DrTorch Wrote:

RobertN Wrote: It is sad when I read posts like yours. I see your posts as: Me, me, me and now, now, now rather than thinking about a few generations down the road.

I never thought much of your ability to discern what was actually written, so your lamentations don't surprise me.

I'd agree RobertN's comment was completely unwarranted.

At the same time, you have generally been cagey about what you do believe. I think you can fairly be charactarized as being critical of scientists diverging into advocacy, academic fraud, and making policy without having a firm scientific basis. But, what is it that you do believe vis-a-vis the effect of industrial output on a global scale. Do you belive that man is measurably influencing global temperatures? Do you think we will see it reach crisis proportions in our lifetimes? What do you think is at stake with our actions - are you concerned about environmentalism on a local scale, global scale, or both?

I45owl Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

RobertN Wrote: It is sad when I read posts like yours. I see your posts as: Me, me, me and now, now, now rather than thinking about a few generations down the road.

I never thought much of your ability to discern what was actually written, so your lamentations don't surprise me.

I'd agree RobertN's comment was completely unwarranted.

At the same time, you have generally been cagey about what you do believe. I think you can fairly be charactarized as being critical of scientists diverging into advocacy, academic fraud, and making policy without having a firm scientific basis. But, what is it that you do believe vis-a-vis the effect of industrial output on a global scale. Do you belive that man is measurably influencing global temperatures? Do you think we will see it reach crisis proportions in our lifetimes? What do you think is at stake with our actions - are you concerned about environmentalism on a local scale, global scale, or both?

I believe I don't know the answers. I also don't like being played as a sucker, especially by the "scientific" community.

I believe CO2 levels are rising, b/c the data presented seem reliable and have been objectively measured.

I believe that much of the touted global warming has been exaggerated:
I have posted links (possibly available in archives) showing that the Great Lakes froze over a few years back...an event that hadn't happened in decades.
I posted a link to a paper espousing global warming by measuring various land temps around the globe. It also stated that the researchers could not acquire those temps if the ground was frozen. Ergo, if a place that was warm became cold and frozen...it was excluded from the updated data set. That is absurd! A complte biasing of the data!
I posted a link where one researcher took moon reflection data and compared it over some decades. Those data indicated that the Sun was putting out significantly more power. He was chastised by the "scientific" community for publishing "questionable" results and for being "irresponsible"!

I can cite other discrepencies in the current theory and questionable/unethical actions by the scientific community. But, that doesn't prove the theory wrong either... so I don't believe in purposely wasting resources out of defiance or misplaced confidence.

I am concerned about the environment on all scales, and believe that people need to reign in ostentatious waste. I believe that Americans are guilty of much of that waste and need to be prompted to change their ways. Much like what is in the current issue of Wired, I believe capitalism is a key piece of that effort. Success of hybrid vehicles, organic foods, and companies like 7th Generation, show that good can be done in the marketplace.

However, as much as I hate bureaucracy, I think the gov't needs to get involved as well. That is the role of govt: to keep the people safe.
There needs to be a wholistic plan, which includes (at the least):

Energy policy
Reduction in waste
Efficient recycling
R&D

While not neglecting American priorities of:
Safety/health
Economic opportunity
Civil liberties.

No "perfect" plan will do all of this. Someone will feel slighted. neglected or offended. Typically the political right wants to do nothing, the political left wants to wrest control and take charge. Both sides frighten me.

But, that doesn't mean do nothing. I come up w/ plans and keep advocating stuff. Much of it is simple, b/c I tend to do the easy stuff first, and reevaluate the situation to see what's left to be done.

My cursory ideas include:
Figuring a way to "ban" leaf blowers and similar devices. They are loud, poorly tuned engines that pollute alot and use much fuel. Frankly, they aren't really faster than raking, so why not just rake? (and get a little excercise!)

Advocate clothes lines, for the reasons I already stated. A 1500W dryer, plus the motor to tumble and blow air? That's alot of power!

Kill Television. A huge use of electricity that dumbs down people!

Build the infrastructure to use bicycles! Start w/ bike rack zoning ordinances...then include bike lanes...etc. We had no problem building the infrastructure for cars...why should this be so controversial!?

Look for places to institute zoning in of "off the grid" technologies. What if Chicago's western suburbs had the requirement of windmills for every new home? What if standards existed for producing reliable, efficient windmills to meet these ordinances? Hmm....

Find ways of using "brownfields". Make it attractive to build in cities, especially in Middle America. We don't need Phoenix, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, So Cal, Houston, etc growing (and requiring entirely new infrastructures like roads, schools, water treatment/sewer systems, etc) while Muncie, Youngstown, Springfiled (MO), shrink.
This may require "pork" funding. So be it.

Have NIST hold a competition for building the infrastructure for alternative fuel cars. Every team will have car manufacturers and fuel companies(formerly oil companies) and anyone else deemed necessary by a team. The winning design (which may be pieced from various companies) will be certified as the standard so companies can start building to it. The winning companies get the advantage of guaranteed licensing and first to market. The other companies are still allowed to compete b/c licenses MUST be granted.

Require participation based on the windfall profits oil companies are making. (Ugh, would they really resist such an opportunity?)

Recycle spent nuclear waste. This technology exists, but isn't widely known. What are the pros/cons, techological hurdles, etc? Start spending R&D funds to solve the problems.

Revamp the EPA so they do their job which means protecting the environment. Right now they are just a hurdle for business to struggle over, and they HAMPER innovation which would protect the environment.

Ok, don't expect that to solve every problem, it's just a start, and I'm answering your question as to what I believe, and the sort of process that I believe should be used to find new answers.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:I haven't done any research like DrT., but I remember reading newspaper articles about the drop of aquifer levels in Texas. Of course, those were in Texas papers, so only heaven knows what their motivation was in writing those. Probably financed by the anti-water lobby.

TX isn't in the east. Much of it is considered desert southwest. Those concerns are warranted in some places. They are not, however, universal.

DrTorch, some of your ideas are good, but I think some also go against having a free market.

For example, the windmills in Western Chicago sounds like a good idea, but you want the goernment to mandate them. I would think that perhaps giving tax breaks to people who install them would be more in line with a free market. What do you think?

Also, I'll look for data on the great lakes feezing over, but I grew up in Toledo, and I seem to remember Erie freezing almost every year. About ten years ago, I remember walking over the Maumee River downtown (Cherry Street Bridge) and it was frozen. I don't think the lake froze this year, but I think that was the exception. Of course this all may be bull, because I never really paid much attention to when the lakes froze over. I'm just thinking about people going through the ice every year when they were snowmobiling or ice fishing.

Here are some links that may be helpful for the Great Lakes Ice Coverage.
Ice Cover
Ice Cycle
Ice Section

Quote:Past and Present Ice Cover Trends

Twentieth century trends in ice cover, estimated from a model of annual maximum ice cover for winters 1900 to 1962 and direct remotely sensed observations after that, indicate that ice covers were, in general, greater from 1900 to the 1920s and late 1970s to the mid-1990s than in the winters between these periods and at the end of the century (see Figure 4). Ice records on Grand Traverse Bay in Lake Michigan show that the bay has not frozen over in the past five winters, marking the first time in at least 150 years that the bay had five consecutive winters without freeze-up. This regional trend agrees with long-term lake and river ice records over the Northern Hemisphere that show a trend for later freeze-up and earlier break-up dates over the past 150 years.

Quote:Possible Future Ice Cover Trends

Freezing degree-day ice cover models were used to estimate potential ice conditions for Lakes Erie and Superior for global warming scenarios generated from general circulation models of the atmosphere. The ice cover models run under those scenarios indicate winters without mid-lake ice cover, as well as winters with virtually no ice cover at all becoming increasingly more common in the 21st century.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:DrTorch, some of your ideas are good, but I think some also go against having a free market.

For example, the windmills in Western Chicago sounds like a good idea, but you want the goernment to mandate them. I would think that perhaps giving tax breaks to people who install them would be more in line with a free market. What do you think?

You're absolutely right. But, the gov't mandates lots of things at lots of levels. There are building codes, zoning laws, etc. In principle, the free market would rectify problems there too. But, the free market does not follow ideal models, it does not react spontaneously, nor is its knowledge perfect. Sometimes it needs a nudge from the gov't.

Is this issue so important that it should be elevated to statute? That's the debate. I think w/ the wealth available in these suburbs, the taxing of rapid growth on the power infrastructure, and the potential for residents to have power even during outages makes it a "reasonable" proposal. Of course, reasonable is my opinion.

Again, I'm also just trying to toss out my ideas for the process at addressing these problems. Despite RobertN's criticisms, I'm not really sitting back doing nothing.

BTW, did I mention that I compost and use gray water too?

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

ZippyRulz Wrote:There's still a whole lot of water in Lakes Michigan and Superior (probably about the same amount as there was before any US/Canadian industrialization/population growth began )...maybe a good area to locate water-intensive industries as opposed to Texas or Nevada. I still find it amusing that a Texas newspaper wants to throw a wet blanket on alternative fuels and promote pumping more oil instead...go figure. Maybe they're worried less oil use will put a big dent in their economy and they'll have a hard time affording enough water since they've just about run out.

Ah, I see your problem now. Wish i had read it in the Des Moines paper, so you would stop worrying about the source and start thinking of the content. To me, the important thing is to understand the plusses and minuses of ethanol before getting on (or off) the bandwagon. The article started me wondering, that's all, and it would have no matter what paper it was printed in.

If you see an article in the Des Moines paper discouraging the production of ethanol, please post the link...I would like to see that. There are in fact many ethanol refinery projects underway and I'm sure they have thoroughly evaluated the processes and resources (including water) that they will need to operate.

ZippyRulz Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

ZippyRulz Wrote:There's still a whole lot of water in Lakes Michigan and Superior (probably about the same amount as there was before any US/Canadian industrialization/population growth began )...maybe a good area to locate water-intensive industries as opposed to Texas or Nevada. I still find it amusing that a Texas newspaper wants to throw a wet blanket on alternative fuels and promote pumping more oil instead...go figure. Maybe they're worried less oil use will put a big dent in their economy and they'll have a hard time affording enough water since they've just about run out.

Ah, I see your problem now. Wish i had read it in the Des Moines paper, so you would stop worrying about the source and start thinking of the content. To me, the important thing is to understand the plusses and minuses of ethanol before getting on (or off) the bandwagon. The article started me wondering, that's all, and it would have no matter what paper it was printed in.

If you see an article in the Des Moines paper discouraging the production of ethanol, please post the link...I would like to see that. There are in fact many ethanol refinery projects underway and I'm sure they have thoroughly evaluated the processes and resources (including water) that they will need to operate.

If I see a article in the DM paper extolling ethanol and discouraging oil exploration, I will automatically assume that they are biased that way because they are a corn-growing state, just as you automatically assume the FW paper is biased the other way just because Texas has more oil than corn.

All square?

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

JTiger Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:What exactly is methanol?

As for hydrogen, when I hear that all I think is Hindenburg. probably irrational, but the buying public is often irrational.

What do you think gasoline is? It's another flammable material.

It is quite irrational to always link hydrogen with the Hindenburg. Just think if it was filled with gasoline.

Hey, JTiger, look about 5 posts above and you will see that I responded before you even posted. Eerie, huh?

Additional response:
Of course it is irrational to always link hydrogen with the Hindenburg, but I bet if you tried doing a word association test with hundreds of ordinary people on the street, you would get a lot of "hydrogen....Hindenburg". Not as much as "salt....pepper", but a lot more than "gasoline....explosion". Just saying a PR job will have to be done for Hydrogen powered vehicles.

For the record, from now on I will always associate hydrogen with H2O. Nothing irrational about that.

I saw it after I posted. Oops. You are right that there is that word association with it.

Wal-Mart is considering selling E-85.

Link

Lethemeul Wrote:Wal-Mart is considering selling E-85.

Link

If Walmart could figure out a way to sell Nukes, they would.

GrayBeard Wrote:

Lethemeul Wrote:Wal-Mart is considering selling E-85.

Link

If Walmart could figure out a way to sell Nukes, they would.

True, but having the largest retailer on the planet sell your product is a surefire way to mainstream it.