Climate Change

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Wrong

"Bigger cars , maybe, but less so in later years, ( i mean your all driving Jap and German cars anyway!). I still cant understand why modern turbo diesels haven't made a huge inroad into the US. Hence big petrol engines are gone, because the diesels are so much better performers and run cheaper."

First, only about 10 gallons of diesel per barrel of oil is produced by refineries. Csaba Csere: Should American Vehicles go Diesel Just When the World is Running Short of it? – Column – Car and Driver

Second, increased demand for diesel will inevitably drive up the price at the pump faster than gasoline which, depending how the numbers are derived, equal anywhere between 18 and 42 gallons per barrel.Fat Knowledge: How Many Gallons of Gasoline in a Barrel of Oil?

Third, the impetus in policy development and programs best point toward technologies that replace petroleum as the primary energy source in transportation.

Costs at the pumps is a function of taxation. Change the tax structure ,change the price.

Europe isn't running short of it. It exports diesel to the US !

Dave

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by hpeer

There were no facts, only day dreams.

I stated that the worlds food production is more then keeping up with population growth. That's an observation, not a dream. Look up the figures if you want.
I also stated that if we want we have virtually unlimited energy. That depends of course on us wanting enough.

If you are serious about understanding then you need to do some serious reading about how systems are interconnected. An easy read, but very good is "What's the Worse That Could Happen."

Basing policy on the worst that can happen is bad policy. What matters is what will probably happen, not what could happen. It's impossible to be prepared for the worst you can imagine.

But just to take the first example...fish farming. Salmon eat smaller fish, which we are sweeping from the oceans. Tilapia and shrimp farms cause massive mangrove destruction, which destroy ecosystems ans leave areas prone to flooding from storms, wiping out other agriculture.

I never said that the solutions we come up with are pretty, nor that they don't have negative externalities. I'm just saying that we come up with solutions. The switch to agriculture was a big change too, with lots of unintentional consequences...

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by hpeer

If that is not enough, try this, simple applied math, from your friendly physics prof.

Population is not growing exponentially. You point is?

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

What you're expressing above is the result of press releases - which themselves can be a distortion, and media-outlets needing to amp up and oversimplify the story. US news outlets being all commercial enterprises, are the worst (best?) at this - they need stories that will keep people glued to that channel and returning as often as possible. Sensationalism, in other words.

Absolutely spot on.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

If it means no heat in the house over the winter or moving to a warmer climate, no AC in Florida, no hot water, no skiing, no travel, no car I submit you and most of us would opt out (this is where the Kool-Aid part comes in.)

Actually people have been living in Florida without AC for centuries. All that is needed is that the US ( and everyone else) takes the climate in to account when designing houses.
I spend some time in a house in the Australian outback, that was designed to remain cool without AC. It worked. Start by building walls from real stone in stead of plasterboard. My house is built from reinforced concrete (as is the norm here). Stays nicely cool even in a heat wave.
There are houses in Scandinavia that can maintain a pleasant interior climate throughout the depths of winter without needing any heating. Huge savings both in energy used in heating and cooling are easily achieved.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Often great change , good and basic, has come from the action of a few motivated people. I'd argue the number of disinterested people is a lot lower then 99.9 .

Dave

Yes.

This too never stops to fascinate me: history lived by the masses but the course of this history shaped by strong individuals.

I too think the number of the disinterested is (much) lower than that 99.9% BUT I think there is still only 00.1% of less of those that ACT.

b.

[IdoraKeeper]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Boy, ain't that the truth.

Ingrid 38 huh?

Ever hear of Jay Fitzgerald?

Nope, but if he is an Ingrid keeper he's probably my kind of people. Just washing up the bedding and vacuuming up the dirt, getting ready to go. Can't imagine how the kids made such a mess on just a couple of day sails.
I see that Del is getting ready to shove off...guess he wants to go while the getting is good too. Hope he sends pix.

Todd

[Capt Phil]

With a time horizon of less than 2 years before I'm on the wrong side of the grass according my optimistic Dr., I could really give a **** about agm, pc crap, gays in the military or anywhere else for that matter.
I'm just enjoying the new editions of bumper stickers that are nothing if not funny!
You still have to go some to beat the one from years ago up in Oregon on the back of a logging truck that read...'Wipe your ass with a spotted owl'.
Just hope the creativity keeps on rollin' along! Cheers, Phil

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by IdoraKeeper

Nope, but if he is an Ingrid keeper he's probably my kind of people. Just washing up the bedding and vacuuming up the dirt, getting ready to go. Can't imagine how the kids made such a mess on just a couple of day sails.
I see that Del is getting ready to shove off...guess he wants to go while the getting is good too. Hope he sends pix.

Todd

OK then you might enjoy, or just get a chuckle out of his book " sea stealing." In it he has an engineless Ingrid he restores, on the PNW. More philosophy than sailing but a good read.

Sea-Steading: A Life of Hope and Freedom on the Last Viable Frontier: Jerome FitzGerald: 9780595387588: Amazon.com: Books

He now has a site called

Sensible Simplicity Forum: Discussing Sustainability

And a blog at

Sensible Simplicity

[conachair]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Often great change , good and basic, has come from the action of a few motivated people.

Are there any examples of this on a global species level? I can't think of any.
At that scale any change by humans seems to be no more forward thinking than bacteria.

[Krogensailor]

"Are there any examples of this on a global species level? I can't think of any."
Henry Ford
Linus Pauling
Louis Pasture
Christ?
Gandhi
Mother Teresa
Leonardo DaVinci
Al Einstein
Mohammad Ali
And on, and on and on,

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by conachair

Are there any examples of this on a global species level? I can't think of any.
At that scale any change by humans seems to be no more forward thinking than bacteria.

That's my take.

[Krogensailor]

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

It's estimated that each 100 people are influenced, lead, directed by 9 peer group leaders. Are you led or are you leading?

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Krogensailor

Are there any examples of this on a global species level? I can't think of any.
Henry Ford
Linus Pauling
Louis Pasture
Christ?
Gandhi
Mother Teresa
Leonardo DaVinci
Al Einstein
Mohammad Ali
And on, and on and on,

Did you miss the 'global species level' bit?

Some nice toys but still the species is in a complete mess with plague numbers using every limited resource it can lay it's hands on and causing another mass extinction event. No more in control and no less natural than bacteria evolving to put loads of oxygen into the atmosphere.

Reliance on setting fire to hydrocarbons as a source of energy is a perfect example. It takes abut 10 seconds to answer that one. "Is this a good idea for long term stability of the species?" Absolutely not, really really stupid. But we're wired up for survival on the african plains. And act accordingly.
So it goes.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by conachair

Did you miss the 'global species level' bit?

Some nice toys but still the species is in a complete mess with plague numbers using every limited resource it can lay it's hands on and causing another mass extinction event. No more in control and no less natural than bacteria evolving to put loads of oxygen into the atmosphere.

Reliance on setting fire to hydrocarbons as a source of energy is a perfect example. It takes abut 10 seconds to answer that one. "Is this a good idea for long term stability of the species?" Absolutely not, really really stupid. But we're wired up for survival on the african plains. And act accordingly.
So it goes.

One would have to think that the discovery and development of antibiotics might qualify as having a 'global species level' impact since it has saved hundreds of millions of lives, but perhaps you dismiss such events as purely the byproduct of random unthinking influences, and having nothing to do with the actions of a few people, as was Krogensailor's point. Such a dreary view of things you have, Conachair.

And could you fill us in on how exactly the usage of hydrocarbons is so obviously stupid when measured in terms of the impact it has had on civilization, quality of life, longevity of life, etc. etc. etc.?