An Inconvenient Electric Bill - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-27-2007, 06:02 PM   #141
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,739
Local Time: 07:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24
Have they done research on volcanos? weather patters? What about the earths tilt could that have done something.
You don't want to get it, do you?

I've said several times now that there is no need to worsen it by simply not caring. And I have acknowledged accompanying natural effects with the man-made effects.

Today there was an interesting article about the weather and its weakly cycles.
Now, these weakly cycles hadn't been seen thirty years ago.
Today it is that Saturday is the day with the most rainfall and cloudiness. Wednesday is the hottest, Sunday the coolest, and Monday the driest.
In the 1970's that was not the case.

This was empirical data, with empirical observation all over Germany.
Similar data has been gathered by the USA and Canada.
The weather just follows this cycle and all scientists came to the same conclusion: That it is caused by the waste from the increased car driving during the week.

This is just weather, and weather is short term. But long term, climate, you can see that there is a change as well comparing the situation in the 1970's, when pollution was highest and just built up these huge amounts in the atmosphere, and today.
__________________

Vincent Vega is online now  
Old 02-27-2007, 06:06 PM   #142
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus
since nearly all "free market" types would rather see the world burn to the ground than do anything that might lead to higher taxes.
Very true, unfortunately. Extremist free marketeers have debauched the philosophy of conservatism for years - in their own way, they are every bit as extreme and ideological - and damaging for society - as revolutionary Marxist-Leninists.
__________________

financeguy is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 06:09 PM   #143
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 06:59 PM
al gore might be a hypocrite but that doesnt make the science, he tries to convey, faulty.
U2Man is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 06:10 PM   #144
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24
Have they done research on volcanos? weather patters? What about the earths tilt could that have done something.
1) Volcanic eruptions are notable for their emissions of sulfur dioxide--a global coolant. And that's independent of the volcanic ash itself, which can theoretically block sunlight. The last volcanic eruption of any global climactic notability, the eruption of Indonesia's Mount Tambora in 1816, was so powerful that it caused "The Year Without a Summer."

2) The Earth's tilt does have larger cycles (Milankovitch cycles), but they occur slowly and with a regular pattern. In other words, there wouldn't be an abrupt change.
Ormus is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 06:23 PM   #145
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega


So we should go on wasting the earth to find out when we have the possibility to change the pollution we are causing?

I don't care what is in the Bible, or in Revelation 21:1, I want ot live in this world.
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.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 06:28 PM   #146
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
However, at some point in time - there will be a new Heaven and a new Earth.
And, in the meantime, we have to live in the Earth that we've got. If God didn't stop terrorism or save the Roman Empire even after Christianity became the state religion, who's to say that God is interested in stepping in to stop us from destroying the planet?

(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?)

Contrary to what others might think, I do believe that nature has a built-in "failsafe" to all of this to prevent us from becoming Venus. Since Earth exists outside of the zone in the solar system, where the Sun, alone, is enough to warm us up (only Mercury and Venus inhabit this zone), we're dependent on natural processes that ultimately form our "greenhouse effect" for warmth. Damage nature enough and you could very well damage the "greenhouse," allowing us to revert to a rather interesting part of Earth's geological past: the "Snowball Earth."

So, yes, I do believe that the Earth is fairly robust, but that doesn't mean that Earth's life is as adaptable. We've had many "mass extinction" events, and there's nothing that says that we will automatically survive one. But life would go on for other, lesser animal species, affording them the millions of years for our dominant successor to evolve.
Ormus is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 06:32 PM   #147
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,560
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500



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.
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.
randhail is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 06:36 PM   #148
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


And, in the meantime, we have to live in the Earth that we've got. If God didn't stop terrorism or save the Roman Empire even after Christianity became the state religion, who's to say that God is interested in stepping in to stop us from destroying the planet?

(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?)

Contrary to what others might think, I do believe that nature has a built-in "failsafe" to all of this to prevent us from becoming Venus. Since Earth exists outside of the zone in the solar system, where the Sun, alone, is enough to warm us up (only Mercury and Venus inhabit this zone), we're dependent on natural processes that ultimately form our "greenhouse effect" for warmth. Damage nature enough and you could very well damage the "greenhouse," allowing us to revert to a rather interesting part of Earth's geological past: the "Snowball Earth."

So, yes, I do believe that the Earth is fairly robust, but that doesn't mean that Earth's life is as adaptable. We've had many "mass extinction" events, and there's nothing that says that we will automatically survive one. But life would go on for other, lesser animal species, affording them the millions of years for our dominant successor to evolve.
It was meant to be tongue in cheek. I do honestly believe that we ARE designed to be good stewards of the planet.
AEON is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 06:38 PM   #149
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
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.
1) We do waste a lot of energy, so it's not necessarily bad advice to try and cut back.

2) Conservation is never going to be about shuttering the global economy. Al Gore and his contemporaries have too many stock investments to allow that, so that "alarmism" is really just mindless fearmongering--probably instigated by our slow-moving corporate monoliths that refuse to spend one dime on R&D, but spend plenty on lobbying.

3) Since conservatives obviously don't care about climate change, this argument is really best phrased from a "national security" standpoint. Our "drug dealers," so to say, are all unstable third-world countries that could turn against us. Currently, market conditions don't exactly put that too much in their favor; Venezuela and Iran, for all its tough talk, would go broke if the U.S. stopped buying oil from it.

However, it would be foolish to expect this to last forever. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the U.S.' status as the sole global superpower has given the world an incentive to become more powerful (after all, there's two things that the market hates: a vacuum and a monopoly). The market already reflects this, in part, as emerging markets investments are at record levels, and are seen as the best place for long-term growth. So will it be China, India, or the E.U.? Or maybe none of them, in particular, but if they get collectively stronger and pissed off at us, they certainly could make our lives hell.

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.
Ormus is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 06:54 PM   #150
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
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.
This is all well and good, but I think that to stop nature inflicting upon us a fate that frankly we as a species probably deserve, we have no choice but to dramatically alter our current system of mass consumption and unimpeded growth.
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 06:56 PM   #151
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,739
Local Time: 07:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


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".
Vincent Vega is online now  
Old 02-27-2007, 06:59 PM   #152
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
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?
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 07:00 PM   #153
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
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 is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 07:02 PM   #154
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
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.
Ormus is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 07:03 PM   #155
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail


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...
BVS is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 07:05 PM   #156
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

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.
U2Man is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 07:05 PM   #157
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,339
Local Time: 01:59 PM
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/includ...npowerQA.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.
Bluer White is online now  
Old 02-27-2007, 07:10 PM   #158
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

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.

financeguy is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 07:12 PM   #159
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
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 is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 07:13 PM   #160
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus



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.
__________________

INDY500 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×