Homepage Forums Environmental Forums Environmental lobby and civilization

This topic contains 42 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by Avatar Brian H 8 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 13 posts - 31 through 43 (of 43 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #5013
    Avatar
    Brian H
    Member

    Warwick wrote:

    As for farming, there are many ways to skin that carrot; check out urban hi-rise farms, e.g. And FF power makes all sorts of other models viable.


    It could be an idea with a future, but it’s never going to replace what we basically need – soil-grown crops, grown organically and sustainably.

    Ugh. Buzz-word/code-word recommendations that we live in some kind of 18th C dreamland. With, necessarily, the same population levels (say, a billion W/W or so.)
    Fuggedaboudit.
    No-till farming (e.g.) is a good idea because it reduces chemical loading, etc., but in general those who use the term “sustainable” are spouting pure arrogant ignorance, making pronouncements intended to preclude future and even current processes they have no comprehension of. With cheap enough power, it would be possible to do hugely productive (and yes, fully mineralized, etc.) hydroponics and husbandry in underground caverns, or anywhere at all.

    #5014
    Avatar
    dash
    Member

    Brian H wrote: but in general those who use the term “sustainable” are spouting pure arrogant ignorance,

    Arrogant ignorance, you say?

    #5023
    Avatar
    Warwick
    Member

    Rezwan wrote:

    Except that many people would be perfectly justified, in today’s world, to correctly assume that someone else will have your job if you don’t kill yourself working. And the idea that “the hoarding survivalist generations will pass” supposes incorrectly that long work-weeks are a voluntary choice on behalf of the employed.

    By “hoarding survivalist generation” – I didn’t mean it was their voluntary choice, but they have been conditioned. Of course, circumstances have to change first. We have to be in a defacto world of effectively unlimited resources, such as one with unlimited energy…

    Wait. No, that’s not it. Maybe we’re all hoarders, no matter what. Human nature. I think there’s plenty to go around now if we weren’t such hoarders. But you see how shrill people get when someone tries to suggest sharing and such. So, I don’t think, given our nature, we can share. The only solution is to not have to share, to live in a world of unlimited resources. In other words, I guess I give up on people. They are at heart, little petty creatures. Who really make things unpleasant for each other. So let them drown in sugar and abundance!

    Hmm. That’s depressing. I didn’t realize the implications of my thoughts. I must meditate on this. I don’t think it’s coming from a good place.

    “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed” – Gandhi

    Shrillness, yeah. I can tell you must have to put up with a lot of that in the US over healthcare and such right now, reading the news. But I don’t think it’s a reflection on human nature, more like just the fact that a vocal minority can have a disproportionate slice of the airwaves. There’s good and bad in everyone. It’s true that a lot of people are easily led, or conditioned, one way or another, unfortunately. But in the long run there’s reason to hope as well. Don’t underestimate the power of ideas.

    #5024
    Avatar
    Warwick
    Member

    Brian H wrote:
    Ugh. Buzz-word/code-word recommendations that we live in some kind of 18th C dreamland. With, necessarily, the same population levels (say, a billion W/W or so.)
    Fuggedaboudit.

    http://www.soilassociation.org/Whyorganic/Climatefriendlyfoodandfarming/Reports/tabid/387/Default.aspx

    Sustainable means that – sustainable. Capable of feeding the world, on a sustainable basis. Intensive arable farming leads to soil erosion and podsolization. Intensive pastoral farming is the reason that food for humans is too expensive for the poorest.

    #5210
    Avatar
    Warwick
    Member

    about jellies / jellyfish predators

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.10.018
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/invasion-of-the-jellyfish-the-secret-life-of-stingers-411502.html
    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/10/plastic_bags/
    http://www.marineconnection.org/archives/marine_impacts/plasticbag.htm
    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/jellyfish_environmental_indicator.php

    We don’t know whether the jelly increase is more due to climate change or predator decrease, but it seems inevitable that the latter should have had an impact. We know that their predators have declined. This could be due to pollution, overfishing impacts or plastic bags. Autopsies implicate plastic bags as one significant cause of death.

    #6434
    Avatar
    Brian H
    Member

    Warwick wrote:

    Sustainable means that – sustainable. Capable of feeding the world, on a sustainable basis. Intensive arable farming leads to soil erosion and podsolization. Intensive pastoral farming is the reason that food for humans is too expensive for the poorest.

    No, it doesn’t. It pre-defines “sustainable” to equate to some partimular model of agriculture, life-style, etc., with zero comprehension of technology and what the known and unknown alternatives might be. It’s a “freeze in place” code-word, with the place designed by the speaker.

    Back to the vertical farms: you didn’t read much. They’re not pure or mostly hydroponics. They use soil, and have many innovations which are entirely healthy.

    Anyhow, “sustainability” advocates haven’t the faintest what either man or the planet can sustain.

    #6435
    Avatar
    Brian H
    Member

    The Idiocy of Green Authoritarianism:

    Working in a Green Certified Building

    Apparently working in a certified “Green Building” might not be all that fun:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
    content/article/2010/04/29/AR2010042905052.html

    No word on strawberries

    About 100 or so lawyers at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are in the midst of a move and will become the first tenants in a new building a couple of blocks down from the headquarters on First Street NE. Since FERC regulates electricity, natural gas and oil transmission, the commission appears most anxious that its offices meet the independent U.S. Green Building Council’s certification standards.

    “FERC is subject to unannounced inspections at any time to ensure that all” the standards are met, a move notice explained, so the office site must be “clean and orderly all day, every day.” Deviation “from the plan to reduce paper waste and personal items,” the instructions say, “will risk our . . . certification.”

    They assume, correctly, that lawyers are highly skilled deviators, so the “Move Do’s and Don’ts Guide” is specific: “Prohibited items: Air Purifiers; clock radios and docking stations; coffee grinders; coffee makers; fans of any size; heaters of any size; humidifiers of any size; lamps of any kind; microwaves; personally owned printers; refrigerators; tea pots of any size; toasters; water coolers.”

    You’re advised not to take personal books and documents with you on the move. And forget about the plants.

    “Foliage will be strictly monitored within the [new] space due to requirements stipulated by the level of . . . certification,” the instruction says. But a “reasonable amount of small plants are permitted on window sills. Plants are not permitted in common use spaces such as the reception areas.” Take home “excess plants.” (Loop warning: Small plants have a tendency to grow. You’ll want to keep the pruners handy.)

    Also, we’re told there’ll be no electric pencil sharpeners. Switch to mechanical pencils, or maybe bring a small knife to whittle a decent point. “No electronic tea makers will be allowed, tea can be made utilizing water and the microwaves provided.” By implication, you’re allowed a cup and maybe a saucer, possibly some sugar.

    And a long tradition of gathering to gossip at the water cooler is over. “No water coolers will be allowed” in the new space, the guide says, because of certification standards. But “each [approved] refrigerator is equipped with a filtered water spout on the inside to resolve this issue.”

    So, as soon as that formaldehyde-like smell dissipates, let’s meet by the fridge?

    Karl

    Fortunately FF will render all of that irrelevant.

    But the building will be a true monument to the demented evil of self-righteous bureaucracy, while it lasts.

    #6436
    Avatar
    Warwick
    Member

    “Fortunately FF will render all of that irrelevant. “

    Hopefully it will be rendered irrelevant, but if it is, it will be by a popular social recognition of responsibility so that explicit rules and inspections are not longer needed. It’s going to be many years before anything of any description replaces all the already-built fossil plant in the world.
    You know it’s the Washington Post when they assume that absent an electric pencil sharpener you would have to just go back to the jungle and start carving with a knife, that was the funny bit for me… it’s like they go out of their way to be lame.

    Would that be the same demented self-righteous bureaucracy that would be involved in preventing oil slicks?
    http://www.gregpalast.com/slick-operator-the-bp-ive-known-too-well/
    If not having 1000 miles of devastation is crazy, perhaps we should sometimes be more keen to talk crazy.

    #6440
    Avatar
    Brian H
    Member

    Warwick wrote: “Fortunately FF will render all of that irrelevant. “

    Hopefully it will be rendered irrelevant, but if it is, it will be by a popular social recognition of responsibility so that explicit rules and inspections are not longer needed. It’s going to be many years before anything of any description replaces all the already-built fossil plant in the world.
    You know it’s the Washington Post when they assume that absent an electric pencil sharpener you would have to just go back to the jungle and start carving with a knife, that was the funny bit for me… it’s like they go out of their way to be lame.

    Would that be the same demented self-righteous bureaucracy that would be involved in preventing oil slicks?
    http://www.gregpalast.com/slick-operator-the-bp-ive-known-too-well/
    If not having 1000 miles of devastation is crazy, perhaps we should sometimes be more keen to talk crazy.

    As I mentioned elsewhere, this was a first-ever explosion of a hugest-ever gas bubble, probably. There are no extant or plausible standards that would have prevented it. Not even gubmint ones. Not to mention, of course, the theory that it was caused by a torpedo from a N.Korean sub that mysteriously disappeared from Cuban waters a few days earlier … :bug: :cheese: :ahhh:

    The platform and its safety standards were state-of-the-art, and saved all but the immediately vaporized workers.

    The oil in the slick is coming from very deep down, very hard to get at. It will probably be capped or “domed” and controlled shortly.

    #6442
    Avatar
    Warwick
    Member

    Do read the link, I think it’s interesting information, whether you agree with the political inferences at the end or not. It’s not about preventing the explosion (though it does mention that) but about how BP were supposed to have a containment team ready, and did not.

    #6443
    Avatar
    Rezwan
    Member

    Brian H wrote:

    …Sustainable means that – sustainable. Capable of feeding the world, on a sustainable basis.

    No, it doesn’t. It pre-defines “sustainable” to equate to some partimular model of agriculture, life-style, etc., with zero comprehension of technology and what the know and unknown alternatives might be. It’s a “freeze in place” code-word, with the place designed by the speaker.

    Partimular, you say?

    Interesting use of pronouns. “no, it doesn’t” – “it” refers to “sustainable means…”
    Then, “It predefines…” – what is “it” there?

    I suspect the second “it” would be “some folks”. Well, OK, some folks do. I have come across people who want to freeze some idealized life-style in place, but they aren’t ALL folks, and certainly, they don’t have exclusive rights to the word.

    I likewise used to think of “sustain” as limiting – keeping everything the same. I thought it meant “unchanging, forever”. Which I found unsatisfying, because I am comfortable with a dynamic model of the environment, and was actually hoping to “improve” the environment, as measured by increasing habitats, lushness, biodiversity, etc. “sustain” to me meant, this is as good as it gets, let’s not lose any more ground, zero sum with human population and resource use.

    But it doesn’t really mean that. You don’t need to limit yourself to that. You don’t need to pretend that others are limiting themselves.

    Of course, you don’t need to pile all that onto the poor word. It has a simple job, just addressing resilience and continuity. From a dictionary:

    sustain |səˈstān|
    verb [ trans. ]
    1 strengthen or support physically or mentally : this thought had sustained him throughout the years | [as adj. ] ( sustaining) a sustaining breakfast of bacon and eggs.
    cause to continue or be prolonged for an extended period or without interruption : he cannot sustain a normal conversation | [as adj. ] ( sustained) several years of sustained economic growth.
    bear (the weight of an object) without breaking or falling : he sagged against her so that she could barely sustain his weight | figurative his health will no longer enable him to sustain the heavy burdens of office.
    2 undergo or suffer (something unpleasant, esp. an injury) : he died after sustaining severe head injuries.
    3 uphold, affirm, or confirm the justice or validity of : the allegations of discrimination were sustained.

    #6444
    Avatar
    Rezwan
    Member

    Brian H wrote: The Idiocy of Green Authoritarianism:

    About 100 or so lawyers at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are in the midst of a move and will become the first tenants in a new building a couple of blocks down from the headquarters on First Street NE. Since FERC regulates electricity, natural gas and oil transmission, the commission appears most anxious that its offices meet the independent U.S. Green Building Council’s certification standards.

    “FERC is subject to unannounced inspections at any time to ensure that all” the standards are met, a move notice explained, so the office site must be “clean and orderly all day, every day.” Deviation “from the plan to reduce paper waste and personal items,” the instructions say, “will risk our . . . certification.”

    But the building will be a true monument to the demented evil of self-righteous bureaucracy, while it lasts.

    You’re really not getting into the spirit of adventure here. This is an experiment! These guys are going to see down to the the tiniest detail how well this thing works (or doesn’t) And who better to be subject to this experiment than those who work for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission?

    Of course, I have to tell you that America is already well ahead in the invasive bureaucracy category. Most building permit and inspection rules are for safety, and that’s great. But you have a lot of really invasive policies that are purely aesthetic. Mostly to do with “blight”. Quite a few of them go in the other direction, like that lady who wants to hang her washing out to dry. Clotheslines are banned by the homeowner’s association. So they’ve fined her over $900.

    I think all office buildings have long and complicated rules. Every office I’ve been to seems to be a conservative place, and the owners are always trying to save money – putting in annoying fluorescent lights and so forth. Plants – often frowned on. Some go so far as to tell you how to decorate the space, putting limits on personal items. And of course, there’s a dress code.

    These things all relax over use, as the impracticalities come out. Your fears are misplaced.

    #7331
    Avatar
    Brian H
    Member

    Rezwan, back to your riding a horse to the next town wish:

    “”My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
    about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
    and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,
    returning throughout the world.”
    -Dave Foreman,
    co-founder of Earth First! “

    Ah, bucolic perfection, indeed!

    (But my question for Dave is the same as I have for Jehovah’s Witnesses: ‘What makes you think YOU’LL be one of the Elect?’)

    Estimates vary, of course:

    “A total population of 250-300 million people,
    a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
    – Ted Turner,
    founder of CNN and major UN donor

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
    more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
    – Club of Rome,
    Goals for Mankind

    Misanthropy can be SUCH fun once you get into the spirit of it! :cheese:

Viewing 13 posts - 31 through 43 (of 43 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.