Greensburg,a town in america destroyed by a tornado that is going to be buit back as one of the first green(ecofriendly) commity in the world

Then something good came out of it

Perhaps it is true as they say. Sometime you have to rebuild from scratch.

What do you mean sometimes? The only way any significant change in energy usage is going to come is if events force us to rethink from scratch. That's one of the reasons I'm happy to see higher (read: not artificially deflated) gas prices. Sure, it costs me $60 to fill my car - but I made reasonable lifestyle choices, so I only have to fill it every couple of months unless I'm travelling. If you commute an hour to work every day, you deserve what you get.

Do you walk to work?

The whole green bandwagon is a crock of shit. A marketing strategy, if you will, to seperate you from your money. Remember Y2K? Remember the Cold War before that? Think before you say something foolish. Global Warming is undeniable, but the contributions humans make to it is dubious at most, and if you think an Inconvenient Truth by Gore was remotely factual, then you are about correct. Of the panel of chemists put together by Al Gore in the making of the film, everyone of them has signed a letter to the former Vice President stating that the information they gathered did not support the conclusion he made that Humans were causing a significant proportion of the warming the Earth is undergoing. Don't believe me? Look back to the 1940s/1950s, there were huge fears of Global Cooling. On top of all that, the planet is coming out of an iceage, so warming is to be expected as an overall trend underlying the decade, century, and millenia long cycles in the weather patterns the Earth goes through. Ask yourselves the questions that George Carlin himself poses in this routine from 1990:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

No, but it's only a 3 mile drive. If the city buses were scheduled somewhat differently, I wouldn't even do that. I'm not willing to get to works 45 minutes early and leave half an hour late, so I drive. I've walked the same distance to a previous job, but that wasn't by choice - it was easier to walk than get a car on campus as a student.

One of the professors here is debating when to quit due to commuting expense. His wife's job forces him to live nearly an hour away, and it's getting to the point where a professor's salary isn't worth the cost of gas. Others schedule their classes so they only show up 3 days a week, then pull a 14 hour day to get all their work done. Most of that group simply refuse to live in town, though

To me, it's not so much about global warming as it is wrecklessly expending resources unnecessarily. We're burning through something we can't make more of. In GalCiv terms, we're still operating on our starting 5000 bc, and it's past time to start developing an economy  

Oddly, the professor in the previous post is one of the greenest people you'd ever meet. He's maniacal about greening up our department, he just has an unfortunate living circumstance. He drives a dinky little hybrid - most of his driving is interstate so he doesn't get much benefit from that, but at least it's not an SUV.

Green. This word is everywhere. On the radio, online, in the junk mail, on the promotional cardboards and soy milk crates. It is the biggest attempt at inducing mass-hysteria I've seen in my life. Every blood-sucking corporation with extra cash to spare tries to use ecology as a cattle rod for consumers. Every media outlet with mummified conscience joyfully cover science-fiction "solutions" that will, at best, produce no results. In the mean time, doable things that actually can have some positive effects on the environment are ignored.

Isn't it obvious that the things, which should be changed first, are the things that will have the leats (or none at all) effect on people's current lifestyle? If you don't think so, than the best way to become eco-friendly is this: live in the mud hat, don't use electricity or cars, and grow your own food. That's a perfectly viable and highly effective solution. The only problem is that it's not going to happen.

There is research going on right now, which studies how cows' digestion system can be changed, so that cows don't produce so much methane. At the same time people use lawn movers, which produce as much CO2 in 2 hours as a modern car produces over the period of one week. Shouldn't meaningless pseudo-aestetical habits be changed before attempting bioengineering?

Another thing is software efficiency. CPU power isn't free, it consumes electricity. Yet the latest MS OS is Vista, and the latest web buzzword is web 2.0. Both are horribly inefficient, and nobody cares.

Looks like all those "green" technologies and ideas are, for some inexplicable reason, about buying some overpriced crap. If there is no crap to buy and sell (or political career to be made), the ecological impact is totally ignored.

Edit:

That's exactly what I'm talking about. What's the point of buying a more expensive hybrid if it give you no benefit? To pay extra $10 grand, you need to work more. The more you work, the more you drive around and use electricity, which produces greenhouse gases.

I'm calling shenanigans on that one. Unless you're comparing a commercial mower to someone who drives 30 miles a week like me, that's not physically possible. Various other pollutants (NOx, sulphur, etc.) but not CO2. Mowers don't have catalytic converters to get rid of other exhaust products like cars do, but only reducing the volume of gas used can limit CO2.

I did live briefly in Dayton, Ohio, where the city paid $100 IIRC for anyone willing to replace a gas mower with an electric, just to help prevent some of the smog.

Edit:
Edit:

He drives a dinky little hybrid - most of his driving is interstate so he doesn't get much benefit from that

That's exactly what I'm talking about. What's the point of buying a more expensive hybrid if it give you no benefit? To pay extra $10 grand, you need to work more. The more you work, the more you drive around and use electricity, which produces greenhouse gases.

He bought his car years ago, before the gas prices started spiking, simply as a personal statement, and to encourage the technology. And not getting much benefit is not the same as getting none - with gas prices continuing to rise, I'm betting on him breaking even on this. That is, if he hasn't already.

I agree, I find that lawnmower comment rather hard to believe. I'd like to see a source for that.
Another overhyped change is the fluorescent lightbulb. Australia is supposed to be going to all fluorescent lightbulbs, which will decrease the amount of polution released by power plants (lower energy requirments). However, what isn't normally mentioned, is that it will decrease the total amount of greenhouse gases released by Australia by about 0.01%. Which is bascily nothing. (Not that I'm against fluorescent lightbulbs, they are better, just not enough to make switching to them being mandatory reasonable).

EDIT: What is with this forum? It didn't even differentiate between the two people who I quoted...it just ran their quotes togather. This forum has to have the worst quoting functionality I've ever seen

word up, willy. I've never played GalCiv, but I loved the analogy. And I agree that the whole green bandwagon is a crock of shit. Ive been listening to punk music for years, and trust me, eco-friendliness has never been THIS popular. It's just a new marketing scheme. But I also think bashing people's general concern for the earth is equally as played out. But buying ANYTHING won't lessen our 'effect' on the planet. Except maybe a gun. plan on buying one bullet, too. That's all you should need.

So how bout that 'Sins' game, huh?

Okay, a lawnmower running for 2 hours produces as much pollution as a car running over a period of one week. If you want sources, here you go:
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/Lawn-Mower-Pollution.htm
That's not my source, but whatever.


So? I was saying that all this "green" bullshit is about selling people some overpriced products. In your case, the city "payed" people $100 (taken from their own taxes) to buy those same products I was speaking about. People still worked for it. Those electric lawn movers still were produces somewhere, probably using energy from fossil fuels. Also, most of US electricity comes from fossil fuels anyway, so it's not like they are really non-polluting.

All this could be avoided simply by urging people not to mow their lawns. But that is not going to happen, even though lawn mowing is completely irrational, even ignoring ecological aspects.

Edit:


Exactly my sentiment.

Edit 2:
It's kind of like fat-free bandwagon. Instead of eating fruits, vegetables and grains people consume soy hamburgers, skim milk and synthetic butter, and think they're eating "healthy".

Las Vegas is paying homeowners to tear out grass entirely and replace it with more appropriate landscaping. Not so much as a pollution control or fuel savings measure as a water conservation issue. A grass lawn is an ecological disaster no matter how you look at it.



Nothing is perfect, but going electric is better in at least two ways:

1) Current pollution is reduced. Sure, the electricity may be from coal, but a coal plant is more efficient than a gas engine, and has far better emmision standards.

2) Future flexibility. Coal supplies the bulk of our electricity right now. Having the infrastructure in place to run most things electrically now allows for solar, wind, etc to replace that generating capacity when they come on line.



Maybe not, but NOT buying things certainly can.

I can't wait to see the experiment go down in flames.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a conservationist in the conservative strain (i.e., not a green nut job), there are good reasons to reduce pollution and make greater use of renewable sources. But you can't run the modern global world on solar panels. We need diesel to run our tractors and synthetic fertilizer (derived from oil) to maintain our current crop yields. The enviroNazis have no suggestions on how to maintain those yields without oil. We aren't talking about guilty rich people driving around in Priuses, we are talking about the food supply for 6 billion people. We aren't talking about Gore and other elites placating their guilt for flying around in private jets by making the rest of us conserve, we are talking about constantly being 3 days away from the end of civilization.*

If you believe switching from incandescent light bulbs to compact florescent is going to offset that, you are way out in left (wing) field.

*(The typical modern city has about 3 days supply of food. We get away with that by having a monstrous logistical chain of distribution centers and semi tractor trucks. A significant disruption would no doubt make things real scary real quick. Think Katrina aftermath in New Orleans, but in every major city. Have a good night's sleep with that in your mind.)

I think the "enviroNazis" are more suggesting that we should be doing more to research alternatives to using oil as our primary energy source. Solar panels, granted, are inefficicent. Research is bring conducted at my university that may double their efficiencies though. And let's not forget the massive energy potential in nuclear power. Yes, there's some toxic waste, but it's less of a problem than what we may face should the CO2 content in the atmosphere continue to increase. Also, I don't think people should be scared by nuclear power as far as meltdowns and the like are concerned. Chernobyl, for example, was poorly constructed, managed, designed and maintained at every level of its infrastructure. Modern reactors designed in developed, politically stable environments are safe.

I agree, it's ridiculous to believe that we can maintain our current standards of living without it, and that we can get by without using any of it. In all honesty, I think it will take a major disaster before the human race realizes what we're facing, and what we've done. When the time comes, though, I think we'll find that we're capable of quite a bit, with our backs to the wall.

The tricky bit is, I'm guilty as the next person, too. I enjoy my long showers, boat rides, and pickup trucks. And I've been raised with that lifestyle. When the infrastructure isn't in place, and people are too comfotable to change, it's very difficult. But we'll see in the coming century; at this point the most we can really do is try to slow down and stop the major changes we're making to the environment. We've already started a large uncontrolled experiment with the world's atmosphere and we'll see how it plays out.

One thing I've always wondered about that is: why don't we USE used reactor fuel? Sure, we reprocess it to recover uranium. But why don't we use the actual byproducts as non-critical, geothermal-type energy sources? The stuff is still radiating heat like mad, which is why it's kept in cooling pools. It gets around some of the movement, containment, and security issues, and maybe gets us some usable power.

I'm sure there are technical issues to work around, but we seem to have a pretty good track record at that.