would you be willing to pay 35% more? 25% ? 10% ? Maybe, but if this is going to be adopted by the masses, the conventional price needs to go way up, or the renewable price needs to come down. Eventually it will, but it could be a long wait.
 
INDY500 said:

I would have guessed the cause of the Roman Empire downfall to be:
1) a bloated bureaucracy
2) ever increasing taxes
3) The rejection of the necessity of a well maintained military.
4) moral depravity

Which, incidentally, sounds suspiciously like the Democratic Party platform.


:banghead: :banghead: :scream:
 
INDY500 said:
I would have guessed the cause of the Roman Empire downfall to be:
1) a bloated bureaucracy
2) ever increasing taxes
3) The rejection of the necessity of a well maintained military.
4) moral depravity

Which, incidentally, sounds suspiciously like the Democratic Party platform.

1) A bloated bureaucracy? The GOP was in power for years, and increased the bloat.

2) Ever increasing taxes? Economists have already noted that our taxes are so low that they're at a breaking point. They've already theorized that politicians are going to start finding "creative" ways to raise taxes without us knowing it. At least, that's the GOP's way of doing it. Democrats, at least, are more honest about their tax intentions. And if you think our taxes are high, try going to another industrialized nation sometime. Then you'll realize that we've been "low" for a very long time now, and it's downright silly how people constantly are complaining about taxes. It's become a national psychosis with no basis in reality.

3) The rejection of the necessity of a well maintained military? Well, we've seen the mess that our military has been in for a while now. We're prepared to throw money at them--but with no accountability. And we think things like "tolerance for diversity" will break "troop morale." Then we wonder why we end up with scandals like Abu Ghraib, and then wonder why most people want nothing to do with joining the military. Why would people want to join a perceived unwelcoming, intolerant organization?

4) Moral depravity? This one I can reject outright, because this was a romanticist, revisionist interpretation of the Roman Empire's collapse. By the fall of the Roman Empire, all of its "moral depravities" had already been long outlawed and Christianity was the state religion.
 
Ormus said:



As such, if we expect to be a wealthy nation by the 22nd century, we'd best start preparing to be more self-reliant on energy, whether that includes ethanol, wind power, solar power, ocean power (a new and highly promising power technology, as oceanic currents are strong and constant, compared to wind power), or nuclear power. Realistically, it will end up including all of that, as technologies like hydrogen fuel will require a robust power grid like that.

Quite agreed. It matters not what the source is, only that we have and use it. Conservation, however, is not an energy source. Nothing wrong with being more efficient of coarse, but the goal should be to use MORE energy wiser, not less.

From foot, to horse, to windmill, to steam, to coal to nuclear. The more energy we have used, the more prosperous mankind has been.
 
anitram said:


Al Gore pays for offsets. He's talked about them quite a bit if you've gotten to see him live. I'm not sure why it wasn't included in the documentary, because it has been part of his lecture series.

This is another swiftboating attempt.

Yes, exactly. This is nothing but a typical, dirty Republican cheap-shot done on the heels of Gore's Oscar win, out of sheer spite and hatred, which the Republican party is famous for.

Al Gore has already responded to this cheap attack. His office released the following information today, and is asking supporters to get the truth out there:

Vice President Gore's office also wanted everyone to know:

100 percent of the power the Gores use in their home is green power.

Both the Vice President and Mrs Gore have home offices and conduct business at the house so obviously they use more power than someone who is just a homeowner.

The Gores drive a hybrid, and use compact fluorescents.

And the Gores live a carbon neutral life which means that for every ton of carbon they emit, they also purchase offsets.
 
Bluer White said:
Renewable energy on a large scale is still a lot more expensive. That's why the industry is growing slowly.


In the short run. There are many green buildings that have already paid for themselves under 5 years. Yes the initial construction cost is higher, but the long run doesn't even compare. Once these resources become as available as the current building materials, we'll be kicking ourselves for not making the jump a long time ago.
 
U2Man said:
actually, the romans had a hard time collecting taxes at their downfall. thats part of the reason why they couldnt maintain the military.

Most of it, I believe, was actually because Roman citizens had become quite wealthy and complacent that they refused to do their own dirty work. As such, Rome had started to recruit the outside Germanic tribes to be an increasing part of the military. The problem with that is that the Germanic tribes were always the Empire's greatest threat anyway, so it would be the equivalent of contracting Al Qaeda to defend the U.S. from itself.

Rome was never the most diplomatic or tactful empire, so most of the Germanic tribes never recognized the borders anyway, which often included a large grab of tribal land.

Sociopolitical situations are quite different today than they were back then, so I think there's not much threat of this happening again, as, obviously, there is no way in hell that we'd contract Al Qaeda to be our military, for instance.
 
INDY500 said:


From foot, to horse, to windmill, to steam, to coal to nuclear. The more energy we have used, the more prosperous mankind has been.

How are you defining "prosperous". If you mean that now we consume more energy than ever and a large portion of it consumed by entertainment and other non- productive manners. Then yes we are very prosperous.

Your more energy wiser theory doesn't exactly = progression.
 
INDY500 said:
Take it easy on your forehead...it was a joke.



650,000 dead Iraqis, due to a war sold on a tissue of LIES by the Rethuglican party.

But it's the DEMOCRAT party that are guilty of 'moral depravity'.

Hilarious!
 
INDY500 said:
Quite agreed. It matters not what the source is, only that we have and use it. Conservation, however, is not an energy source. Nothing wrong with being more efficient of coarse, but the goal should be to use MORE energy wiser, not less.

From foot, to horse, to windmill, to steam, to coal to nuclear. The more energy we have used, the more prosperous mankind has been.

"More," however, doesn't equate greater power or efficiency. Computers are a good example of this. Today's computers are increasingly smaller and use less electricity, while being exponentially more powerful.

I believe that there is enough bloat in today's technology that there is much that we can do to become more powerful with much less. That's not to say that it will happen overnight, but the 21st century wasn't built overnight either. Our emergence from the 19th century was painful, and much of it was dictated by a heavy dose of government regulation that mandated better efficiency, safety, and protections. But, in the long run, we're much better off than we would have been had our ancestors just been complacent.
 
Ormus said:


Most of it, I believe, was actually because Roman citizens had become quite wealthy and complacent that they refused to do their own dirty work. As such, Rome had started to recruit the outside Germanic tribes to be an increasing part of the military. The problem with that is that the Germanic tribes were always the Empire's greatest threat anyway, so it would be the equivalent of contracting Al Qaeda to defend the U.S. from itself.

Rome was never the most diplomatic or tactful empire, so most of the Germanic tribes never recognized the borders anyway, which often included a large grab of tribal land.

Sociopolitical situations are quite different today than they were back then, so I think there's not much threat of this happening again, as, obviously, there is no way in hell that we'd contract Al Qaeda to be our military, for instance.

no, but there was another reason - the roman empire had grown so big that the need for soldiers to control it had become larger than ever, especially at the border regions of the empire. the lack of soldiers in those regions made it hard to collect taxes there. and with no taxes, they werent able to pay the for the military. it was a vicious circle that all empires that grow too big enter sooner or later.
 
Ormus said:



4) Moral depravity? This one I can reject outright, because this was a romanticist, revisionist interpretation of the Roman Empire's collapse. By the fall of the Roman Empire, all of its "moral depravities" had already been long outlawed and Christianity was the state religion.

There you have it :wink:
 
sampled from thinkprogress.org:

Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics

The right-wing is angry that Al Gore has won so much public attention and goodwill for his work on global warming. Determined to smear his efforts, Drudge writes in a screaming headline:

"POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION *INCREASE* AFTER 'TRUTH'"

Responding to Drudge’s attack, Vice President Gore’s office told ThinkProgress:

1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.

It’s the latest in a series of desperate attacks by Drudge to paint Gore as a hypocrite. These are the lengths that climate skeptics must go to suppress action on global warming. There is no meaningful debate within the scientific community, so the right-wing busies itself with talk about how much electricity Al Gore’s house uses — and even then they distort the truth.
 
U2Man said:
no, but there was another reason - the roman empire had grown so big that the need for soldiers to control it had become larger than ever, especially at the border regions of the empire. the lack of soldiers in those regions made it hard to collect taxes there. and with no taxes, they werent able to pay the for the military. it was a vicious circle that all empires that grow too big enter sooner or later.

Well, here's the basis for my argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foederati

Foederatus, early in the history of the Roman Republic, identified one of the tribes bound by treaty (foedus), who were neither Roman colonies nor had they been granted Roman citizenship (civitas) but were expected to provide a contingent of fighting men when trouble arose. The Latini were considered blood allies, but the rest were federates or socii. The term is the root of the modern term federalism.

During the Roman republic, the friction between these treaty obligations without the corresponding benefits of Romanity led to the Social War between Romans, with a few close allies, and the disaffected Socii. A law of 90 BCE (Lex Julia) offered Roman citizenship to the federate states that accepted the terms. Not all cities (e.g. Heraclea and Naples) were prepared to be absorbed into the Roman res publica. Other foederati lay beyond Italy: Gades in Spain, and Massilia (Marseilles).

Later the term foederati was extended by the Roman practice of subsidizing entire barbarian tribes — which included the Attacotti, Franks, Vandals, Alans and, best known, the Visigoths — in exchange for providing soldiers to fight in the Roman armies. Alaric began his career leading a band of Gothic foederati.

The word federations came from the Latin word foedus, which indicated a solemn binding treaty of mutual assistance between Rome and another nation for perpetuity. At first, the Roman subsidy took the form of money or food, but as tax revenues dwindled in the fourth and fifth centuries, the foederati were billeted on local landowners, which came to be identical to being allowed to settle on Roman territory. Large local landowners living in distant border provinces (see "marches") on extensive, largely self-sufficient villas, found their loyalties to the central authority further compromised in such situations. Then, as loyalties began to fractionate and become more local, the Empire began to crumble into smaller and smaller territories.

The Franks became foederati in 358, when Julian the Apostate let them keep the areas in northern Gaul, which had been depopulated during the preceding century. Roman soldiers defended the Rhine and had major armies a 100 miles south and west of the Rhine. Frankish settlers were in the area north and east of the Romans and helped with the Roman defense. The breach of the Rhine borders in the winter of 406 and 407 made an end to the Roman presence at the Rhine. Both the Romans and the Franks were defeated by Vandals and Alans.

In 376 certain Goths asked Emperor Valens to allow them to settle on the southern bank of the Danube river, and were accepted into the empire as foederati. Later that year the Goths rose in rebellion and defeated the Romans in the Battle of Adrianople. The serious loss of military manpower forced the Roman Empire to rely more on foederati.

The loyalty of the tribes and their leaders was not reliable and in 395 the Visigoths, this time under the lead of Alaric, once again rose in rebellion. One of the most powerful Late Roman generals, a Vandal called Stilicho, was born of parents who were from the foederati.

By the fifth century, Roman military strength was almost completely based upon foederati units. In 451, Attila the Hun was defeated only with help of the foederati (who included the Visigoths and Alans). The foederati delivered the fatal blow to the dying Roman Empire in 476 when their commander Odoacer deposed the last Western Roman emperor Romulus Augustulus.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


How are you defining "prosperous". If you mean that now we consume more energy than ever and a large portion of it consumed by entertainment and other non- productive manners. Then yes we are very prosperous.

Your more energy wiser theory doesn't exactly = progression.

How much dirt can 1 man with a shovel move in a day?
How much energy does he use? 3000 calories or so right.
How much more can that same man move with a bulldozer?
How much more energy does a bulldozer use?

Increased energy use/man hour = increased productivity of labor = higher standard of living.

Unless you can show me otherwise.
 
INDY500 said:

Increased energy use/man hour = increased productivity of labor = higher standard of living.

what nonsense.

its not how much energy you use that matters, its HOW you use it.
 
INDY500 said:


How much dirt can 1 man with a shovel move in a day?
How much energy does he use? 3000 calories or so right.
How much more can that same man move with a bulldozer?
How much more energy does a bulldozer use?

Increased energy use/man hour = increased productivity of labor = higher standard of living.

Unless you can show me otherwise.

That's perfectly right, yet greater efficiency is more valuable than greater energy use.

So a bulldozer consuming 10 liters/hour for that work is worse off than a bulldozer that consumes 5 liters/hour for the exact same work.

That's progress.
 
INDY500 said:
Increased energy use/man hour = increased productivity of labor = higher standard of living.

Unless you can show me otherwise.

Sounds like you ascribe to the Chinese school of progress.
 
Vincent Vega said:

So a bulldozer consuming 10 liters/hour for that work is worse off than a bulldozer that consumes 5 liters/hour for the exact same work.

That's progress.

not according to the equation stated above.
 
financeguy said:




650,000 dead Iraqis, due to a war sold on a tissue of LIES by the Rethuglican party.

But it's the DEMOCRAT party that are guilty of 'moral depravity'.

Hilarious!

I guess the democrats must not be so bright to be outwitted by George W. Bush. Man, what a clever guy!
 
Well, ok, the flaw is that not the increased energy use is the development, but the development of the bulldozer.
Energy is just to keep it running.
 
Back
Top Bottom