Split from YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[Dayle Record]

I think your erasure of my comments was cavalier, and disrespectful. But, I will post again. I challenge you to actually have dialogue.

The planet and the web of life is a large, but closed, system. We have artificially heated this system and stressed many other life forms, including our own, with this process.

Just doing more of the same, with some different fuel source is not the answer to the "energy crisis."

There needs to exist international regulation of human kinds ability to influence climate. We need to sigh the Kyoto Protocol, and make that stick, and then get even better. Indigenous peoples, and people who want to live on the Earth in it's natural state, should be able to do so. I would call this a fundamental right.

Use of Nuclear energy on a broad scale to continue to heat the world, is ill advised. There is cataclysm, earthquake, weather, war, all kinds of things, that can lead to the release of enriched Uranium into our world. We need to on a broad scale address how we should live on this world, to conserve it.

1. we need to legislate that private passenger vehicles will by a certain year, function at a high level of efficiency. Passenger vehicles will have no more than 4 cylinders, and be hybrid type vehicles.

2. All new buildings will be built green. In areas of extreme climate, will be Earth sheltered.

3. All new refrigerated warehouses for produce and foods, will be Earth sheltered, and sun shaded, to decrease energy use.

4. Other warehouses, that store non perishable, or non freezable items, will neither be heated nor air conditioned. Workers will wear heated clothing.

5. Food Producers will be encouraged to produce, sell, and preserve locally grown foods as much as possible to decrease shipment, and cooling of crops.

6. foods that can be grown, in one locale, will not be imported from another, especially over long distances. For instance, we will not import apples from China. We will control trade, for the sake of energy conservation. Free trade, means unlimited burning of fossil fuels to ship goods for trade warring. In Utah, where we grow a lot of apples, we could not export apples to Colorado, because we could not compete with produce shipped from China, grown with slave labor. Oil and slavery, and profiteering hurt the ecosphere.

7. Trade that depends on astronomical use of fossil fuel, to achieve marginal profit, will be discouraged.

8. Education will ephasize simplified living, and an ethic, in regards to planetary health.

9. Nationalize our energy resources. Make it illegal for foreign corporations, to deal in energy within the boundaries of the United States. Buy out foreign power companies, coal companies, and oil companies. Disallow foreign water management companies to do business in the US.

10. Insist that corporations that contract for the United States Government, be solely held by American Citizens.

11. Make it a goal of this nation, to lead the world in energy conservation, wildlife conservation, clean air, and water, instead of the opposite as we currently stand, in many of these categories.

12. You will have to legislate, and enforce your way out of the "energy crisis", it will be more government, more American involvement, at every level, from elementary school education, to the highest levels of government.

There is this other ethic. That is this, not everyone wants the Earth to be covered with Nuclear Plants, or even power grids. Not everyone wants the world to become completely mechanized, or be downwind of that. Will we use our powers to dictate that the natural world has to die? This is a big question. The issue of what kind of world we all want, has to be addressed among the peoples of the world. Just because there is an energy crisis, in regards to how the oil economy will play out into some kind of other economy, ignores the fact that there are fundamental things about the way we are being forced to live, world wide, to accommodate this economic system, that is remorselessly destructive to us, on every level.

I read one very interesting statistic, that was profound to me. There is an energy crisis, yet 50% of the people in this world, have never made a phone call. Not everyone is playing the same game, yet we are trying to define the game, when we use energy in such a way, when we set up an economy where those outside the pale we build, will perpetually be downwind, and hungry, and living in the wastes we create.

China's new prosperity is a classic example of this, everyone outside their cities, is being poisoned, by the waste products of their prosperity. Tibet is now a mining dump.

I was driving on the industrial side of Salt Lake City, and I looked up and saw the mountains. I looked at this asphalt I was driving on, and it struck me. One hundred years ago this valley was basically empty. Of all the things that could have been created here, of all the visions they could have had, of all the things they could have done, they created this. Who pushed us to leave an agrarian society?

The best minds created the mess we are in. This is not a wonderful world, unless you ignore virtually everything we have done to it. I am a photographer, every single day, I look around the mess to witness the fugitive beauty of this world. The "energy crisis", is a symptom of a much grander dysfunction. To pigeonhole this discussion to doing more of the same, or finding new energy futures, or finding a better way to do the same old thing, is suicide for the planet.

The DOE, is currently under the thumb of an administration, that believes there is no such thing as planetary ecology; doesn't believe there is a problem with global warming. The solutions they want, are going to be energy industry friendly, not just friendly, but serving.

When the President Of The United States drives a giant suv, in his down time, then you know his DOE, isn't being asked to save the world, it is being asked to save the ability to profit, at any cost.

 

[russ_watters]

Use of Nuclear energy on a broad scale to continue to heat the world, is ill advised. There is cataclysm, earthquake, weather, war, all kinds of things, that can lead to the release of enriched Uranium into our world. We need to on a broad scale address how we should live on this world, to conserve it.

Do some quick calculations on how much heat nuclear power has adds to the world compared with how much the sun adds to the world and get back to me if you want to be taken seriously.

The reason I split this and deleted the last post was that this just isn't relevant to the topic I posted and isn't an engineering solution to the problem.

 

[enigma]

To pigeonhole this discussion to doing more of the same, or finding new energy futures, or finding a better way to do the same old thing, is suicide for the planet.

To not discuss finding new ways to get energy is suicide for humans.

Using the restrictions you have proposed, while I'm sure you mean well, would result in the deaths of millions to billions of people. Without trade and the high levels of energy use, the world cannot support the population it has on it. All your proposal would do is institute a Malthusian 'positive check'.

 

[russ_watters]

Using the restrictions you have proposed, while I'm sure you mean well, would result in the deaths of millions to billions of people. Without trade and the high levels of energy use, the world cannot support the population it has on it. All your proposal would do is institute a Malthusian 'positive check'.

As bad as killing 3 billion people sounds, what Dayle Record proposes is actually worse. After killing half the population of the world, we'd go back to an 18th century agrarian society. Forget energy efficiency - if we get rid of 90% of our energy use (that's a guess, since she didn't quantify it, but that's what you get if you get rid of coal, oil, and nuclear power and most transportation) there is no energy for air conditioning at all. No energy for computers. Forget efficient cars: we won't be able to build cars. Medicine? Sorry, that takes energy too (Merck's manufacuturing headquarters is 1 mile from my parents' house - they have a 50 mW power station on site). Running water/sewer? Nope. After killing half the population, we'd inflict a new Dark Age on the survivors.

Dayle, you're right that not everyone wants the world to be modern: but virtually everyone who doesn't also doesn't really understand what being modern means (or rather, how awful -and short- life was hundreds of years ago). Dayle Record, if you really think that way of life is better, try it sometime. But recognize that even with your best efforts to avoid it (some people have started living in national parks, you could try that), you will still get a lot of the benefits of modern life. You won't have to worry about the Plague, for example.

And your ignorant assertions about nuclear power/waste/pollution aside, I asked for real solutions for eliminating those problems while maintaining the modern way of life. You want to decrease pollution by 99.9%? SO DO I. But I want to do it without destroying the past 400 years of progress.

 

[Dayle Record]

I know about the weird inconsistancies on this planet. I know how everyone likes what they like. For instance, the Swedes are the largest per capita consumers of Bananas, and Coffee, in the world. I know that these items, can't arrive in Sweden without, fossil fuels or nuclear energy use, or can they? You see, shippers won't be responsible for their cargos, or acts of God at sea, there is a vessel full of Lindane, at the bottom of the English Channel, that will not be unloaded. There is enough Lindane there, to kill the entire North Sea. Commercial Nuclear vessels are not an option. Where do you draw the line, regarding the relative ability of a society to safely use technology like this?

We have been sold on this society of convenience, at the inconvenience of the world at large.

If you want to use nuclear energy, I suggest that this is how it is done.

A not for profit, international consortium, creates nuclear tug ships, and nuclear train engines. Governments of the world, fund this universal solution to fossil fuel use for the shipment of goods, including fossil fuels.

All products shipped on the open seas will be towed in strings of barges, on a continuing basis by these Nuclear engines. There will be no vessel at sea over a certain size with motors that run on diesel, or fossil fuels. The armies of the world will become the facilitators of clean and safe, energy use. The armes of the world will become trained technicians that facilitate, transport of the worlds goods. Each nation will fund an army that facilitates, rather than anihilates.

All goods will be shipped on nuclear railroads, rail lines will be secure. Electric train engines will handle freight in yards, no diesel or fossil fuel burning semi truck will handle freight between municipalities.

It will be easier and more comfortable to travel between cities by rail, than it is by car, and less expensive.

All garbage will be recycled, all metal recycled. Land fills will only receive waste that is biodegradable. Garbage recycling will replace mining operations, plastic recycling will decrease the energy used in initial creation, by a large percent.

The ten hour day, and four day workweek, will become a national standard. Decreasing commuting by 1/5 th. Air travel will be discouraged, high speed train travel encouraged. In Utah, the biggest anti mass transit lobby, is the Auto Dealers.

All new buildings will have super insulated roofs, and overhead water holding cisterns, that hold water for preheating via building energy loss, prior to being heated. This is for all water destined to being heated. All buildings under construction, will have air tunnels underground with metal fins to transfer cold ground temperature to air before the air is passed through air conditioning units for cooling, or warming in the winter season.

Birth control, abortion, and voluntary sterilization will be free, to any interested party. There will be a world accounting for every living child, who will be fed and educated, so that their conscious participation in the process of living on this world, will be assured. Industrial free, self sustaining communities will be encouraged world wide. The grid will be diminished as these self sustaining organic low energy use communities rise in number.

 

[Dayle Record]

In direct reply to your last post Russ Watters, some of the discoveries of the last 400 years brought progress, and some didn't.

Don't forget that there are farming families, that have been in place for hundreds of years, growing olives, or pistaschios, or grapes or peaches, or cork, and still live very close to the land.

It is up for grabs if traditional farming methods are better than chemical methods. I have been interviewing farmers for months regarding organic/vs chemical.

I am not ignorant. But on the Farm Bureau pages in Utah there is organized rejoicing over the speeding up of the process of pesticide testing, and approval, and ultimately the use of poorly tested products. They say that it is because of those pesky endangered species, as if it were a frivolity. The endangered species is us, however.

My average electric bill is 25 dollars a month, and my average water bill is about the same. I don't use much. I drive a 4 cylinder car, I have never driven a bigger engine than that. Even running my computer all day, my electric bills are low. Personally, I bought all my produce this summer from organic farmers at market.

Funding one B1 bomber would buy the beans to keep hundreds of thousands of already born and starving children alive, but our energy policies keep us at war, and our resources end up being used this way. If you see the world as one phenomenon, then you see that our choices are wildly out of line with the needs of the world at large. In our own nation the elderly choose whether to eat, or take meds that they have been told they need, by Doctors that have been deliberately misguided by drug company reps for profit enhancement.

It is the same with energy companies, chemical companies, telling us that without supporting the status quo, millions of us, billions of us will die. The population of this world has been bumped way up by artificial means to fund this "ever growing" economic system, that is in place in a finite system. The big carrot in front of this donkey, is that we will find some other world to take this glorious show to. We will burn down this world to get to another one?

You say I am ignorant, but, that is not the case. This is a forum for ideas, and my ideas deal with the macro issues of the world at large, our energy crisis and policies are intimately linked to large patterns of behavior, and the blind nature of corporate doings.

Agrarian society is not evil, agrarian society was hijacked by agro business for profit. Then they wrote the history, as if it were a horror story.

The name calling here is terrible. You can laugh about my suggestions, but Europe is sitting where it is, with great mass transit, and a vibrant economy, a new peace, a new union, and it is still much the same as it was, in terms of development, and habitation twenty years ago. Population is actually decreasing in Italy of all places, the population is lower there than when I was there in the sixties.

 

[Artman]

Near where I live there was an experiment a few years back called "Five Acres of Independence." The idea was you bought this little 5 acre farm, stocked it with animals for food, grew some vegetables, kept cows for milk, sheep for wool, basically once the farm was paid for you would be independent of most of your needs. The experiment failed, the lots were sub-divided, people just didn't have the knowledge, time, money, desire, etc. to make it work.

It sounds like you are proposing this same experiment be performed worldwide. Scary.

In a free society, there are only so many things you can legislate individuals to do and still remain a free society. They have to be willing to make this happen. Don't look for it any time soon.

 

[russ_watters]

Where do you draw the line, regarding the relative ability of a society to safely use technology like this?

Simple: You look at the actual safety record of the technology.

For the rest of that post, I'm a little confused - are you now advocating the widespread use of nuclear power?

Don't forget that there are farming families, that have been in place for hundreds of years, growing olives, or pistaschios, or grapes or peaches, or cork, and still live very close to the land.

It is up for grabs if traditional farming methods are better than chemical methods. I have been interviewing farmers for months regarding organic/vs chemical.

My grandfather is such a farmer. He (semi-retired) farms 75 acres near Allentown, PA (2 hours from Philadelphia) and his family has been in the area for more than 300 years (seriously). He sells a significant fraction of his produce at a market owned by one of his sons (operated out of his son's home). I onced asked him if "organic" was better than chemical/genetic produce. He laughed. But then, he is, primarily a soybean farmer and virtually all soybeans are genetically engineered.

Bottom line, there is no scientific basis for claims that "organic" is better than food grown with modern technology. Its quite simply false (feel free to start a thread about that too - we haven't had one in a while).

My average electric bill is 25 dollars a month, and my average water bill is about the same. I don't use much. I drive a 4 cylinder car, I have never driven a bigger engine than that. Even running my computer all day, my electric bills are low.

I'm sorry, but that's nowhere near good enough to meet what you proposed above. You still need to cut that electric bill by 75% because without coal, nuclear, and oil power there isn't enough power to support even $10 of usage. I know it makes for tough decisions, but you'll certanly need to get rid of your tv, microwave, dryer, most of your lights, and get a smaller refrigerator. And you can't have that car: sell it and buy a moped.

Funding one B1 bomber would buy the beans to keep hundreds of thousands of already born and starving children alive, but our energy policies keep us at war, and our resources end up being used this way.

The US already has vast surplusse of grain (we produce something like double what we need, and only that little because the government pays many farmers to not farm), but I'm sorry, we can't ship it overseas: you said so in your first post. We're just going to have to let most of Asia and Africa starve to death.

It is the same with energy companies, chemical companies, telling us that without supporting the status quo, millions of us, billions of us will die. The population of this world has been bumped way up by artificial means to fund this "ever growing" economic system, that is in place in a finite system.

The second sentence is true, but it contradicts the first: if we do eliminate the food production that has "bumped up" the population, the population will go back down: because people will sarve to death.

The name calling here is terrible.

The word "ignorant", of course has a negative connotation, but its not namecalling. You really don't know what you are talking about with a great deal of what you are saying. I'm sorry if that's tough to hear, but its the truth. And while everyone is ignorant about something, knowing that you are ignorant and choosing to learn is the only way out of it. I joined this forum for that exact reason: I don't know as much about physics as I would like.

...Europe is sitting where it is, with great mass transit, and a vibrant economy, a new peace, a new union, and it is still much the same as it was, in terms of development, and habitation twenty years ago. Population is actually decreasing in Italy of all places, the population is lower there than when I was there in the sixties.

Are you saying that you think Europe is in some way fundamentally different than the US? That they don't use coal or oil, or nuclear power there? That they don't use genetically engineered food? Europe has worked very hard in the past 50 years to match the US's political and economic model and they are very close to it. They are nowhere near what you proposed in the openng post. In fact, China (where most of those people who have never made a phone call live) is the closest to achieving your vision - though they are working hard to move away from it as fast as possible.

 

[russ_watters]

The name calling here is terrible. You can laugh about my suggestions...

I'm not namecalling or laughing at you. To be perfectly honest, your point of view sickens me. Telling you to buy a moped isn't making fun of you its trying to illustrate for you the severe disconnect between what you think you want and what the realities are about the world you live in.

 

[Dayle Record]

I am sorry for your illness. My point of view is varied. I am willing to examine everything, and anything. Deconstructive thinking isn't ignorant, it is a way to take apart what is, and examine it. And it is just thinking, it isn't doing, or harming, or anything else. I tell you this, I do not worship the current paradigm, I am in it, but it is not sacred to me.

I apologize and will leave this thread alone.

 

[Dayle Record]

One more thing. The safety record of Nuclear Technology, just became classified information. The public won't know about the safety records of Nuclear Plants, as of recent legislation. The safety record has been fudged terribly here and there, and maybe the military has done well with this technology on their Carriers and Subs, but then again, they fund full time trained individuals to do this stuff. I would imagine their safety records have always been classified information.

 

[Arctic Fox]

I’m going to throw just a couple of things into this; not quite sure where this topic is going ATM...


1) I personally agree with nearly everything in your first post Dayle, with the exception of 4cly cars - unfortunately a four-banger won’t get me up the driveway to my home, I presently drive a 6cyl and feel that I may have problems again this winter. Walking in 2-4 feet of snow is not my favourite think to do in winter; the drive is about 1.5km long. The way I plan on solving the fuel usage problem is by converting my vehicle to run on propane. It won’t 100% clean burning, but it’s a start. If the economy improves, my next project is to convert my other vehicle to run on 100% electricity. Again, one step at a time...

2) Nuclear Power Plant safety records: I own shares in PP&L. So far this company has had THE best safety record for nuclear power anywhere in the world - and will furnish this information to anyone who asks for it, at any time. The NRC may not provide the people with their records, but I be if you ask the individual companies (some by force via FOIA), you’ll get your records.

Of course, I’d like to see everything running on solar generated electricity (Wind, Water, Sun). Electric cars, electric homes... but, someone needs to either drop the price of this technology, or give me a bigger paycheque! :D

 

[enigma]

Since this thread isn't about engineering, I'm going to move it

 

[plover]

Use of Nuclear energy on a broad scale to continue to heat the world, is ill advised.

Do some quick calculations on how much heat nuclear power has adds to the world compared with how much the sun adds to the world and get back to me if you want to be taken seriously.

I don't think this was talking about the heat output of nuclear plants. It seems much more likely to be about the use of nuclear plants to provide the energy by which people heat their homes. I.e. Dayle's issue here is safety not climate.

Dayle's meaning is not always transparent, but as far as I can tell, many of the responses in this thread have assumed readings that were not intended (and generally pick the worst possible reading) without asking for clarification.

Arguing that indigenous peoples should have more of a say over how they relate to the modern world is not the same as arguing that everyone should live in 18th century farming communities. Arguing for more careful energy use and less dependence on fossil fuels is not an argument to get rid of manufacturing.

To pigeonhole this discussion to doing more of the same, or finding new energy futures, or finding a better way to do the same old thing, is suicide for the planet.

This is an odd sentence. So odd in fact that I doubt the author intended the literal meaning given it by enigma. Such a reading just doesn't sync with the rest of the posts.

I know there are people who do think in the fashion that the critiques are directed at, and for such a person the responses here are most likely warranted. I may, of course, be wrong, but I think that the evidence does not support Dayle being one of them, and that in any case, more care might have been taken to clarify things before offering strong critiques.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Dayle,

PITTSBURGH (AP) - Does John Kerry, who supports higher automobile fuel economy standards, own a gas-guzzling SUV? He does, but says it belongs to the family, not to him.

During a conference call Thursday with reporters to discuss his upcoming jobs tour through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, the Democratic presidential candidate was asked whether he owned a Chevrolet Suburban.

"I don’t own an SUV," said Kerry, who supports increasing existing fuel economy standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2015 in order to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil supplies.

Kerry also has made rising gasoline prices an issue in the campaign against President Bush. In Houston on Thursday, Kerry said the president broke a 2000 campaign pledge to "jawbone" oil-producing nations by pressuring them to increase their output.

Kerry thought for a second when asked whether his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had a Suburban at their Ketchum, Idaho, home. Kerry said he owns and drives a Dodge 600 and recently bought a Chrysler 300M. He said his wife owns the Chevrolet SUV.

"The family has it. I don’t have it," he said.

This is the brand of honesty we are in for if Kerry wins the election.

Kerry said it’s important for his family to buy American cars and pledged to keep car manufacturing jobs in the country if elected. He said he is interested in a hybrid car, and has talked to Ford about making it the "campaign car."

http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=10234&cat=Politics

He didn't own a hybrid car, but was willing to buy one and parade it around as an example of his concern for the environment. What a phony.

 

[Smurf]

Yeah, and we all know Bush is a picture-perfect enviromentalist. No one I know doubts Kerry isn't even partially trustworthy, but he's seen as the lesser of two evils.

 

[member 5645]

I’m going to throw just a couple of things into this; not quite sure where this topic is going ATM...


1) I personally agree with nearly everything in your first post Dayle, with the exception of 4cly cars - unfortunately a four-banger won’t get me up the driveway to my home, I presently drive a 6cyl and feel that I may have problems again this winter. Walking in 2-4 feet of snow is not my favourite think to do in winter; the drive is about 1.5km long. The way I plan on solving the fuel usage problem is by converting my vehicle to run on propane. It won’t 100% clean burning, but it’s a start. If the economy improves, my next project is to convert my other vehicle to run on 100% electricity. Again, one step at a time...

Just a pet peeve of mine, as a car guy, the fact that many commercially produced four cylinders are weak, doesn't mean that all are, or all have to be. A reliable 100+hp/liter can be attained from a 4 cylinder, and while that leaves the problem of lower end torque that a 6 cylinder car commonly has over the 4, that is easily resolved through the use of forced induction (atleast solved enough as for getting up your driveway in the snow).

But, with all that said, it's a bit of a moot point for our discussion because the number of cylinders is not the deciding factor in the gas mileage of a vehicle, and such discussion is really more an ignorance of "more cylinders means more power and more gas consumption". There are PLENTY of other variables at stake, but I don't want to derail this thread too much.

 

[member 5645]

The ten hour day, and four day workweek, will become a national standard. Decreasing commuting by 1/5 th. Air travel will be discouraged, high speed train travel encouraged. In Utah, the biggest anti mass transit lobby, is the Auto Dealers.

Birth control, abortion, and voluntary sterilization will be free, to any interested party. There will be a world accounting for every living child, who will be fed and educated, so that their conscious participation in the process of living on this world, will be assured. Industrial free, self sustaining communities will be encouraged world wide. The grid will be diminished as these self sustaining organic low energy use communities rise in number.

A ten hour, 4 day week will NEVER happen as a standard. The reason is simple - people's productivity falls off too fast. I run a business, and I know that after 8 hours of work, most people start to fall off. It's just not even a possibility. Not to mention the union gripes with people working 10 hour days, having their shedules cycled off with others, and never getting overtime.

What do you mean ORGANIC? I want you to clarify this before I respond. The grid? as in our power grid? If so, I have even more to discuss.

 

[member 5645]

The DOE, is currently under the thumb of an administration, that believes there is no such thing as planetary ecology; doesn't believe there is a problem with global warming. The solutions they want, are going to be energy industry friendly, not just friendly, but serving.

When the President Of The United States drives a giant suv, in his down time, then you know his DOE, isn't being asked to save the world, it is being asked to save the ability to profit, at any cost.

Except that the Bush admin recently released a report stating that global warming is probably happening.

Show me this. It is my understanding he drives a truck around his ranch.

 

[member 5645]

The US already has vast surplusse of grain (we produce something like double what we need, and only that little because the government pays many farmers to not farm), but I'm sorry, we can't ship it overseas: you said so in your first post. We're just going to have to let most of Asia and Africa starve to death.

Not to mention Russ, since people want ORGANIC, they are willing to let their populous die instead of have it...real humane...
http://greennature.com/article1483.html

Zimbabwe turned away a 10,000 ton shipment of U.S. grain earlier this year because it could not be certified as GM-free. U.S. officials say the country accepted an earlier 8,500 ton shipment without question. GM crops have added traits to kill insects and to provide other benefits. But critics say GM crops are a hazard to the environment and human health. Opponents believe imported GM crops can permanently contaminate domestic crops.

But Mr. Winter says the grain is the same food Americans eat every day, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says is safe. Mr. Winter added no other country can equal the volume of aid the U.S. is offering. The United Nations estimates six million people in Zimbabwe face famine before next year's harvests

We even offered to mill the grain for the "it'll contaminate organic crops" crowd. But the hippie elitist who never go hungry themselves talked the government into turning it down because it was too dangerous

For anyone proposing organic food, natural lifestyle, etc. I want to see that person be the first to go! move to the woods, farm for youself, make your own clothes, and get out. Then come back and show us from your own experience how it is better than what is going on now. Until then, GM crops, cheap elecricity, etc. allow the majority of the world to be given aid that wouldn't exist anyways, and allows lucky elitist hippies to demonize that same process.

 

[JohnDubYa]

1. we need to legislate that private passenger vehicles will by a certain year, function at a high level of efficiency. Passenger vehicles will have no more than 4 cylinders, and be hybrid type vehicles.

2. All new buildings will be built green. In areas of extreme climate, will be Earth sheltered.

3. All new refrigerated warehouses for produce and foods, will be Earth sheltered, and sun shaded, to decrease energy use.

4. Other warehouses, that store non perishable, or non freezable items, will neither be heated nor air conditioned. Workers will wear heated clothing.

I keep thinking this sounds like a Walgreen's commercial.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Yeah, and we all know Bush is a picture-perfect enviromentalist.

You're right. Bush should buy a hybrid car at once to show his respect for the environment. And if he owns any gas guzzlers, he should transfer the titles to his wife. That will help save the environment.

 

[Dayle Record]

In regards to the genetically engineered crops, once it is done, it is done. The engineers guard their patents, and sue people whose crops contain their specialized DNA. It is a set up, where you have to buy their strains, if you farm near fields with their patented crops. Monsanto just agreed to not do GMO wheat any longer, the world has proven to them that they do not want it.

There is a huge movement in this country from regular people, farmers, to go organic, and local. Local grown, means less shipping and riper fruits and vegetables, and more money straight to the farmer. These are not elitest hippies, these organic farmers are as varied as we are as a nation. In the big local market here, they are retired persons, young people who built on orchard land, and keep it in farm and orchard, to keep the water rights. Agriculture does not have to be big to serve our communities. Local saves energy.

If a farmer ships ripe fruit to a wholesaler, the whole saler turns it back to a broker, the broker finds a local market for it. The best fruits and vegetables are doubly shipped.

PS This is not the beat up on me thread. The USDA is sponsoring these meetings to help with local agriculture.

These farmers use natural fertilizers on their land, and don't buy chemicals, so their costs are lower. A lot of these claims, insect repellent crops, potatoes that make their own insecticide are sales pitches for product. These companies aren't altruistic, they aren't here to save the world, or the people in the world, they are here, to make money, and monopolize the means by which agriculture happens worldwide.

That is one reason there is a movement to grow heirloom fruits and vegetables, no patents to purchase, guranteed hearty stock. It is being demonstrated that insects are incredibly adaptable, and regardless of how many chemicals come after them, they persist, and mutate to survive. They are just a year or two behind the newest stuff, without fail.

 

[Dayle Record]

People are starving all over the world. Growing organic in the USA has nothing to do with people starving in the world. Turning agricultural land into suburbs, might have a lot to to with the USA starving at some point. Many elderly farmers I interviewed this summer, do not have children that are willing to farm, the only new farmers seem to be those with an interest in farming as a passion, and many of them are organic farmers. Like I said about these organic farmers, there are all kinds of people, taking this up, every kind of political animal.

The world needs to get on the same page regarding food supplies, and energy use, and human rights, and the life of the planet. When the US didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol, we proved that we do not have the interest of the world, at heart.

I keep saying this is a closed system. The sun bathes us in whatever it is putting out, and the upper atmosphere, in concert with our planetary motion, and magnetic fields, and atmospheric standard mix, leaves us somewhat safe underneath the tenuous relationship we share with the sun. We have evolved over millions of years to survive in this niche. It is much more fragile, and mysterious, than we are led to believe, by people who are inclined to mess with it. We have mightily messed with the atmospheric mix, we all know about this catastrophe.

It was discovered by the human genome project that at one time in the last 50,000 years our human population was down to less than 2,500 individuals. At first they thought 5,000 individuals, but they lowered the count.

All of the heat that the biomass creates counts, all of the heat that we generate, counts, everytime a plane takes off, everytime we heat up the ionosphere, everytime we turn on a light, it counts, because this is heat created in side our relatively small, closed system. There are ways to deal with the methane produced by feedlots, there are ways to deal with everything, but this kind of tuning is overwhelmed by the other huge planetary moves we make. In a closed system everything counts. So getting ballistic with me over the heat created by nuclear, vs the heat of the sun, is just how you have fun on the web. In a closed system, everything counts. As random as the output of the sun may seem, or as many variables may be noted in the fluctuations of our fluid planet it is still a closed system. We inhabit a very rare niche, of a universe that we are currently combing for signs of other habitation.

Big decisions are being made by big industries, that affect the quality of life for everyone, and now it has to be debated what are our rights as residents of this system? How can this system be best run for everyone involved?
In a closed system every factor must be considered, and there has been poor, to no management of our disasterous habitation here, and we have known of the problems we are facing, and continuing to create, for quite some time.

GMO grain was turned back, because the producer did not listen to its market. The producer was sure it could run over everyone in its way, to do what it deemed profitable. Wouldn't it be profitable if you owned a patent on every kernel of wheat planted anywhere on the globe?

Yes a lot of people are starving. A lot of indigenous peoples lose the use of their land, because they are displaced by economic interests, that did not have their interests in mind. Now villagers can't get water, because water is being sold to them by foreign concerns who profit managing and bottling water, again for profit. These are people who never made or used money in their lives, they just lived. People cannot compete with how we use or misuse energy, and they are left with no choices. In South America now, if you don't want an oil company putting a pipeline across your ancestral lands, you are a terrorist.

People aren't starving because the United States isn't feeding them, unless they are starving in the United States. We could be responsible for supporting economic practices that result in starvation. We could be responsible for supporting regimes that say, pump oil for us, or mine copper for us, or grow bananas for us, but starve their people. Corporations that are mostly held by the US Citizens, could use slave labor, and starve their workers, or keep them marginally alive, we have seen some clear evidence of that inside the US, in Florida orange groves.

Please don't go off on me about how controlling car emissions, or organic farming is going to result in world wide famine. I live in a city where it snows a lot. My four cylinder car, with good snow tires, gets me anywhere. I could have a taller car, that was four cylinder, and four wheel drive, but I don't need it. This car went into any high steep driveway I needed to go at any time this winter. The culture of the car, is insidious. Now I have even seen deragatory websites that discuss rice boys, who drive 4 cyl cars souped up, as some sort of lower life form. The money that heavy industry has to spend on keeping the status quo, and their will to use it, is amazing.

The fact about the "energy crisis", or the global crisis, is that it is not going to resolve, by letting corporate entities blithely do what is profitable for them. We have to create an ethic, that is shared with our children in schools, and is a binding part of the way we live in this country. And corporate entities, that mis-advertise, and manipulate the facts of their doings need to be publicly shamed, out of these doings. Business schools, must ethically engage their students, and there has to be a new corporate morality, that is not just donating exactly the amount it takes to offset a tax burden, but it has to do with how we do business.

There is plenty of understanding of this, but terrible willfulness to avoid taking responsibility and proper action.

 

[Dayle Record]

Check this out, chemical vs organic. The chinese use twice as much fertilizer on their new fruit and vegetable crops and the land is dying, the water quality is rapidly declining, and so forth...

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996399

 

[ray b]

been there done that
we lived on a anchored house boat for 20+ years
windmill for power to charge batteries for radio tv and lights
used 10 gal of water a day or less as we had to carry it
gas for stove was only fuel used
tropical miami so no heat used,
cool by breazes as the boat points into the wind
stayed fit as we had to row every day
no crime as the crooks can't/willnot swim
best place to live and best people too

 

[JohnDubYa]

Sorry ray, but if I want to live like I would in a third-world country, I will move to Haiti. Did your wife carry the water in a big jug on her head like they do in National Geographic?

These farmers use natural fertilizers on their land, and don't buy chemicals, so their costs are lower.

Which is why so many farmers use chemicals, because they are more expensive and farmers love to throw money away. That is because farmers are usually carefree with money. It all makes sense now.

I have been involved in the San Joaquin Valley racing scene for quite awhile, and I know a lot of the farmers in the Valley who own the cars. These are rich sons-of-*****es, and their farms dwarf your piddly Pennsylvania gardens. I cannot think of a one that is an organic farmer, and judging by their bank accounts I am in no position to question their wisdom.

 

[Dayle Record]

Yields are higher, costs are higher, and the margin is the difference financially. The resulting pollution is much higher, harming water resources, and leeching the land of minerals, and so forth.

Money to burn at the raceway, is not the mark of an enlightened energy policy.

In fact, that whole set of statements is a perfect example of how not to run anything.

They mechanize farming, ridding themselves of labor costs. They use chemical poisons to fight pests, who become resistant within a couple of years, and buy new poisons with their profits, and the fertilize like crazy, polluting water tables, and make profit on the margin between machinery costs, and chemical costs, and then burn the whole thing up on the raceway. I just love that.
Then there is not only a water crisis, but an energy crisis too.

The cost of caring for the land, instead of chemical auto pilot, is about the same, and the yield slightly less, but the over all cost to the environment and society is substantially lowered.

Regarding the 10 hour work day, I just spent 17 years doing the 10 hour work day, and I worked hard, and really enjoyed my down time. Think about it, vested with retirement, I was off almost as much as I was on, I was extremely productive for my organization, and I had free time to raise a family, and start a business of my own. That 10 hour work day, actually gives people a lot more time to work, in other ways that save energy. With two parents working, there is a potential for 6 days in the week with a parent home. It represents quite a turnarond for the environment, the economy, and the family.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Money to burn at the raceway, is not the mark of an enlightened energy policy.

No, but it is the mark of someone who knows how to turn a profit. These cars run about $100,000 per year, and they consider it just a hobby. Many others get involved in tractor pulls, and I cannot imagine the operating costs of running a tractor with four Rodec big blocks.

If you want to talk up the environmental angle, feel free. But don't try to convince me that growing crops organically is more efficient. Maybe it is if you are farming only (snicker) 50 acres.

 

[member 5645]

If you want to talk up the environmental angle, feel free. But don't try to convince me that growing crops organically is more efficient. Maybe it is if you are farming only (snicker) 50 acres.

Even then I don't see how it would be. A crop that yields more per acre with less care will be more efficient at any level.

I'd like to suggest everyone here go out and by the Penn and Teller BULLSH1T! DVD. It's an enlightening look at people like this thread starter. I'm too numbed by all of this fantasy, non-backed, hippy rhetoric to go down the list. This sort of extremism is why REAL environmetalism always has to take a back seat.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Even then I don't see how it would be. A crop that yields more per acre with less care will be more efficient at any level.

Not necessarily. As you gain more land, large farm equipment becomes more economical. It is pointless to buy a Cat D10 for a 50-acre farm, but a 5000-acre farm is another matter. Costs and efficiency don't scale linearly.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I always have to laugh at the discussion of whether or not it is more efficient to farm today as opposed to 50 to 60 years ago. Efficient to whom? Look at all the work and processing that goes into manufacturing the tools that farmers have at their disposal today compared to years ago. Many people act as if that one farmer with 10,000 acres is doing all that himself. Even if only a handful of people help him actually do the work he still has a tremendous amount of people behind him supplying him with the things he needs to go over 10,000 acres. Back when horses were used to farm with a farmer could pretty much survive independently while needing to purchase very few consumable supplies as opposed to today. So what's the difference? More people were farming and less lived in the cities supplying ag with the supplies needed today.

Don't blame those farming the way they are today because you or your ancestors decided to move to the city and make it more profitable for those who stayed in it to do it the way they are doing it now.

I'm not taking either side of Dayle or JohnDubya. I just wanted to point out the efficiency thing.

 

[member 5645]

Not necessarily. As you gain more land, large farm equipment becomes more economical. It is pointless to buy a Cat D10 for a 50-acre farm, but a 5000-acre farm is another matter. Costs and efficiency don't scale linearly.

I was focused on the GM crops as the "method". we are talking two different things,whoops :)

 

[Dayle Record]

There are words that don't really fit in with a discussion of energy use, farming, planetary ecology, chemistry, and the like. They are politically loaded words like facist, extremist, degrading comments about intellect, etc. These words aren't specific enough to enhance discussion, nor are they communication enhancers.

 

[member 5645]

There are words that don't really fit in with a discussion of energy use, farming, planetary ecology, chemistry, and the like. They are politically loaded words like facist, extremist, degrading comments about intellect, etc. These words aren't specific enough to enhance discussion, nor are they communication enhancers.

So far I've seen 3 pages of statements without links backing your assertions. No offense, but it's pretty hard to take it all seriously when there's no science being shown that ANY of this will really help, there's no cost/benefit model showing what it will take to implement, and you want to legislate variables of a combustion engine for gas mileage reasons that doesn't affect the gas mileage.

Your wants ARE extremist measures. You can pass this off as 'not enhancing the conversation' but some conversations don't allow enhancement either. Ones that paint a picture of a perfect world by doing XYZ without showing that XYZ and will actually reach the intended goal, for example.
I'd love to see the science behind your wants. Show me that you can sustain 6 billion, and growing, people with organic crops. Show me that taking away my freedoms through legislation will end up assisting in meeting a greater good, otherwise you are simply wanting to legislate to take away my freedoms.