evolve past outdated and wasteful technologies
El_Kabong
Posts: 4,141
N O W
fuck drilling, fuck this bloated, so harmful oil industry, why give them more land to destroy and pollute?? why give them more money? why give them more control?
what are you voting for? won't you ALWAYS be afraid of 'the other guy' getting in or who 's/he'll' put in the supreme court? why vote to keep this greedy power structure in place and running? why keep giving it your full consent (other than saying it sure does suck, what bastards! and going to a movie about how bad it is...)?
while infinitie potential lies in you a wave can not build if it remains motionless
fuck drilling, fuck this bloated, so harmful oil industry, why give them more land to destroy and pollute?? why give them more money? why give them more control?
what are you voting for? won't you ALWAYS be afraid of 'the other guy' getting in or who 's/he'll' put in the supreme court? why vote to keep this greedy power structure in place and running? why keep giving it your full consent (other than saying it sure does suck, what bastards! and going to a movie about how bad it is...)?
while infinitie potential lies in you a wave can not build if it remains motionless
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
do you really think we have until 2012 to maybe stare making a change? do you really think we have time for 'baby steps' which is just orwellian for 'drag our feet as much as we can so we can continue to profit'
is this really what you want? melted ice, drowned polar bears, holes all over the planet harming the ecosystem and it's cycles (like wind routes and whatnot) and most of all polluting and just being stupidly wasteful?
do you really want to keep the power in these ppl's hands? not even caring about you? look at how much energy costs have gone up, they say this is part of the financial crisis...while some are making record profits. charging you more for a technology that wastes 70-80% of your fuel you keep paying more and more for, that pollutes the air and water...
why do you want to cling onto this system of exploitation and waste?
there's no real reason
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I just hope my '04 Civic will make it that long..
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
to those who say the REALLY want solutions - it's out there already ... if you choose to ignore em - that is your perogative ...
edited for spelling
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
IT's time to stay ahead of the curve as the west has always been and develop something better.
China will burn it all up no problem....
any politician not talking seriously about alternate energy is an asshole...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Shocking that it's been about 24 hours and there's no answer to this question.....not!
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Nuclear power has the potential for an even bigger disaster. Not to mention the waste that lasts for what, hundreds -if not thousands of years. doesn't matter what kind of containment system you have, you build enough eventually its gonna fail. yeah its energy, but the impact on the environment risk kinda outweighs the benefits you might get. ensuring the future of the human race is kinda the goal, or should be anyway, not profit or conveinance.
maybe because the question is meant to antagonize and is prototypical of some of the childish discussions that happen here ...
sad
Or maybe the question is to point out how those ideas mentioned by the OP are admirable, but we can't just snap our fingers and make them happen
"N O W"
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
uhhh ... if that's what you think ... sure ... :rolleyes:
I win!
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
you can't possible lose! ...
The low-carbon diet
HERIBERT PROEPPER/AP PHOTO
A small service vessel steers between offshore windmills set up in the North Sea, 14 km west of the small village of Blavandshuk near Esbjerg, Denmark, Oct. 30, 2002. Email story
Print
Choose text size
Report typo or correction
Email the author
License this article
The issue: Climate change The green shift: Buyer beware The low-carbon diet How Sweden and Denmark kicked a nasty fossil fuel habit (using taxes) and got rich in the process. Warning, Canada: Diet may not be effective for all political body types
LONDON–Scandinavia is cold enough to grow a Mats Sundin. Yet nowadays nearly everyone in the hockey hero's native Sweden keeps warm in winter without burning so much as a drop of oil.
Such are the spoils of the Nordic energy paradox, where a generation of pragmatic energy policy is putting paid to the notion that life cannot prosper on a lower-carbon diet.
For those who would have their cake and eat it, too, look to Sweden, where the raw data is to be envied: between 1990 and 2006, the country enjoyed economic growth of 44 per cent in fixed prices, even as it cut carbon emissions by 9 per cent.
Denmark's numbers show a similar decoupling of GDP from the use of fossil fuels, with 43-per-cent growth contrasting with a 14-per-cent carbon reduction in the same time frame.
The shift was driven by a complex array of policies. But at its root, experts say, was the world's first carbon tax on fossil fuels – an early version of the so-called green shift now under discussion in Canada.
"We are living proof the world should not fear a tax on carbon. Sweden has the highest carbon taxation in the world but we are not living in the Stone Age," said Per Rosenqvist, a climate expert with the Swedish Environment Ministry
"The standard of life here has improved even as emissions came down. It hasn't been easy. It takes a range of policies, not just a tax. The solutions are different in every country. And they need to be regularly readjusted, as we learn from our mistakes. But it works."
Those with long memories may recall the best of these results match the promises made by the Nordic countries a full 20 years ago, when they first committed to unilaterally weaning their economies off carbon at the 1988 Toronto Conference on The Changing Atmosphere.
In fact, Scandinavia had been brooding over energy issues long before the summit in Toronto. Energy experts say the flashpoint came in 1973, when the first wave of OPEC embargoes shocked the then import-dependent Nordic nations.
"More than any other country, Denmark was severely hit by the 1973 crisis because at the time 95 per cent of our energy was imported oil and coal," said Ole Odgaard, a senior adviser to the Danish Energy Agency.
"It was a very deep shock. And out of this came a determination to rethink our entire energy strategy in order to avoid the same thing happening again."
It is almost required, when writing about Scandinavian energy policy, to wax breathless about enlightened nations who put the planet uppermost on their national agendas.
Yet the reality is something somewhat less angelic. The Danish and Swedish models are driven as much by hard-nosed pragmatism as anything else. Enlightened? Absolutely. Daring? That, too. But the imperative, as with any nation, was self-interest, first and foremost.
"There is also a cultural explanation: We tend to have a culture of consensus on the really important issues," said Odgaard. "It goes back hundreds of years in Denmark, that tradition of finding a common strategy. And we saw it come together again after the crisis of the 1970s. We decided as a society that the issue of energy was so vital that we would raise it above politics – and ever since, that broad consensus has endured. The broad political alliance behind our strategy extends throughout parliament, and as a result the government can change but the basic policy endures."
The Danish consensus, said Odgaard, enabled Denmark to begin drafting plans for the extensive district heating networks that today provide 60 per cent of the country's winter warmth, from the whole of Copenhagen to isolated rural farms. Much of that heat comes from cogeneration plants that harvest heat energy previously wasted in electricity production.
"The district heating is the main reason we saved six to 11 million tonnes of CO2 per year," he said.
Though the bulk of Denmark's carbon tax burden is borne by consumers in fuel and electricity bills, industry pays, as well, albeit at a lower rate – heavy industry has long complained it is suffering a competitive disadvantage.
"When Canada goes shopping for policy, please take wisdom from our mistakes. Because the fact is we face carbon leakage issues in Denmark – the fear of losing our energy-heavy industry to places like Russia and North Africa," said Helle Juhler-Verdoner, head of the Danish Federation of Industries' energy unit.
"I'm not saying the carbon tax hasn't helped improve efficiency. We are, of course, fine with that. But we argue that a better model is to assist the new energy technologies through other means, rather than forcing energy-intensive companies to pay for it."
Juhler-Verdoner points jealously to Sweden, where most major industries – cement, steel, aluminium, pulp and paper – enjoy handsome exemptions from carbon taxation. Swedish policy, she said, allows heavy industry to more easily compete in the global marketplace.
Though they are neighbours, Denmark and Sweden have shifted away from fossil fuels in distinctly different ways. Though both have realized significant energy savings in ultra-efficient cogeneration heat/electricity plants, the Danes have embraced wind as their flag-bearing renewable energy, whereas the forest-rich Swedes have turned to biomass.
In both cases, the shift has resulted in a second dividend of emerging energy technology industries, with Denmark's Vestas Wind Systems alone, at 15,000 employees and growing, accounting for a quarter of the burgeoning global market for wind turbines.
Put another way, Danish energy technology exports were negligible in 1992, accounting for less than 1 per cent of total exports. Last year, Vestas and other burgeoning Danish energy technologies accounted for 9.2 per cent of total exports, worth 52 billion Danish Kroners, or $10.5 billion.
In Sweden, the economic gains are more difficult to pinpoint. While the Swedish home appliance conglomerate Electrolux, for example, is a global giant that routinely wins awards for its emphasis on energy efficiency, many argue carbon taxation played a minor role in the company's search for energy savings.
Swedish biomass and geothermal heat production, on the other hand, have become industries in their own right and now account for nearly 100 per cent of Sweden's district heating supply.
"By exempting biomass from the carbon tax we're made a dramatic shift away from coal in fuelling our power plants," said Rosenqvist.
"But it has also created an industry that would probably be of interest to Canada, given your forests. What we do is extract the biomass from growing forests, by using the residues that would otherwise be rotting and releasing CO2 in the process."
Though very much a society of car-lovers, Sweden is seeing a rapid fuel shift toward ethanol. The change is driven both by the carbon tax, and by a supplementary government edict requiring all filling stations to offer at least one alternative fuel in addition to gas or diesel. Ethanol now accounts for more than 25 per cent of the market, said Rosenqvist.
Swedish and Danish officials alike stress that carbon taxes don't succeed in and of themselves. To achieve results, they must be paired with comprehensive incentives and subsidies that build toward the desired energy shift.
"The advantage of leading the world in some of these areas is obvious. The disadvantage is that we made some mistakes," said Odgaard.
"For example, the first of the land-based windmills were built without any procedure to gain public acceptance. They caused landscape pollution and now we are paying to pull them down and re-establish better, more efficient ones in better locations," he said.
One Danish analyst describes the carbon tax as an almost Darwinian accelerator of the adapt-or-survive dilemma that all Western economies face today.
"The West is losing the heavy industrial production anyway, to China and India and wherever, because cheap labour is the real issue," said Martin Lidegaard, chair of Concito, a Danish environmental think tank.
"So what the carbon tax has done is to force the rest of our industry to go through a process of natural selection. The companies that can deliver new technologies and efficiencies survive and thrive. The companies that cannot are old and weak. And yes, let us be honest, they die," said Lidegaard. "But that's the whole point of a carbon tax. You want to pick winners that will position your economy for the future. If you make your policy to protect everybody, nothing will change."
and maybe i wasn't back here until today, sorry, i will work harder to constantly monitor this internet board for assinine replies, everybody...
oh, well...maybe i really could care fucking less
but to answer the question (and sorry to not do so within your 24hr timeframe know 1) yes, i do have a car, but it gets pretty good gas mileage (around 36mpg) and a full tank can last me 2 weeks most times
as for solutions, there are plenty that have been discussed. like kucinich's plan to put ppl to work working on ppl's homes to convert their power over to solar and wind power and i think thermal, too?
as for cars there are already plenty of alternatives that aren't as polluting. there was a guy in illinois who used vegetable oil to run his van until the state government told him he had to stop until he received a fuel storage license (which he didn't qualify for b/c you have to store a large amount)
i also saw something like 10 or so years ago on the discovery channel about this guy who built this engine that was far less polluting and far more efficient than oil but the guy in charge of giving patents (appointed by reagan and a former oil exec) denied a patent saying it violated scientific prinicple
are you really under the impression that the only option is oil/combustible engine??? really? we can make little cameras in a pill but we can't get more than 30% efficient at the most??? or maybe a certain sector who is posting record profits would rather hold on to their market?
edit- obviously that's not directed at you, polaris
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
who will pay to build these new nuclear power plants?? it sure won't be the power companies.
so, since we're giving our tax money to the oil industry (on top of others) and would be giving a lot to the nuclear power industry, why not put that money into better alternatives?
if we drill it will still take a looong time for that to reach our fuel tanks and even then the offset is pretty small, we do what you say on a far larger scale if we increased fuel efficiency. i can't believe how far certain technologies have advanced yet we are still stuck w/ a combustible enginge that only uses 20-30% of the energy burned
also, how long do you think it would take to build these new nuclear power plants? how long do you think it would take to lay all that concrete and let it set and harden (and ensure there's no porosity or other defects in it)? and then where are you going to store it? the department of energy says some of the material in yucca mountain can leak and the mountain is pourrous...so where will we keep even more of this crap for the thousands of years it will be radioactive?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
So you are saying do nothing and continue on. How about that these different industries would create jobs and creatw alternative energy. Is it going to happen in an instant? No. At least if we do drill and creatww our own oil we would keep the money internal to our country and not send it to the middle east, or venezuela or wherever our oil is coming from. I also support using wind energy which again will create jobs.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
no, i've already mentioned things like raising the fuel efficinecy standards on vehicles (is there really any reason why in this day and age when i can have a touch screen phone to watch movies on that we should still have vehicles getting less than 20mpg???) solar, wind, thermal hydroelectric, solar thermal radiant heating....
no, it's not gonna happen in an instant, but neither is this drilling, it will still take time to set up, drill, refine it...it will take time for it to reach the market and when it does the effect will be minimal. it's a scam, it won't make it so we don't have to deal w/ the middle east or Venezueala or Canada for even a week
same w/ nuclear power that you are in favor of. how much time do ya think it will take to build those plants? to lay all that concrete, to make sure there's no porosity problems? and more importantly who do ya think will be paying to build them?? that money could go further in renewable energies, i'm just sayin if we're gonna give our tax money to the nuclear power industry and oil industry and coal industry why not a more sustainable one, too? why piss away our tax money on things that leave radioactive waste we have nowhere to put?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Well, the reason why there are oil rigs in So Cal on the coast is to CAPTURE the oil below ground that would seep through to the ocean floor.
"heat mining has the potential to supply a significant amount of the country's electricity currently being generated by conventional fossil fuel, hydroelectric and nuclear plants."
Soo, geothermal energy has the potential to replace hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants, and coal power plants.
And the gov't is doing nothing about it.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html
http://www.physorg.com/news88683362.html
That's pretty much it. As I understand it, the natural occuring oil deposits off the shore in socal are forced up to the ocean floor, forgot exactly how. I asked my old man one time when we were out there.
But yeah, without the dereks on PCH around that area (if your talking about Long Beach and HB), the oild deposits would be sitting on the ocean floor.