The environment thread

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm sorry, but I'll prefer to stick with the good old lightbulbs, even if I don't save money. This way, I avoid any dangers with mercury, and avoid the incredible task of cleaning one up if you break it... And I'd prefer it if the government didn't force me to use something I don't want to use.

do what you'd like, but as has been discussed in here before, when you look at the substantial percentage decrease in energy drain by using CFL's instead of regular bulbs, that decrease in environmental impact (less oil needed, less pollution generated) makes it substantially better to use them, especially since they can be recycled.

 

And here is the thing that kills me - some of you guys want less government, right? If you substantially decrease the energy demands on power grids, you just made yourself LESS GOVERNMENT.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Please stop relying on anything printed by WND for pretty much any information, but especially anything environmental.

 

The "Maine study" isn't cited or even really named. There's not that much involved in cleaning it up. There's no reason to seal off a bedroom permanently because of one broken bulb. Perhaps she was given bad advice and an exaggerated quote. The rest of the article just reads like polemics against CFL's, which is no surprise because WND prints nothing but polemics.

The response you will get to this post is someone who doesn't like the fact that things need to change, will tell you something like: "of course, your science is always right, ours is always wrong", which of course ignore the fact that "their" science ISN'T SCIENCE AT ALL. It is just someone strining together some quotes to scare people.

 

[StrangeSox]

I'd honestly like to read or at least skim whatever study this is if its freely available. The excellent journalists at WND can't be bothered with a cite, though.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'd honestly like to read or at least skim whatever study this is if its freely available. The excellent journalists at WND can't be bothered with a cite, though.

Clue One that the article is disingenuine, and engineered to make people believe something that isn't true.

 

[StrangeSox]

Clue One that the article is disingenuine, and engineered to make people believe something that isn't true.

 

PHILOSOPHY DERAIL

 

I think it goes deeper than that. It goes to an epistemological level. A study says "this is so" or an expert says "this is so", therefore it is so. But, as you know, that's not how scientific knowledge operates. Relativity isn't correct because Einstein said so but because his data and methods said so. The weight of his statements comes from the evidence, not from his name. However, I don't think that's how a lot of people operate--reliance on some authority to dictate what is true makes it true, so they don't even see the problem of saying "Study X says Y is so" without at least providing the study. The study said it, they agree with the conclusions (a priori, of course), therefore its fact.

 

This view is just my own poorly thought out philosophy.

 

/PHILOSOPHY DERAIL

Edited July 1, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

PHILOSOPHY DERAIL

 

I think it goes deeper than that. It goes to an epistemological level. A study says "this is so" or an expert says "this is so", therefore it is so. But, as you know, that's not how scientific knowledge operates. Relativity isn't correct because Einstein said so but because his data and methods said so. The weight of his statements comes from the evidence, not from his name. However, I don't think that's how a lot of people operate--reliance on some authority to dictate what is true makes it true, so they don't even see the problem of saying "Study X says Y is so" without at least providing the study. The study said it, they agree with the conclusions (a priori, of course), therefore its fact.

 

This view is just my own poorly thought out philosophy.

 

/PHILOSOPHY DERAIL

 

That's not poorly thought out at all, IMO.

[kapkomet]

Did you just ignore what Balta and others have posted, that the amount of purchasing of this sort of equipment is skyrocketing? The facts are quite clear, demand is increasing at a very large pace, and there is zero question that this is where things will continue to go. The only questions are about which methods work best, what the pace will be like, what countries do which first, etc.

 

There is absolutely nothing artificial about that. Its real demand. It just doesn't fit in the nice little nothing-changes box that some people want to stay in.

Why is it skyrocketing? Because everyone knows the governments are mandating it. Duh.

 

Otherwise, it would have been done long before now.

 

[Balta1701]

Why is it skyrocketing? Because everyone knows the governments are mandating it. Duh.

 

Otherwise, it would have been done long before now.

Of course, the gigantic spikes in energy prices over the past couple years could play in as well. That's an obvious answer to why Europe is so far ahead of us as well; they've mandated through the government that their energy prices are higher than ours, thus it makes more economic sense for us to drink ourselves silly on oil while they develop alternatives. Works fine if oil never runs out and if fossil fuels cause no harm to the environment.

 

Edit; on the off chance that fossil fuels are not infinite, that also means that through the actions of their governments, the Europeans have gotten themselves a massive head start developing industries that will be key to the next 20 years of economic growth, because the governments were more forward-looking than industry.

[mr_genius]

They will eventually, yes. But not at first. And being there first is big money, all up front, then residual on the back end from patents and management - high level design and engineering jobs, managing the outsourced work.

 

Thats not true for most high level companies. Maybe some small mom & pop shops. I worked at a major world tech leader for a number of years, I know what they'll do. The upfront money will not mainly go into US jobs, it's gonna go straight to offshore R/D as it's cheaper. R/D is really trending to an offshore model. Big upfront money is just more potential profit, hiring US workers is not going to be on the radar. As far as managing outsourced work, yea thats great for someone like me but s***ty for the millions of people who lose their jobs. I guess I need to get with the program and be as greedy as possible only thinking about myself. Maybe I can work at AIG.

 

 

I'm telling you, that the 'green collar' job boom will never happen unless there are protectionist measures put in place.

 

On another sad note, we are going over 10% unemployment very soon. The June numbers were worse than expected.

 

lost around another 450,000 jobs

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=a5utvno88qDM

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Thats not true for most high level companies. Maybe some small mom & pop shops. I worked at a major world tech leader for a number of years, I know what they'll do. The upfront money will not mainly go into US jobs, it's gonna go straight to offshore R/D as it's cheaper. R/D is really trending to an offshore model. Big upfront money is just more potential profit, hiring US workers is not going to be on the radar. As far as managing outsourced work, yea thats great for someone like me but s***ty for the millions of people who lose their jobs. I guess I need to get with the program and be as greedy as possible only thinking about myself. Maybe I can work at AIG.

 

 

I'm telling you, that the 'green collar' job boom will never happen unless there are protectionist measures put in place.

 

On another sad note, we are going over 10% unemployment very soon. The June numbers were worse than expected.

 

lost around another 450,000 jobs

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=a5utvno88qDM

 

I disagree. I have worked in tech for a decade (financial tech), and there is definitely a way these things tend to go. Sure, there are exceptions, but if the money goes to US companies (as it will from this stiumulus and energy spending), a lot will stay here. Not all, but it doesn't need to be all. In a sense, that IS protectionist of course, as you are channeling the money very specifically, probably with certain requirements attached.

 

But hey, if people want to try to get water from a sand dune, and try to build up heavy manufacturing of already-existing technologies, go right ahead. You'll fail in a hurry most likely.

 

This is the best way to go - getting in front. If someone has a better suggestion on how to create higher paying jobs and compete a world market that has lower costs than us, let me know.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Of course, the gigantic spikes in energy prices over the past couple years could play in as well. That's an obvious answer to why Europe is so far ahead of us as well; they've mandated through the government that their energy prices are higher than ours, thus it makes more economic sense for us to drink ourselves silly on oil while they develop alternatives. Works fine if oil never runs out and if fossil fuels cause no harm to the environment.

 

Edit; on the off chance that fossil fuels are not infinite, that also means that through the actions of their governments, the Europeans have gotten themselves a massive head start developing industries that will be key to the next 20 years of economic growth, because the governments were more forward-looking than industry.

Yes. The fossil fuel energy prices generally, which are back up again this year by the way, will continue to rise (with some spikes and falls of course) over time. That's not even considering the fact that countries want to un-tie from the countries that produce oil and gas, which is simple risk management. Speaking of risk mgmt, you are right on about it being a finite resource of course, and that is a HUUUUUUUUUGE risk down the road. Talk about spiking prices, you are looking at a huge pricing issue later on. But apparently, some folks want to put on the blinders and just run right off the bridge into the big, warm, comfy vat of really expensive oil.

 

[mr_genius]

I disagree. I have worked in tech for a decade (financial tech), and there is definitely a way these things tend to go. Sure, there are exceptions, but if the money goes to US companies (as it will from this stiumulus and energy spending), a lot will stay here. Not all, but it doesn't need to be all. In a sense, that IS protectionist of course, as you are channeling the money very specifically, probably with certain requirements attached.

 

But hey, if people want to try to get water from a sand dune, and try to build up heavy manufacturing of already-existing technologies, go right ahead. You'll fail in a hurry most likely.

 

This is the best way to go - getting in front. If someone has a better suggestion on how to create higher paying jobs and compete a world market that has lower costs than us, let me know.

 

I fear this is going to happen to the 'green collar' boom of jobs. First, a major US corporations will get the project due to a strong lobby effort. They will then use the cheapest possible labor, building inferior products, but we'll be stuck with them. This is not going to produce any groundbreaking technology.

 

As far as innovation, I totally agree with you. I have seen the decline groundbreaking work and relative quality of the technology products engineered by US companies for a while; with exception of the likes of Apple and such. The problem here is that corportations are given so many handouts and advantages, with no incentive to actually be good at what they do. Just look at the amazing breakthroughs we had in the 80's and 90's. Having a lot of the talent raised in the United States out of the loop in the mathemtatical sciences due to the fact that outsourcing has damaged the prospects of a great career, the best and brightest will often avoid the mathematical sciences. I truly believe the United States needs to get back in and innovate once again.

 

If you think I am advocating taking steps backward, you are incorrect.

Edited July 1, 2009 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

I will tell you exactly what is going to happen to the 'green collar' boom of jobs. First, a major US corporations will get the project due to a strong lobby effort. They will then use the cheapest possible labor, building inferior products, but we'll be stuck with them. This is not going to produce any groundbreaking technology.

 

As far as innovation, I totally agree with you. I have seen the decline groundbreaking work and relative quality of the technology products engineered by US companies for a while; with exception of the likes of Apple and such. The problem here is that corportations are given so many handouts and advantages, with no incentive to actually be good at what they do. Just look at the amazing breakthroughs we had in the 80's and 90's. Having a lot of the talent raised in the United States out of the loop in the mathemtatical sciences due to the fact that outsourcing has damaged the prospects of a great career, the best and brightest will often avoid the mathematical sciences. I truly believe the United States needs to get back in and innovate once again.

 

If you think I am advocating taking steps backward, you are incorrect.

I am sure in some cases, big companies (like GM for example) will get money for these things. And some will do what you are saying, but others will do better. Either way, the money will be tagged in many cases for certain uses.

 

But, there are plenty of smaller ones getting money for this. Here is one example of both: Tesla and other electric and alternative car tech companies got big money recently for their work (via loans and grants), but Ford and biggies got some too. It will go both ways here, which is ideal - larger companies with more complete abilities to produce, smaller ones for niche markets. And note the Ford and Nissan money is specifically geared to go to US plants and jobs - what I was saying earlier. Also, the stimulus bill has given out numerous chunks of cash for new solar panel technologies, panel manufacturing, parts and supplies, etc., to fuel projects like this BLM solar study area thing that was just announced. Most of that goes to small companies because in the US, only small companies make them at this point, though big companies like DuPont make components of it.

 

It won't be black and white, and unfortunately, some of what you predict will happen. But lots of money is going to fostering the little ones too, the innovators. That doesn't mean necessary success, but not funding them means we get inferior products anyway, but we get them from overseas, and then we're toast.

 

 

 

[mr_genius]

I am sure in some cases, big companies (like GM for example) will get money for these things. And some will do what you are saying, but others will do better. Either way, the money will be tagged in many cases for certain uses.

 

But, there are plenty of smaller ones getting money for this. Here is one example of both: Tesla and other electric and alternative car tech companies got big money recently for their work (via loans and grants), but Ford and biggies got some too. It will go both ways here, which is ideal - larger companies with more complete abilities to produce, smaller ones for niche markets. And note the Ford and Nissan money is specifically geared to go to US plants and jobs - what I was saying earlier. Also, the stimulus bill has given out numerous chunks of cash for new solar panel technologies, panel manufacturing, parts and supplies, etc., to fuel projects like this BLM solar study area thing that was just announced. Most of that goes to small companies because in the US, only small companies make them at this point, though big companies like DuPont make components of it.

 

It won't be black and white, and unfortunately, some of what you predict will happen. But lots of money is going to fostering the little ones too, the innovators. That doesn't mean necessary success, but not funding them means we get inferior products anyway, but we get them from overseas, and then we're toast.

 

Perhaps the pessimism of my first post created a smoke screen around my intended message: that the work needs to be done by the US population for there to be a green jobs boost to the economy and we need to encourage innovation.

[NorthSideSox72]

Perhaps the pessimism of my first post created a smoke screen around my intended message: that the work needs to be done by the US population for there to be a green jobs boost to the economy and we need to encourage innovation.

I agree wholeheartedly. And I agree with you that even if you start it that way, bits will eventually start to migrate away, as with most tech stuff. Its all part of the way things work now. I'd just rather get in there now if we can.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

On another sad note, we are going over 10% unemployment very soon. The June numbers were worse than expected.

 

lost around another 450,000 jobs

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=a5utvno88qDM

9.5%, for now.

 

[Balta1701]

One more bit of data to fire back on the "It's never going to be profitable!" discussion; it appears venture capital sure thinks it will be.

The boundless optimism in Silicon Valley recalls the early days of the Internet boom. “Think of the smartest guy you’ve ever met and then imagine 50,000 more just like him innovating all at once,” Mike Danaher, a partner and cleantech specialist at the law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, told me. “Just as they did with telecom in the ’90s, they’re attacking every component of every kind of alternative energy to improve it.”

 

Last year, cleantech was the third-largest recipient of venture funding, after IT and biotechnology, with investments of $5.8 billion. But that statistic doesn’t begin to convey its psychic significance. It’s all anyone wants to talk about.

[kapkomet]

One more bit of data to fire back on the "It's never going to be profitable!" discussion; it appears venture capital sure thinks it will be.

Why is this a surprise? Follow the money...

 

[KipWellsFan]

<!--quoteo(post=1933546:date=Jun 29, 2009 -> 07:42 PM:name=KipWellsFan)-->

<!--quotec-->Your quality of life probably won't be affected anyways by this weak bill. That will probably be the case for 99% of the American population.

 

Some of the house members apparently voted against because it wasn't strong ENOUGH. I think it's pretty clear a large chunk of the Republicans in the house have zero interest in making the best legislation possible.

 

Sometimes politics is about power, and unfortunately for some, those who give half a s*** about climate hold a very large chunk of it right now. Democrats and Obama were pretty clear on their environmental position in recent election campaigns and I think it would be a betrayal to pass anything weaker than this now.

 

 

 

 

Don't forget about how you now also have to meet government qualifications if you want to sell your home. That means is your house isn't green enough, you have to pay to get all that stuff taken care of before you can sell... YAY!!!!

 

 

No way your electricity bill will skyrocket. Maybe over 50 years but not at all in the short term. But that video will be a great partisan attack piece to use. And I would really like to see where in the House bill it says that you could be stopped from selling your home.

 

The bill hasn't even passed anyway.

 

Oh, and lol about those lights. I've got them in every room in my house and they last bloody forever.

Edited July 3, 2009 by KipWellsFan

[Balta1701]

Oh, and lol about those lights. I've got them in every room in my house and they last bloody forever.

I switched to CFL's about 1 year after moving in to my own place after I got a couple decent coupons. I saw my electricity bills decline 50% in 1 month (at this point, that probably adds up to over a thousand dollars in savings). I think I've had to change 1 bulb out of the bunch (took the old bulb to an e-waste recycler). That was 5 years ago.

[StrangeSox]

I have one socket that pops CFL's in about a week, so that one is back to incandescent. The rest have been CFL's for years. Definitely reduced the electricity bill. For most of winter, fees and taxes make up a large part of our bill than actual electricity use.

[kapkomet]

No way your electricity bill will skyrocket. Maybe over 50 years but not at all in the short term. But that video will be a great partisan attack piece to use. And I would really like to see where in the House bill it says that you could be stopped from selling your home.

 

The bill hasn't even passed anyway.

 

Oh, and lol about those lights. I've got them in every room in my house and they last bloody forever.

Barackus the Great told us - HIS WORDS. It's not a "PARTISAN ATTACK PIECE".

 

"...uhhh, you know, under my plan, uh, of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." - Barackus the Great on the campaign trail.

 

So, is he partisan attacking his own plan?

 

From the bill amendments:

 

1 ‘‘(A) obtaining an home energy rating or

2 audit for the residence for which such mortgage

3 or loan is sought;

4 ‘‘(B) obtaining financing for cost-effective

5 energy-saving improvements to such property;

6 and

7 ‘‘© obtaining beneficial terms for any

8 mortgage or loan, or qualifying for a larger

9 mortgage or loan, secured by a residence which

10 meets or will meet energy efficiency standards.

 

Now sure, it doesn't EXPLICITLY say that, but if it doesn't meet the "energy requirements" that are set, a person will not sell their home.

[KipWellsFan]

Barackus the Great told us - HIS WORDS. It's not a "PARTISAN ATTACK PIECE".

 

"...uhhh, you know, under my plan, uh, of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." - Barackus the Great on the campaign trail.

 

So, is he partisan attacking his own plan?

 

From the bill amendments:

 

 

 

Now sure, it doesn't EXPLICITLY say that, but if it doesn't meet the "energy requirements" that are set, a person will not sell their home.

 

I'm just saying it will be used as a partisan attack piece. You of all people should recognize that what Obama said during the election campaign may not become reality once he became President.

 

Can you provide link for that quote too?

[southsider2k5]

One more bit of data to fire back on the "It's never going to be profitable!" discussion; it appears venture capital sure thinks it will be.

 

If its profitable, then we don't need the government, ie only the top of the country, to pay for it.

[Texsox]

Not sure where else to put this...

 

The Border Patrol sees an issue with the dense vegetation alone some stretches of the Rio Grande that are being used as hiding places for bandits. So, they want to get rid of the vegetation in some places.

 

Now, that idea has some problems in and of itself - it will have an effect on erosion and waterflow of the river. But, national security probably should take precedence.

 

Here is where it gets just plain stupid. Their plan is to poison the vegetation along a pilot mile stretch. Poison? Seriously? Its a riverbank, morons, you want to poison the river? These areas are high desert or chapparal, which burn over naturally every so often anyway... why not do that? Why introduce a toxin which will have unknown negative effects, instead of using the mechanism that nature does?

 

Ugh.

 

The rape and plunder of the southern border area has gotten to the point where I can't get to excited over any plan. It is just brutal. The rest of the US places no value on this region at all.