[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Oldest Rock song on RP - kurtster - Mar 28, 2024 - 1:06pm
 
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes. - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
 
Irony 101 - MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:15pm
 
Breaking News - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:58am
 
RP automation with iOS Shortcuts App - pradler4kant - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:57am
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - newwavegurly - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:48am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:46am
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:31am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:27am
 
March 2024 Photo Theme - Many - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:07am
 
Wordle - daily game - rgio - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:00am
 
Ukraine - Beaker - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:41am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - Beaker - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:30am
 
NY Times Strands - geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:37am
 
NYTimes Connections - geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:29am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - pilgrim - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:19am
 
Business as Usual - black321 - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:09am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - black321 - Mar 28, 2024 - 7:44am
 
Trump - rgio - Mar 28, 2024 - 7:29am
 
Outstanding Covers - thisbody - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:51am
 
Today in History - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:28am
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Mar 27, 2024 - 7:40pm
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - haresfur - Mar 27, 2024 - 6:21pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Mar 27, 2024 - 5:08pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Mar 27, 2024 - 3:48pm
 
Please Don't Post Here - Red_Dragon - Mar 27, 2024 - 11:02am
 
Motivational Office Cliches... - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 26, 2024 - 10:20pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - Red_Dragon - Mar 26, 2024 - 6:18pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - miamizsun - Mar 26, 2024 - 4:10pm
 
Israel - R_P - Mar 26, 2024 - 12:24pm
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - islander - Mar 26, 2024 - 8:00am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - Beez - Mar 26, 2024 - 7:24am
 
Food - Steely_D - Mar 26, 2024 - 1:41am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Mar 25, 2024 - 6:56pm
 
Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Mar 25, 2024 - 3:48pm
 
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands) - kingen - Mar 25, 2024 - 2:43pm
 
China - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:59am
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:20am
 
Play history seems to indicate that I"m streaming 24/7, b... - jarro - Mar 25, 2024 - 10:44am
 
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse - Coaxial - Mar 24, 2024 - 6:22pm
 
New Music - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 24, 2024 - 5:07pm
 
Dental Floss Tycoons, and other Montana Myths, Facts, and... - Red_Dragon - Mar 24, 2024 - 12:32pm
 
Orbiting Earth - oldviolin - Mar 24, 2024 - 9:42am
 
Basketball - oldviolin - Mar 23, 2024 - 2:50pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 23, 2024 - 1:54pm
 
Joe Biden - kurtster - Mar 23, 2024 - 11:17am
 
Technical Streaming Note for Nerdy RP DIYers - sjagminas1 - Mar 23, 2024 - 10:16am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Proclivities - Mar 23, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Other Medical Stuff - Antigone - Mar 22, 2024 - 3:06pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - oldviolin - Mar 22, 2024 - 11:06am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Mar 22, 2024 - 9:17am
 
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones - Bill_J - Mar 21, 2024 - 8:54pm
 
Can you afford to retire? - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 21, 2024 - 2:15pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 21, 2024 - 11:10am
 
What Did You See Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 20, 2024 - 5:13pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 20, 2024 - 4:31pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Antigone - Mar 20, 2024 - 3:10pm
 
Russia - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 20, 2024 - 11:44am
 
2024 Elections! - Lazy8 - Mar 20, 2024 - 7:26am
 
Economix - R_P - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:36pm
 
Name My Band - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:53am
 
Delicacies: a..k.a.. the Gross Food forum - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:12am
 
New Forum Member on "What Makes RP Great" - miamizsun - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:38am
 
Cache stopped working on old Android Phone - Eisenwindel - Mar 19, 2024 - 1:50am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - Bill_J - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:23pm
 
Damn Dinosaurs! - oldviolin - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:16pm
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - geoff_morphini - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:58pm
 
Great guitar faces - skyguy - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:33pm
 
Despots, dictators and war criminals - R_P - Mar 18, 2024 - 12:41pm
 
Uploading Music - dischuckin - Mar 18, 2024 - 11:55am
 
Media Matters - thisbody - Mar 18, 2024 - 10:03am
 
NASA & other news from space - miamizsun - Mar 18, 2024 - 4:13am
 
MEALTICKET - drinpt - Mar 17, 2024 - 4:13am
 
What makes you smile? - Steely_D - Mar 16, 2024 - 7:31pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 115, 116, 117 ... 125, 126, 127  Next
Post to this Topic
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 4:28pm

 Beaker wrote:



But, but... I don't produce activist vids. 
 
no, just the running commentary.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 4:14pm

 steeler wrote:


That makes sense to me.

The other thing is that we have been bankrupting ourselves with this dependency on oil (fossil fuels) for a lot of reasons, including wars in the Middle East and emanating because of our presence in the Middle East.  

One of the most ridiculous moments from the past political season was watching that whole convention floor chant "Drill, bay, drill."  Talke about short-term "solutions."   

 
I was googling for info and found this interesting article from a couple years ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/world/asia/07iht-energy.4124134.html

a couple of excerpts:
Japan's population and economy are each about 40 percent as large as that of the United States, yet in 2004 it consumed less than a quarter as much energy as America did, according to the International Energy Agency, which is based in Paris.

On a per-capita basis, that means Japan consumed the energy equivalent of 2.8 million tons of oil per person in 2004, in contrast to 5.4 million tons per American. Germany, another energy- conscious country, used 3.2 million tons per person. On other measures, like household electricity use, Japan is also much lower.

Japan's obsession with conservation stems from an acute sense of insecurity in a resource-poor nation that imports most its energy from the Middle East, the dangers of which were clearly shown by the 1970s energy shocks.

The guiding hand of government has also played a role, forcing households and companies to conserve by raising the cost of gasoline and electricity far above global levels. Taxes and price controls make a gallon of gasoline in Japan currently cost about $5.20, twice America's more market-based prices.

The government in turn has used these tax revenues to help Japan seize the lead in renewable energies like solar power, and, more recently, home fuel cells. One way has been a subsidy of about $51,000 per home fuel cell. This allowed Kimura to buy his cell last year for about $9,000, far below production cost. His cell, which generates 1 kilowatt per hour, provides just under half of his household's electricity, and has cut his electricity bill by the same amount, he said.

Home fuel cells. This article is from 2007 and they have an example of a guy with a HOME FUEL CELL. Would anyone here (US only please - sorry) even know where to go to find such a thing or even find a pamphlet?  I just checked Washington Energy Services (seems like an obvious choice) and got nothing.  3 years ago.... damn...

 



steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 4:06pm

 islander wrote:

Your pod is ready mister fromwyoming.

Some of this is probably from density. But a lot of it is simply from policies, regulations, and the way they approach things. When these initiatives were started (mid 70's I think, response to OPEC) there was a lot of resistance, and a lot of people claiming that it would cause their economy to grind to a halt and send them all to the caves... sound familiar?  Do you really think the Japanese are that much better an innovating than we are? Heck, we've seen them do it, we could just copy and have roughly the same effect. If we tried a little we might even do better.
 

That makes sense to me.

The other thing is that we have been bankrupting ourselves with this dependency on oil (fossil fuels) for a lot of reasons, including wars in the Middle East and emanating because of our presence in the Middle East.  

One of the most ridiculous moments from the past political season was watching that whole convention floor chant "Drill, baby, drill."  Talk about short-term "solutions."   


islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 4:03pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

I'm guessing that the dense-pack population centers are a ton more efficient than our way of living too, energy-wise. Everybody off the farms and into the cities!
 
Your pod is ready mister fromwyoming.

Some of this is probably from density. But a lot of it is simply from policies, regulations, and the way they approach things. When these initiatives were started (mid 70's I think, response to OPEC) there was a lot of resistance, and a lot of people claiming that it would cause their economy to grind to a halt and send them all to the caves... sound familiar?  Do you really think the Japanese are that much better an innovating than we are? Heck, we've seen them do it, we could just copy and have roughly the same effect. If we tried a little we might even do better.

helenofjoy

helenofjoy Avatar

Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 4:00pm

 steeler wrote:


Well, I short-handed it, for sure.

But, here's the thing: I don't disagree with you that we want something that works.  I mean, I doubt anyone disagrees with that.  And I also agree with you that we don't just accept any proposal or proposals just for the sake of doing something.    

I'm not sure what you meant back in your original post to which I responded when you said that what was being proposed was vastly expensive and intrusive.  What proposal is that?  Maybe I have not read enough (and I know I have not on this subject), but I thought we were at just the beginning of defining possible solutions.

 

 
Yeah me too!  I'm thinking there is a lot of information out there - new and ongoing projects that seems really positive and well thought out.  Some European countries are experiencing great success with wind and solar energy.

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 3:58pm

 islander wrote:



 
I'm guessing that the dense-pack population centers are a ton more efficient than our way of living too, energy-wise. Everybody off the farms and into the cities!

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 3:53pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

First, I can't speak for anybody but myself, but this isn't an accurate representation of my concerns.

I want to make sure that when we attack a problem that we are actually doing more good than harm. Reducing carbon emissions isn't as easy as it looks. The problem has to be approached from first principles, not by grasping at the first straws we see.

Unless we want to go back to pre-industrial revolution ways of living we will use lots of energy. We aren't. So we need energy.

We fuel our modern age with fossil fuels because it works. We spend a certain amount of energy extracting it from the ground and get more (much, much more) back. This can be turned into an economic analysis, but let's leave it in terms of energy for now.

If you want a similar positive return on energy investment for other technologies you need to be very careful how you go about it. If you want to build windmills or solar panels to power our lives you have to look not just at the energy they make but the energy they cost. Building and erecting wind turbines takes energy—lots of it. If you put a windmill in the wrong spot (one where the wind isn't steady enough to reliably make power) you will never (in the useful life of the windmill) recover that energy. You will have gone backwards—burned more coal/petroleum than you could ever replace. The carbon footprint of that turbine is negative. It made things worse.

There are very few places that have positive energy ROI for wind power. They are being surveyed as fast as possible, but even the really good ones (like parts of North Dakota) start to look sketchy when you factor in the construction of power lines to distribute the energy harvested. Solar photovoltaic is even worse. At current efficiencies the only places that have a positive energy ROI are places that use very little and/or would take a ridiculous effort to connect to the grid.

For those of us capable of doing this math the constant demand to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy (ie solar and wind) is immensely frustrating. It's like trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that there really is no such thing as a 200 mpg carburetor. To a lot of folks telling them they can't have the energy equivalent of a free lunch means you are just a tool of the oil companies frustrating their obviously pure and holy mission to save the earth.

The easiest way to account for all this is with money. Greenies like to remind us that saving scarce resources will make economic sense; that if you save energy you'll save money. They don't like to look at the other side of that coin: that if you aren't saving money you probably aren't saving energy. That if solar panels have to be subsidized then they probably aren't really, on balance, helping. Good intentions will not fool the laws of nature and they won't fool an honest accountant either.
 

Well, I short-handed it, for sure.

But, here's the thing: I don't disagree with you that we want something that works.  I mean, I doubt anyone disagrees with that.  And I also agree with you that we don't just accept any proposal or proposals just for the sake of doing something.    

I'm not sure what you meant back in your original post to which I responded when you said that what was being proposed was vastly expensive and intrusive.  What proposal is that?  Maybe I have not read enough (and I know I have not on this subject), but I thought we were at just the beginning of defining possible solutions.

 


islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 3:33pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

First, I can't speak for anybody but myself, but this isn't an accurate representation of my concerns.

I want to make sure that when we attack a problem that we are actually doing more good than harm. Reducing carbon emissions isn't as easy as it looks. The problem has to be approached from first principles, not by grasping at the first straws we see.

Unless we want to go back to pre-industrial revolution ways of living we will use lots of energy. We aren't. So we need energy.


We fuel our modern age with fossil fuels because it works. We spend a certain amount of energy extracting it from the ground and get more (much, much more) back. This can be turned into an economic analysis, but let's leave it in terms of energy for now.

If you want a similar positive return on energy investment for other technologies you need to be very careful how you go about it. If you want to build windmills or solar panels to power our lives you have to look not just at the energy they make but the energy they cost. Building and erecting wind turbines takes energy—lots of it. If you put a windmill in the wrong spot (one where the wind isn't steady enough to reliably make power) you will never (in the useful life of the windmill) recover that energy. You will have gone backwards—burned more coal/petroleum than you could ever replace. The carbon footprint of that turbine is negative. It made things worse.

There are very few places that have positive energy ROI for wind power. They are being surveyed as fast as possible, but even the really good ones (like parts of North Dakota) start to look sketchy when you factor in the construction of power lines to distribute the energy harvested. Solar photovoltaic is even worse. At current efficiencies the only places that have a positive energy ROI are places that use very little and/or would take a ridiculous effort to connect to the grid.

For those of us capable of doing this math the constant demand to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy (ie solar and wind) is immensely frustrating. It's like trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that there really is no such thing as a 200 mpg carburetor. To a lot of folks telling them they can't have the energy equivalent of a free lunch means you are just a tool of the oil companies frustrating their obviously pure and holy mission to save the earth.

The easiest way to account for all this is with money. Greenies like to remind us that saving scarce resources will make economic sense; that if you save energy you'll save money. They don't like to look at the other side of that coin: that if you aren't saving money you probably aren't saving energy. That if solar panels have to be subsidized then they probably aren't really, on balance, helping. Good intentions will not fool the laws of nature and they won't fool an honest accountant either.
 
But let's define 'lots'.  On a per-capita basis Japan uses about half the electricity that we do. They use essentially the same amount of electricity that they used in 1940. And I don't think I'd call this:

The dark ages. They are just smart about energy usage. They have policies that reward smart use. When a new product is introduced, it has to be at least as efficient as the one it replaces (preferably more). Companies commit to annual REDUCTIONS in the amount of energy they use. They get credits and incentives for upgrading to more efficient gear (we are starting to do that here).

This stuff isn't that hard. When I have a few moments I'll post about some of the stuff we have done here. I run a facility that is now using a little more than a Megawatt of electricity. We are Scaling rapidly and connecting so that we will have 5MW available. But we have done things with the lighting, HVAC, Power distribution, and control systems to minimize our impact. On an apples to apples basis, we are 20-30% more efficient than the average data center, and 50%+ more efficient than data centers build 10 years ago. But we are no where close to the Japanese.  1940, think about that.

edit: couple more points,,,
Small scale solar can work on households because they are already grid connected. I personally know some one who just installed a rooftop system. His meter is consistently running backwards now (winter, Denver CO.). It's not cost effective, but it was barely subsidized. We currently subsidize oil, and have been for decades, maybe we shouldn't subsidize alternative either (I actually think we should - it's something we want to encourage), but we definitely shouldn't still be subsidizing big oil. Let's see the true cost for all sources.

It's not that I think there is *a* solution. But there are lots of things we can do to help with *the* solution. And Japan shows us that we can still live pretty well and use half of the electricity we do now. Imagine if we just cut back 1/3 or even 1/4. And we then added regional solar, tidal, wind, geothermal to the mix. We could reduce the number of new generation sources we need. We could not build another coal plant because we would have time to get reasonable nuclear online. We could build less nuclear.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 3:22pm

 steeler wrote:
My framework in approaching anything, however, is to first identify the problem — if there is one.  There are those denying that there is a problem.  So, we are stuck on that.  Only after a problem has been identified, can we be in position to try to find solutions. How does one find a solution to a problem one does not recognize as a problem?

That's why I find it frustrating to read stuff that assails those who are providing "evidence" of a problem, implying that their motives are nefarious and unpure.  

Now, I think Lazy8 and others are saying that even if there is a solution, which we have not yet determined, it may not be feasible in economic terms.  However, if the problem is the fate of the earth itself — or at least certain species on it, including humans — than can any cost be too great?  

What proof is there that there is no problem, or that if there is a problem, it is not worth trying to find a solution?
 
First, I can't speak for anybody but myself, but this isn't an accurate representation of my concerns.

I want to make sure that when we attack a problem that we are actually doing more good than harm. Reducing carbon emissions isn't as easy as it looks. The problem has to be approached from first principles, not by grasping at the first straws we see.

Unless we want to go back to pre-industrial revolution ways of living we will use lots of energy. We aren't. So we need energy.

We fuel our modern age with fossil fuels because it works. We spend a certain amount of energy extracting it from the ground and get more (much, much more) back. This can be turned into an economic analysis, but let's leave it in terms of energy for now.

If you want a similar positive return on energy investment for other technologies you need to be very careful how you go about it. If you want to build windmills or solar panels to power our lives you have to look not just at the energy they make but the energy they cost. Building and erecting wind turbines takes energy—lots of it. If you put a windmill in the wrong spot (one where the wind isn't steady enough to reliably make power) you will never (in the useful life of the windmill) recover that energy. You will have gone backwards—burned more coal/petroleum than you could ever replace. The carbon footprint of that turbine is negative. It made things worse.

There are very few places that have positive energy ROI for wind power. They are being surveyed as fast as possible, but even the really good ones (like parts of North Dakota) start to look sketchy when you factor in the construction of power lines to distribute the energy harvested. Solar photovoltaic is even worse. At current efficiencies the only places that have a positive energy ROI are places that use very little and/or would take a ridiculous effort to connect to the grid.

For those of us capable of doing this math the constant demand to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy (ie solar and wind) is immensely frustrating. It's like trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that there really is no such thing as a 200 mpg carburetor. To a lot of folks telling them they can't have the energy equivalent of a free lunch means you are just a tool of the oil companies frustrating their obviously pure and holy mission to save the earth.

The easiest way to account for all this is with money. Greenies like to remind us that saving scarce resources will make economic sense; that if you save energy you'll save money. They don't like to look at the other side of that coin: that if you aren't saving money you probably aren't saving energy. That if solar panels have to be subsidized then they probably aren't really, on balance, helping. Good intentions will not fool the laws of nature and they won't fool an honest accountant either.

Painted_Turtle

Painted_Turtle Avatar

Location: Land of Laughing Waters
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 3:13pm

 islander wrote:

{#Eek} OMFG.

I think my head just exploded from an ironic overload.

edit: I really want to say more, but I just don't know where to start....
 
I know just what you mean...I really had too bite my tongue on that one....{#Roflol}

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 3:08pm

 Beaker wrote:

Ah lookit the irony here.  An American "netroots subvertising agency", creates a video on behalf of an American activist group, using video depicting the terrorist tactics of Greenpeace protests who staged a protest for the media here recently, using protesters/activists who where almost exclusively non-Canadians, and none of whom were Albertans.

And the video is posted to RP by a Canadian.

Wow.  Chutzpah or what?  So Welly, you're okay with foreigners deliberately attempting to influence our policies (and economy) here in Canuckistan, is that correct? 

Can I count on you to support the inverse?  How about we send a bunch of Canadians down to the US and attempt to interfere with their energy policies?  Maybe we can get that softwood lumber deal that affects your province finally fixed while we're at it.

I love lefty logic.  Any means to an end.  No matter how illogical, factually challenged or offensive.
 
{#Eek} OMFG.

I think my head just exploded from an ironic overload.

edit: I really want to say more, but I just don't know where to start....

Welly

Welly Avatar

Location: Lotusland
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 2:23pm


Painted_Turtle

Painted_Turtle Avatar

Location: Land of Laughing Waters
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 12:33pm

 Zep wrote:

The Beeb has it too.

The differences appear to be whether to extend or abandon Kyoto; to what level of carbon cuts should developed countries commit; and a target date. Kyoto offers technical and financial assistance to developing countries, which is understandably why they want to continue it. The new text probably doesn't provide that; I can't tell just yet.

Edit - I'm not sure it really is a draft agreement; Yvo de Boer seems to be saying it was not, but that it was some sort of background sent out ahead of the meeting. Still, it doesn't look good if you're a delegate and on the second day, this thing appears.

 
Your correct, it isn't a Draft Agreement, just one of the many papers circulating & prepared before the Conference began by various diverse interest groups..  There are probably hundreds of different papers on all of the aspects of the problems & on the solutions.  None of them are the Offical UN or Copenhagen Summit papers.

Looks like the announcement by some Media of Disaray on the First Few Days is a way to try and invalidate the whole Conference Process.  Its the "No Hope, Nothing Here to See" scenerio that some groups are espousing.

I'd rather remember this quote by Al Gore

"The road to the signing of an agreement in Copenhagen will not be easy, but the world has traveled this path before. More than twenty years ago the US signed the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer, and strengthened it to the point where we banned most of the major pollutants that created the hole in the ozone over Antarctica. And we did it with bipartisan support: President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill joined hands to lead the way.

We can do it again and solve the climate crisis, protecting our planet for future generations."


{#Daisy}



Zep

Zep Avatar

Location: Funkytown


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 12:15pm

 Beaker wrote:
Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak

Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol
 
The Beeb has it too.

The differences appear to be whether to extend or abandon Kyoto; to what level of carbon cuts should developed countries commit; and a target date. Kyoto offers technical and financial assistance to developing countries, which is understandably why they want to continue it. The new text probably doesn't provide that; I can't tell just yet.

Edit - I'm not sure it really is a draft agreement; Yvo de Boer seems to be saying it was not, but that it was some sort of background sent out ahead of the meeting. Still, it doesn't look good if you're a delegate and on the second day, this thing appears.


steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 12:12pm

 edieraye wrote:


What?  You mean I'm not always perfectly clear and painstakingly precise? {#Lol} I do have a response but am going to blow you off (no dirty snickers from the peanut gallery) for a hot date.  Look for a response in a couple of hours.  Or if things go well, tomorrow morning! {#Wink}

  

I'll expect a full report on your, er, choices. {#Wink}   
Painted_Turtle

Painted_Turtle Avatar

Location: Land of Laughing Waters
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 12:03pm

 edieraye wrote:
Painted_Turtle wrote:
I think it matters to the people living on low lying islands or in coastal regions.  There could be a massive loss of life in those areas if all of the polar water melts & they lose their place to live.

There is also the problem of the glaciers melting all over the earth.  What will happen to all the people in Europe who depend on them to keep their rivers flowing and provide drinking water?

But is that the reason we need to act responsibly toward the environment?  Because there is a problem?  I disagree.  I think we ought to be responsible stewards because it is the right thing to do.
 
For example, let's say that I could litter with no repercussions.  I would not get caught, there would be no negative consequences to myself or to anyone else.  It would still be wrong.  I'd like to see the global discussion move away from problems and solutions.  If everyone listened to me, we would frame the discussion in terms of respect, responsibility, and doing what is right not because doing otherwise would have negative consequences but simply because it is the right thing to do.

 
That would work quite well if every one on the planet shared the same sense of morality regarding what is the "right" thing to do as you do. 

Some times when one own' life is threatend by a problem, it serves as a greater motivator to make changes neccessary for survival, than having a fine tuned sense of morality.  But, you're correct that it would be great if everyone shared the view that being good stewards was the right thing to do.

I guess some groups, individuals, don't seem to mind "dirtying their own nest".  Clean or dirty is not a question or moral of right or wrong to them.  Nest destruction brings the issue more to the forfront

I find survival of humans and most of the animals & plants to be as good, or better, than using moral right as the reason for good environmental stewardship. (although that really would be wonderful if it was the basis).  Simply because the survival instinct is more immediate in getting a response (survival is the most basic human motivator) & if the science for the last 20 years is correct, we need a more immediate response.  Of course denial could be seen as one of the responses humans might have to a survival situation.  Fight, flight, freeze in place.


edieraye

edieraye Avatar



Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:57am

 steeler wrote:
I do not understand what you mean by that sentence. 
 

What?  You mean I'm not always perfectly clear and painstakingly precise? {#Lol} I do have a response but am going to blow you off (no dirty snickers from the peanut gallery) for a hot date.  Look for a response in a couple of hours.  Or if things go well, tomorrow morning! {#Wink}
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:32am

 edieraye wrote:

Oh see I hate living my life that way.  Of course, there are times I fall into that trap.  Reacting to whatever most urgently needs tending to.  But it isn't a good place to operate from.  I much prefer when I am making choices in my life.  I would argue that addressing the environment from the standpoint of best practices would garner more good will and better results than the band aid approach. My two cents.

 

I do not understand what you mean by that sentence. 

I do agree that issues should be framed as positively as possible.  

These are not issues of whether littering is wrong.  One of the issues being debated is whether human consumption (specifically, carbon emissions) are contributing significanlty to climate change.  So, I'm kind of at a loss as to how you would propose addressing that as simply a challenge to our stewardship of the earth.  To cut down on carbon emissions, for example, would entail more than just reinforcing to each individual that he or she must act in a way that better fosters a cleaner earth.    

As for life approaches: It is true that choosing to put out a particular fire first is not a pleasant choice, but it still is a choice. Could just let it burn and suffer the consequences — whatever they might be.  People do choose to do just that.  Is making the tougher, unpleasant choice a trap?  Sometimes, I do feel that way.  Other times, I see it as avoiding the trap.               


edieraye

edieraye Avatar



Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:23am

 steeler wrote:
Personally, I do think the degree of the "problem" matters in terms of the urgency in finding a solution. This is true in almost all aspects of our lives.  We priortize based upon which fire needs to be put out first. So, defining a problem also entails estimating the degree of the threat if the problem remains unresolved.    
 
Oh see I hate living my life that way.  Of course, there are times I fall into that trap.  Reacting to whatever most urgently needs tending to.  But it isn't a good place to operate from.  I much prefer when I am making choices in my life.  I would argue that addressing the environment from the standpoint of best practices would garner more good will and better results than the band aid approach. My two cents.
edieraye

edieraye Avatar



Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:18am

Painted_Turtle wrote:
I think it matters to the people living on low lying islands or in coastal regions.  There could be a massive loss of life in those areas if all of the polar water melts & they lose their place to live.

There is also the problem of the glaciers melting all over the earth.  What will happen to all the people in Europe who depend on them to keep their rivers flowing and provide drinking water?

But is that the reason we need to act responsibly toward the environment?  Because there is a problem?  I disagree.  I think we ought to be responsible stewards because it is the right thing to do.
 
For example, let's say that I could litter with no repercussions.  I would not get caught, there would be no negative consequences to myself or to anyone else.  It would still be wrong.  I'd like to see the global discussion move away from problems and solutions.  If everyone listened to me, we would frame the discussion in terms of respect, responsibility, and doing what is right not because doing otherwise would have negative consequences but simply because it is the right thing to do.
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 115, 116, 117 ... 125, 126, 127  Next