Recently, in the post "Global Warming and the vision thing," I criticized the use of numbers in advocating policies, arguing instead on behalf of concrete images. Jon Warnow, a Step It Up 2007 organizer, responded to my post, and I thought it would be appropriate to give him the benefit of a separate post, along with my reply:
In Defense of the Numbers
As an organizer that worked on the Step It Up 2007 efforts on April 14th, I am one of the global warming activists that is guilty of having "advocated policies based on numerical goals" as Jon Rynn observes. As a decentralized, synchronized protest in 1400 communities across America, Step It Up was indeed built around a very specific, very numerical call to action: "Step It Up Congress! Cut Carbon 80% by 2050." The author argues that "nothing turns people off like a bunch of numbers" and let me be the first to say that as a general rule, I agree with Mr. Rynn's general stance--as activists, environmentalists, and good citizens we need a story that conveys an aspirational vision for a clean energy future.
However, with all due respect to Mr. Rynn, let me go on to explain break down the reasons behind our very deliberate choice of a numerical message:
1)We are playing a legislative game.
Given the gravity of the problem, the short time scale we have to fix it, and the resources necessary to make the systemic changes we so desperately need, our only option is to pass national policies to move us towards the vision of the clean energy future that Mr. Rynn describes. Right now, there are a half a dozen climate-change bills being discussed in Congress. The greatest danger is that our leaders pass weak legislation--say, cutting greenhouse gas emissions 50% by 2050. We'll then end up with a placated citizenry and a self-satisfied Congress that hasn't developed a plan based on targets informed by the best science. Given this danger, we thought that the most strategic thing to do would be to align our message with the long-term goals of the most ambitious legislation that's out there--bills that call for cutting carbon 80% by 2050. When the hundreds of pictures from Step It Up actions started pouring into Congressional offices, our leaders knew exactly what we were demanding them to do.
2)Numbers keep it short.
As activists, it would be wonderful to be able to tell our vision of a clean-energy future to our politicians and the media--it's a narrative that needs to be heard. But here is the sad reality: in today's rapid-fire political and media culture, we simply don't have time. Mr. Rynn's laudable vision comes in at nearly 1000 words--what we needed was a message that could be painted on a banner or encapsulated in a sound-bite on the evening news.
3)Numbers keep it specific.
You might be thinking "surely we can come up with a slogan that is short enough and not so boring and wonky." As an intellectual exercise, let's try: how about "Clean Energy For America's Future" It's positive and appealing, they can be painted on a banner or described succinctly on the nightly news. But it is extremely susceptible to co-option and vastly differing interpretations. If we picked such a message we'd get congresspeople saying "I couldn't agree more--that's why I support massive investment in 'clean coal' technologies over the next 10 years." Being wonky means you're being specific, which makes you far more resistant to this kind of message mangling and sabotage that we see from politicians and corporations alike.
4)Numbers convey scope.
The citizens who engaged in the Step It Up campaign were not climate scientists--but they knew that global warming was a huge problem that demanded huge solutions. "Cut Carbon 80% by 2050" conveys a simple, very important, very compelling idea: we need to fundamentally transform the way energy is produced and consumed in our society. Embedded in the supposedly boring numbers is the scope of change, a paradigm shift that people intuitively know we need to tackle this problem. Sure, 2050 is far away, but it's obvious to anyone (including those who crafted carbon-cutting legislation) that to get to 80% reductions we'll need to begin this transformation immediately and have interim caps and targets along the way.
5)Numbers make it credible.
One of our greatest assets in the movement against global warming is that the basic science is unequivocal, and attempts to refute it look more pathetic and desperate with every passing day. 80% reductions by 2050 was not a goal picked out of thin air--they are the targets that the latest and best science tell us that we need. With credible truth in increasingly short supply in our politically-charged culture, invoking peer-reviewed, scientific research makes our demands far more difficult to discredit.
Mr. Rynn says that "just saying cut emissions by so-and-so percent by such-and-such a date has the problem, I feel, that it sidesteps the important social debate we need to have, which is how we get to those numbers." I respectfully disagree--rather than sidestepping that debate, I believe the numbers force us to have it. With the numbers in place, we are now challenged to develop the compelling vision that will allow us to reach our boring numeric targets. By triggering this sort of collective visioning, we can truly engage in an ongoing conversation (and societal transformation) that is long-overdue.
Thanks for your comment, Jon, I think it was a clear, readable explanation of the motivations behind the 80% reduction by 2050 idea. I'd like to respond to your points:
1) You raise an important issue -- how to push through something now -- which brings me to my favorite Al Gore quote:
"The maximum that seems politically feasible still falls far short of the minimum that would be effective in solving the crisis."
I think it is important to have both those who are attentive to what can be done now and those who point the way to long-term, but currently politically infeasible, goals. This has sometimes been called the reform/radical divide, but with a twist: an 80% reduction in carbon emissions is quite radical, but my criticism is that, from what I have seen, the means proposed to get there are not up to the task. Which brings me to ...
2) ... keeping it short. You are correct that my post was 1,000 words, not good for a banner or 15-second soundbite. Chip Heath, who I quote in the post as advising using "concrete images," also advised to "keep it simple." When you are talking about changing a civilization, it's hard to keep it simple, so to combine keeping it short, with the next point ...
3) ... keeping it specific, let me try one: "Replace cars with trains" (or, a little less in your face, "make cars unnecessary"). This is short and pretty simple. The problem, as I'm sure you could explain to me, is that the American public is totally unprepared for this; in fact, the environmental movement is unprepared. But I would argue that even many big oil companies and their research arms would admit that by 2050 gasoline will be much more expensive, and many argue that by then transportational fuels, even with biofuels, will make automobiles a luxury.
Another short but snappy phrase is "replace coal with wind and solar." If governments at all levels simply built wind and solar energy systems, this would be reasonably fast, but would run into the conventional wisdom that the government should not intervene directly in the economy. So ...
4) ... considering the scope of the problem, one of the criticisms of the global warming movement so far is that the solutions do not quite seem up to the job. One of the advantages of "radical" proposals, such as replacing cars with trains, is that many problems can be solved at the same time: without cars, suburbia must be transformed into towns and cities, and with that comes more community, which Bill McKibben has waxed eloquently about. Wind and solar energy not only replace coal, but makes electrified public transit sustainable. But again, to tell Americans -- or even the Chinese -- that cars will no longer be practical is quite a leap. However, the mainstream media has yet to tackle the problem of fossil fuels being depleted, which makes it even more difficult to talk to the public about 2050, both from a climate point of view and an energy point of view, which brings us to ...
5) ... numbers are necessary -- a good start is on your site, How can we cut carbon 80% by 2050? -- and I hope there will be a zesty debate on what types of transportation/energy/agriculture/manufacturing systems will be possible and should be built. I sincerely hope that you are right and that campaigns such as "80% by 2050" lead to this wider debate of how to get to 80% reductions.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations
Comments
View as Threaded
sunflower Posted 7:58 am
25 May 2007
It's like knowing about global warming for decades. It's like screaming under water.
Coal electricity is not cheap. Solar energy is not expensive. We are not in a box.
Permalink
JMG Posted 8:26 am
25 May 2007
We can't afford to settle for the half-loaf here, so we need concrete, nailed-to-the-mast goals that are absolutely crystal clear. 80% is good.
BUT MUCH BETTER than "80% by 2050" is AN ANNUAL GOAL, because an annual goal means that progress, or lack thereof, is immediately perceptible on a scale when a course change can work.
So, using round figures, imagine that we have 42 years (2050-2008) to cut GHG emissions by 87.5% (the rich countries have to do more than the overall global 80% if the poor countries are going to have any slack for their emissions).
That's three "halving periods" of 14 years each -- that means, every 14 years, we have to reduce the emissions level at the end of the period by 50% compared to the beginning of the period. Using the rule of 70, that means a reduction of 5% per year gets us where we need to be.
Starting in 2008 with emissions of X gigatons from all the wealthy countries, we reach 1/2X in 2022, 1/4X in 2036, and 1/8X (12.5%) in 2050, just by maintaining a constant 5% decrease in emissions.
Not only is 5% a lot more useful as an immediate goal, it's a lot less intimidating to folks--people who throw up their hands at goals like 80% or 50% can imagine succeeding at reductions of 5%. It's much like diet psychology--the worst thing you can do is set a huge goal for next summer ... nothing happens when you do that. Better to set very small goals that can be attained on short time frames.
5% is also nice because it means that any business or organization that wants to break it down even further can simply set a month-to-month goal of 1/2% greenhouse gas reduction each month, with the extra 1% as a "stretch goal" that helps accommodate the inevitable reversals and learning that occurs with organizational behavior change.
The other nice thing about 5% a year is that it is very underaggressive at first; the rich countries are so wasteful of energy that there is a LOT of low-hanging fruit around; when people understand that you are serious about 5% annual reductions, they will set about finding their reductions and realize that 5% isn't even all that hard (at first anyway). It's a much better psychology -- start people with attainable goals. 1,000 mile journeys and single steps and all that.
Finally, the other nice thing about 5% a year is that it's a metric that each and every one of us can use in every part of our life-- that is, it's not a societal goal that's out of each person's hands, the way an 80% goal is. (People can't yet imagine using 80% less energy than they do today--it's too terrifying. But they can imagine making small changes that add up to 5%, and once you get them doing those things, they can be hooked into the program, because it "pays off" in the rewards area.
So yes, let's use a number: 5%. Forget about talking about 80%---talk about something attainable: 5% less each year.
We can start a 5% campaign, develop utility campaigns targeted at 5% annual drop in fossil fuel usage (we will need decoupling for this, and to turn all our utilities into SERVICE companies rather than SUPPLY companies), teach kids in schools how to monitor the school's energy consumption and to plot the 5% decline curve, measure number of jet flights from each airport and cap them at 5% less each year, etc.
(The beauty part is that this falls nicely in line with Colin Campbell and Richard Heinberg's Oil Depletion protocol, which calls for each nation to reduce its oil imports by the global oil decline rate, which seems likely to be between 2-8%, depending on how lucky we get. So it's another confluence where what we have to do for peak oil is also what we have to do for climate change.)
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:11 am
25 May 2007
So here is an attempt at meeting midway -- JMG proposes 50% cut every 14 years. Let's have a huge building campaign that is scheduled to end every 14 years (or pick another number if it's better), during which time co2 emissions might not even go down, and at the end of each 14 year period we have our Voila! moment.
I think we are worried about two different publics. The one I am more worried about is the public that at least somewhat understands the enormity of the situation, and is willing to think about a long-term solution, say resulting in, what I realize is a complete reversal of the post--World War II suburbanization of this country. The other public, the one you (plural) seem to be worried about, is the public that is somewhat aware of the problem, but you feel would be scared by big, radical civilizational shifts such as I am proposing (although maybe after being battered by gas prices, things might change a little). Perhaps a fairly detailed (with lots of wiggle room) periodization would appeal to both publics.
I want to also strongly endorse folding in peak oil concerns with global warming concerns. The two, it seems to me, are natural "allies", and lead to the same conclusion -- we need to build a fossil-fuel free society.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 10:40 am
25 May 2007
Global warming mitigation should focus on the elimination of dirty coal products.
Permalink
Andrew Kerins Posted 11:02 am
25 May 2007
The thing I like most about Warnow's response is the inclusion of the "paradigm shift" language. Giving the cause numerical goals does provide a vision with scope that is both specific and credible. But I don't think Warnow goes far enough, and perhaps this what Rynn was getting at (or perhaps I'm grossly over-estimating my synthesis skills).
To me the debate needs to start off with a discussion of values. Things like innovation, self-reliance, sustainability, and adaptation are all core values that can appeal to most Americans (you could even throw in security if you want). This framing should be the starting point, and the numbers should follow to help provide that specific direction. But we are letting someone else define the problem, and a paradigm shift wont happen until we take control of how the issue is framed.
And no, this reframing does not initially address the problems of offering choices to change one's behavior to be more environmental. But it does start another discussion on what are the values for different groups of people. At least then we can all acknowledge what we have in common, but then also be able to work towards what makes us different.
Permalink
Kevin Palmer Posted 11:40 am
25 May 2007
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:40 am
25 May 2007
In my original original post, "Global warming and the vision thing", I was arguing that instead of numeric goals, we try to create concrete images of what a sustainable society would look like. I would therefore second Andrew's attempt at "synthesis" between a concrete image and numbers.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:10 pm
25 May 2007
"Hot Dry Rock" Geothermal
Series Plugin Hybrids
Fully Electric Cars
NanoLithium Batteries
Ultra Capacitors
Stop building coal plants
Stop doing liquid biofuels
Stop doing hydrogen fuel cells
Start doing energy effeciency (i.e. Negawatts)
Start planting more trees
Work the kinks out of Terra Preta
Less Cattle
Intelligent Electricity Grid (i.e. Electranet)
Combined Cycle Solar Power
Vertical Axis Wind
Pumped Hydro Storage
Compressed Air Storage
Flow Batteries
Zinc Oxide Fuel Cell Storage
BioMethane
Direct Carbon Fuel Cells
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 12:21 pm
25 May 2007
"Film at 11."
I just left a message on the '20% by 2020/vision thing' thread, so felt compelled to throw my 2 cents in here, too.
When I was in graduate school I did substitute teaching 3 days a week. I came to the conclusion that everyone should perform that duty for one week, and the revelation would inform their attitude for the rest of their lives. School administrators should be required to do it for one month every year, for their entire careers, for the same revelatory education.
My point is numbers need to apply to real, practical things that the average person can act on. We as planners and advocates lose sight of that need and should take a week to re-educate ourselves. How big is a 'light-year'? What is a 'parsec'? How long was the Silurian? All of these are completely mind-numbing abstractions, guaranteed to glaze eyeballs.
How does the individual help achieve 20% by 2020, or 80% by 2050? What practical steps can the individual take? Use all the numbers you need--but make the nouns and verbs real world terms.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:27 pm
25 May 2007
Light rail
Subways
High-speed rail
Towns/cities:
Transit-oriented development
Traditional Neighborhood development
Mixed use zoning
Green building
Permalink
JMG Posted 12:51 pm
25 May 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 12:56 pm
25 May 2007
*Network of destination-tied walking/biking "streets", not just mere recreational "trails"
*PV on every roof
*Distributed decentralized generation of electricity
*individual small wind turbines where practical
*Wind farms carefully located and responsibly operated
*Chicken in every pot (organic free-range of course)
*Solar domestic water heaters on every roof
*Residential areas promoting produce gardening plots
Hmmm... no numbers....
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
JMG Posted 1:09 pm
25 May 2007
The techheads on this blog alone would gladly fill volumes with their enthusiasm for alternatives to the fossil fueled ICE, so I'm not ready to concede that we won't have any personal transport in 2050.
I sure know that it's not something we have to worry about now--we have MAYBE 10 years to make a serious change in direction, and the one way to immobilize us is to say "But that means WE HAVE TO CHANGE EVERYTHING!! AUUUGGGGHHH!"
No, we don't. For the first seven-ten years in the US, we just have to become as efficient as our competitors in Japan and Germany.
And "The 5% Solution" would be the motivation needed to ban the incandescent bulb, which is one simple change that would be an immediate huge step towards a 5% reduction.
Want another big chunk of mostly painless reduction? Outlaw long-haul trucking for freight. No freight may move by truck a greater distance than the combined distance from shipper to railhead and from railhead to destination. Outlaw deadheading, and require that trucks unable to secure a load head to the nearest railhead to be loaded before returning.
Outlaw idling diesels by mandating that all semis and buses install the onboard generators needed to power the oil heaters and auxiliary equipment. Better to burn gas in a Honda generator than to run a gigantic Peterbilt engine to do the same work.
Of course, we can get a HUGE immediate payback by returning to the 55 mph maximum speed limit; if you outlaw super long-haul trucking, a lot of the argument against the lower speeds goes away anyway.
Mandate that all cars and trucks be equipped with the little flashing light valve stem caps that trip on if the tire drops more than 4 psi below the setpoint.
Heck, you could follow the states that still don't allow self-serv gasoline (Oregon and NJ(?) if I recall correctly) and require that every fillup include a free tire-pressure check, an oil check, and an airfilter inspection (built into the gas price). This would be good for the economy and for our gas economy.
There's a TON of things that would send us on the way towards our goals--we just need to get started.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:07 pm
25 May 2007
...I would be willing to back off the "cars will disappear" track, and trade that for some serious consideration of public transit...it even got a vote in Salt Lake City! So, that could be a 5% here and there, me thinks...
Permalink
Kevin Palmer Posted 2:47 pm
25 May 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:07 pm
25 May 2007
Mostly because we need to avoid Jevons Paradox.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 3:50 pm
25 May 2007
For all the gains of the environmental movement (clean air, water, etc.), the price is that "environmentalist" is now often associated in the public mind with negative images (treehugger, latte-drinking elitist, promoter of regulations and restrictions).
If we want to get serious about creating a movement to tackle global warming, we need to be very careful about we proceed and the image we want to project to bring the public around to our side.
I think the best way to move forward is not to dictate to people what they can't do or how much gas they can use. That will soon alienate and polarize the very people we need and provide ample fodder to the right-wing pundits. (As an example, I heard Rush blame global warming on the enviros for protesting nukes.)
Instead we need to find ways to work with ordinary people to co-create the kind of society we would all like to live in. People already know we're screwing the planet. They need people to help show them a way out of the morass and dead-end of our current system. That can only involve more democracy and more vision and less prescription.
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:20 pm
25 May 2007
Instead we need to find ways to work with ordinary people to co-create the kind of society we would all like to live in. People already know we're screwing the planet. They need people to help show them a way out of the morass and dead-end of our current system. That can only involve more democracy and more vision and less prescription. (emphasis added).
Um, ok. Since "more democracy and more vision and less prescription" are the only things that will do, please explain how to operationalize those things.
For instance, where do we look to "find ways to work with ordinary people" (my bride insists I'm quite ordinary at best, so I'm curious about who is going to be finding ways to work with me)?
Speaking of democracy, doesn't this thread sort of typify democracy? A bunch of people get together to share ideas and concerns and develop proposals for responding to important threats to the community--what's so undemocratic about that? Please advise how could it be more democratic?
I have to say I'm experiencing quite a negative response to your "lurking dangers of elitism" and the concerns you express. Apparently you place more weight on the opinions of right wing gasbags than I do.
Moreover, I find it incomprehensible that you think that the gains you mention (clean air, water, etc.) are even on the same scale as a negative public perception in a society constantly bombarded with messages extolling consumption and denigrating restraint and self-discipline.
Which is a fancy way to say, who cares that some people might be miffed to be told that business as usual can't go on? When we build a culture around gluttony and waste, we shouldn't be surprised that people advocating a different path might get some resistance.
Finally, I strongly disagree that "people already know we're screwing the planet." You'd be surprised. There are A LOT of people in America who still think that government is looking out for them (I know, this kills me too, but I've seen it enough to know that it's real). In other words, there are a LOT more people than you realize who actually take their cues from government, particularly in interpreting the ABSENCE of government condemnations and warnings as "well, it must be OK then."
For example, there's a ridiculous number of people in America who believe, against all evidence, that government monitors the safety of the food supply and the pharmaceutical industry. I daresay MOST Americans think that doctors have to have studies showing that a treatment is safe and effective before using it (totally wrong).
Why do you think the fossil fuels gang is so adamant about trying to keep government from forming a consensus that we have to respond to climate change? It's not because they don't want us to suffer needless social stigma and the opprobrium of asshats like Limbaugh. They don't want government consensus to crystallize because they profit from business as usual and want it to continue, period, and they see that consensus as a threat to business as usual. In other words, people raising their voice and saying "This can't go on" frightens them. So of course they fight back with every tool (gasbag) whom they sponsor.
SO I think your concern is completely trivial compared to the reality that we're in deep resource overshoot and the effluvia of our society threatens to cause climate destabilization with totally unforeseeable consequences (though, on net, they probably aren't good).
If caring enough to want to make the kind of substantive policy changes needed to respond to this makes me an elitist, then by god I'll wear that badge proudly.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
dotcommodity Posted 4:21 pm
25 May 2007
Permalink
dotcommodity Posted 4:26 pm
25 May 2007
Breaking !!! R's Get Clue On CO2:Fund EVs
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/2/14273/83427
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:48 pm
25 May 2007
Breaking !!! R's Get Clue On CO2:Fund EVs
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/2/14273/83427
Nifty link there. Got one of those of my own :)
greyfalcon.net/electriccars.png
Although it looks like we can't expect full production of the Chevy Volt until 2011.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGH0hedjW6Y
While I love the Series Plugin Hybrid architecture of the Volt, I find that it's more-so just a good talking piece to get people jived about Phoenix's push into the S-PHEV market.
I'm also pretty hyped up about the fact that Phoenix plans to make an SUV model in 2008 which they say will be "in the low $30 thousands"
Combine that with the $6000 Clean Air Act subsidy, and the Phoenix SUV, and Miles Javlon start looking like they can compete head to head with the price of a Prius.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:48 pm
25 May 2007
Permalink
Tod Posted 4:49 pm
25 May 2007
80 by 50 is not enough soon enough.
Sorry, but we have to do more.
All jet travel, for starters, must go.
"Because the world doesn't matter if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - Julio Cortazar
http://www.todbrilliant.com
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:57 pm
25 May 2007
There is no practical replacement for intercontinental travel.
Not to mention, air travel is a relatively small piece to worry about.
There's far bigger fish to fry.
_
The most practical first step is to demand that no new coal fired power plants are built unless they can prove that carbon capture and storage works.
(Or basically unless they make the coal plant so expensive that other alternatives can beat it out on raw cost alone)
_
Next after that would be to reappropriate funding from biofuels and hydrogen projects towards electric cars.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:54 pm
25 May 2007
Of course Jon Warnow of Step It Up is right, the numbers have to be there, right away, as soon as a question is asked.
But do they need to be on posters and bumper-stickers?
As for Jon Rynn (is it not a beautiful coincidence, that we have these two environmentalist leaders, named for one of the greatest homosexual lovers of the Bible?), that quote from Al Gore, about the distance between "the maximum possible" and "the minimum necessary," frankly frightens me. I am encouraged, Jon Rynn, by your unfailing optimism.
JMG's approach makes a great deal of sense: the short-term 5% goal is psychologically more sensitive, and is likely to be more practical. (And for all we know, JMG is yet another Jonathan.) But of course, the 80% goal needs to be transparently available.
To Sustainable David: That chicken most certainly does not belong in that pot! The whole point of all this is to save the chickens, and everybody else, etc. How about, four balls of falafel in every pot, with whole-wheat pita on the side?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:03 pm
25 May 2007
Some years ago, a friend of mine sent me a subscription to a strange little hand-copied montlhy zine called "The Spotted Chicken Report," which was created by a woman named Jeanne Hardy, now deceased, whose tag line was "Saving the world starting with the Spotted Chickens, because you have to start somewhere!"
It was a wonderful, quirky little thing, her meditations, letters, funny drawings, news about her dogs and cats, and always lots about her chickens. She was living in a ramshackle cabin in the boonies of Okanagan County in upper Central Washington., making a living off her wits and by selling eggs, catnip that she grew, and doing other odd jobs. Very sad when she passed on.
I gather you live in NYC area -- might be someone in that vast metropolis who has saved their copies, or a library or something. You might look for it sometime. A real original.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:44 pm
25 May 2007
By the way, not only do we live "in the NYC area," we live a stone's throw from Broadway. Little White Dog has pooped many times on Broadway -- she loves to see her many admirers look upon her as she poops.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:17 pm
25 May 2007
Second, it is a performance objective, measurable, achievable, specific, that both as a nation and globally we can either meet, exceed, or fall short of. This, as any perceptive executive will tell you, is the hardest kind of target to evade, avoid or procrastinate over. It's the measure we need as an electorate to hold our political leaders' feet to the fire (canis, film buff as you are, I hope you enjoyed the very concrete realization of this metaphor in Shakespeare in Love. Geoffrey Rush, gotta love him).
It is moreover an appropriate measure. We have it on good authority that if this goal is achieved, we actually have a chance of reversing the disastrous course we are on, give or take an inertia effect or two. This may prove to be incorrect information but it is a reasonable stab at what should probably be seen as a minimum goal.
Third, the alternative proposals for an environmental headliner (replace cars with trains, replace coal with wind and solar, etc. etc.) are prescriptive, argumentative, diversionary and even if successfully implemented would not necessarily achieve the desired effect of reducing carbon emissions and thus mitigating the global warming trend. These are almost certainly indeed some of the many, many things we need to do to achieve the target, but they are not the target. And we do actually need a target if our aim is not to be random and subject to being hijacked by determined political and commercial interest.
We are wise to remember that a "movement" is about politics, and specifically about political will. A movement obsessively invested in particular technologies is likely to be short-lived, wayward and ultimately ineffective. If this is hard to understand, just look at this thread and see how quickly a post about "the vision thing" devolves into discussions of freight trains and diesel engines.
Politics we are told is the art of the possible. We cannot accept that it has fallen to become the acceptance of failure and the habit of the ineffective. If 80/2050 is what we believe is both necessary and possible, we must demand that our politicians and our government make it happen. America's greatest political leader of the twentieth century emerged at the time of its greatest crisis - perhaps this is no coincidence. We may, sadly, have a way to go before the immediacy of our present crisis becomes as apparent to the general population as the Depression was to the voters that threw Hoover out of office. It's worth noting by the way that FDR campaigned on the Democratic platform advocating "immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures" - so much for what you have to say to get elected versus what you do when you get there. We can only hope that great political leadership is poised in the wings. Do we see it in our present Presidential candidacy? Perhaps not, but as with FDR, we may be in for a surprise. But maybe not, and that's why we need to establish a forty-year goal and not (pace JMG, with whom I usually heartily agree) an annual one.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Karen Street Posted 12:22 am
26 May 2007
The California plan is by 2050 to reduce GHG emissions 80% below 1990 levels. With the expected population increase, this means a 90%+ decrease per capita. Even as wealth increases. This is worrisome, because wealthier people drive and fly more, live in larger housing, don't count the pennies (or hundreds of dollars) to heat and air condition. Additionally, air conditioning is expected to become more desirable to the majority of us who live on the coast. Add in desalination plants, and we're talking a challenge.
This 80% (or 90%+ per capita) needs to be translated into yearly terms, as JMG did in his/her first post. And ways to get there from here need to be found and examined.
Policy makers assume that individuals won't make enough voluntary changes in their own lives to have an impact on policy. The City of Berkeley is asking citizens to commit to a 10% reduction in GHG emissions this year, and 2% by year afterwards. In the absence of a way to compare emissions, this means that everyone cuts back 10% on flying, driving, electricity, heating.
There is now an accurate lifecycle climate footprint calculator on the web. It includes upstream costs of refining and transporting fuel, coal, and so on. You can check out how your use of fish compares to your use of meat.
A couple of comments on other comments.
If New Zealand uses 30% renewables, it's primarily hydro. In many countries, hydro will become increasingly problematic as a source of electricity.
To give you an idea where solar + wind are now in the US, imagine a 5 feet piece of paper with the energy contributions marked off. Solar plus wind would be about the thickness of a pencil, solar alone the thickness of the pencil lead. Coal would be 2.5 feet.
From the US Department of Energy: The increase in electricity production, from both increasing population and increasing per capita consumption, was 2.1% from 2004 to 2005. That's 4 times the total contribution of solar + wind (not the increase in solar + wind). It will be a while before the increase in solar + wind matches the increase in electricity production, let alone begins to displace coal. Coal use grew only 1.7% -- the increase in coal was 3 times total generation from solar + wind.
Ignore Limbaugh. A friend of mine canceled her membership in Natural Resources Defense Council because of the three big actions they could have supported over decades -- more nuclear, greater efficiency for cars, and greater efficiency in appliances and buildings -- they only did one, and then they ran a campaign bemoaning the plight of the polar bear.
Re engineering society -- pretty much everyone in policy sees a transportation system which is a mess, a population that will dramatically increase by 2050, increasing per capita driving, and reaches the conclusion that we have to find ways to make driving more unpleasant and other alternatives more pleasant. Actually, policies in many cities (Houston) discriminate against people who want to live in small dense housing near transit hubs.
Again, re peak oil, climatologists pretty much feel that we will run out of atmosphere before we run out of fuels, eg, coal to liquids. There are overlaps between peak oil and climate change solutions, but there are differences as well.
Re electric vehicles -- the electricity either comes from coal or nuclear. No one is going to waste natural gas on cars. Wind blows at night, so it can be used, but solar + wind can't displace both coal for electricity and coal for cars.
Re 80% reduction by 2050 and what it will accomplish -- if we are successful, we reduce chances of a 2 C increase in world temperature over pre-industrial time to 50%. Lots of people will die, lots of species will go extinct, even if we are able to avoid triggering some of the larger changes.
Jon, thank you for your interesting posts and your willingness to post and support people whose ideas are different from yours!
A Musing Environment
Karen Street
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:51 am
26 May 2007
Congrats, Colin, for getting JMG on a rant. I'm a little confused, JMG, however, that Americans are listening to the government; I thought the Republican idea was that you shouldn't look to goverenment for anything, just corporations...
I am suspicious of Electric Vehicles and Plug-ins, I have a feeling there won't be enough electricity/land area to continue what James Howard Kunstler calls "Happy Motoring", particularly in the exurbs and many suburbs. But I've been warned (JMG?) that there are many fans of these technologies on this site, so I will bunker down with the articles referred to above before I rant.
Spaceshaper, perhaps a better technologically-based phrase (is it bad to use the word "slogan"?), would be something like "towards a fossil fuel free society (fossil free in 2053?). Because I think that that is where both the peak oil activists and the global warming activists are heading. As far as the discussion "devolving" into various techy talks, I can see your point, but let me also bring up the very critical one that as a society, we need to be able to have a large-scale discussion of the technological direction we want to take society in. Biggest example: the switch from the world's best mass transit system to our current automobile-based one was accompanied by deceptive corporate practices (buying up streetcar companies) and a lot of corporate and goverenment propaganda; the discussion never happened. Happily, I think, people are trying to figure out how the society will look, which is part of "the vision thing". I also think, to echo Colin, that ideas like democracy (say, with worker coops) are also a part of that vision, so there is both a social and technological aspect.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:04 am
26 May 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:12 am
26 May 2007
With energy storage you can do that quite easy.
And there are plenty of options for large scale storage.
http://electricitystorage.org/tech/technologies_compariso ...
(Pumped Hydro, Compresed Air Storage, Flow Batteries, Metal-Air Fuel Cells, UltraCapacitors)
In particular the cars themselves would be a massive storage resivoir.
However to begin with, even if these cars we run on the dirtiest coal possible, Series-PHEVs would still be greener than a Prius. Where as Parrallel-PHEVs would be comprable to a conventional Prius.
http://aceee.org/pubs/t061.htm
Ignore Limbaugh. A friend of mine canceled her membership in Natural Resources Defense Council because of the three big actions they could have supported over decades -- more nuclear, greater efficiency for cars, and greater efficiency in appliances and buildings -- they only did one, and then they ran a campaign bemoaning the plight of the polar bear.
Yeah they haven't supported nuclear.
But it wouldn't say they haven't supported both the others.
Nuclear isn't cost effective, quick to build, or environmentally sound.
Hell, the Hydroflouric acid used in nuclear refining is one of the most potent ozone depleting substances on earth. (Yeah seperate environmental issue, but an issue all the same)
Nuclear reprocessing is touted, however it does virtually nothing to reduce the ammount of high level waste. (Reuses the low level waste, but who cares about that?)
Hell, Nuclear isn't even well suited to cope with global warming, since it's water requirements would often force them to shut down.
You say we need huge desalination plants, when in fact, Nuclear power uses up tons of fresh water resources.
_
If we're going to be blowing the tops off of mountains in Austrailia/Canada to do uranium mining, and then digging into more mountains to shield the waste from society.
Couldn't we save ourselves the effort, drill once, and go Geothermal?
California has virtually the same ammount of geothermal resources as Nuclear.
And they plan to install 2.9GW of new capacity.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 1:15 am
26 May 2007
Hey, Jon Rynn:
I would hasten to point out as an advocate of PV and as an ecologist, using land for PV deployment is absolutely wrong. I have steadfastly referred to the existence of the vast empty rooftops anyone can see from a high place in any urban area. PV on roofs can go a long long way to reduce Carbon output. And they can be used to charge cars or produce Hydrogen.
Cost of PV is decreasing and efficiency is increasing. The first will encourage widespread use, but the second can suggest more constrained placement. Rooftops, and other built areas, such as parking lots and parking garages, can be used for PV. This has the added benefit of shading those same structures.
I sincerely think those who propose PV on otherwise productive land, even in an apparently, ostensibly "empty" desert (which have their own unique biota and biodiversity), are missing the point of the PV in the first place. We need to have both the replacement of fossil fuels and protection of biodiversity, and this can't be done by covering up still more land.
I hope this clarifies and reinforces that part of the larger issue.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:26 am
26 May 2007
Fuel Cells, yes.
Metal-Air Fuel Cells have great potential for storing grid electricity on a large scale.
But Hydrogen is dead dead deadski.
It's just a parlor trick used by car/oil companies to fool you into a false sense of accomplishment. Dillusions of grandure to displace activism that would otherwise change the status quo.
Or an excuse to field radio ads like this one.
(We don't need more fuel economy, what we need are alternative fuels!) Bullshit.
Really, I mean if we're talking energy effeciency, and precious water resources, Hydrogen is shooting ourselves in the foot.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:30 am
26 May 2007
Not asking that you answer all those questions, those are questions that have occurred to me from time to time, and thanks in general for the info, it's been helpful for my thinking.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:39 am
26 May 2007
But Hydrogen is dead dead deadski.
It's just a parlor trick used by car/oil companies to fool you into a false sense of accomplishment. Dillusions of grandure to displace activism that would otherwise change the status quo.
While researchers and scientists have been making daily breakthroughs in the use of hydrogen, and fuel cells -- largely because of funding by the Bush Administration, "Activists" have been ranting and raving and forcing us to use 19th century technology such as bio-diesel.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:48 am
26 May 2007
For stationary electricity.
However I haven't seen any breakthroughs that would support mobile fuel cell tech.
Whats more, we don't have enough platinum catlyst for mobile fuel cells.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19426 ...
Stationary Fuel Cells on the other hand use Nickel, since they are able to operate at much hotter conditions.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:51 am
26 May 2007
I follow the fuel cell press extensively. I know that in the last year there have been several breakthroughs that may replace the standard PEM technology and it's associated expensive metal systems.
There are also breakthroughs in storage (aluminum, pellets, ...).
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:56 am
26 May 2007
Furthermore it also requires gallium, which is far too rare to use as fuel.
_
Last I checked the only membrane breakthrough they made was adding GOLD to the Platinum to make it more stable.
You see, Fuel Cells are very fragile things. A little bit of carbon, and they clog and break down.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:58 am
26 May 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:00 am
26 May 2007
That makes it closer to 20 pound of water, per equivalent gallon. (Which weighs 6.25 pounds)
_
Heavy weight does bad things for mileage.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:04 am
26 May 2007
For 1kg of hydrogen, you need 9kg of water.
So for 1kg of hydrogen, you need 2.20462262 pounds of water
1kg of hydrogen ~= 1 gallon of gasoline
19.841 pounds of water ~= 1 gallon of gasoline
6.25 pounds of gasoline = 1 gallon of gasoline.
____
Anyways, without going all crazy on the math, the point being. It's too damned heavy to be worthwhile.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:19 am
26 May 2007
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?arti ...
Researchers: starch, enzymes release hydrogen from water for fuel
While hydrogen can be converted into electricity by a fuel cell to drive a car engine, the search continues for a way to release hydrogen on-demand and at a rate sufficient to power a vehicle fuel cell. The research team claims to have found an "organic" answer that mixes starch (derived from biomass) with water. A blend of organic enzymes was added to release hydrogen from water when a driver of a future hydrogen-powered car steps on the accelerator.
"We envision that future vehicles will store solid starch, then mix it with water from which our enzymes release the water's hydrogen to fuel cells which produce the electricity to drive a vehicle's motor," said Zhang.
Using their technology, the researchers claim the requisite 300-mile range consumers expect from gasoline-powered vehicles would require just a 12-gallon tank. A full tank would hold about 60 pounds of starch—the equivalent of about nine pounds of hydrogen. About six pounds of starch produces roughly the same energy as about one gallon of gasoline.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:20 am
26 May 2007
http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/7028
A new breakthrough in hydrogen storage technology could remove a key barrier to widespread uptake of non-polluting cars that produce no carbon dioxide emissions.
UK scientists have developed a compound of the element lithium which may make it practical to store enough hydrogen on-board fuel-cell-powered cars to enable them to drive over 300 miles before refuelling. Achieving this driving range is considered essential if a mass market for fuel cell cars is to develop in future years, but has not been possible using current hydrogen storage technologies.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:22 am
26 May 2007
A few perpetually raise cash from hopefull investors and abscond with it.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:23 am
26 May 2007
Acta said its breakthrough technology is unlike other catalyst manufacturers because they are platinum-free. That means they are far cheaper, and they are not limited to using hydrogen and methanol for fuel cells like platinum catalysts.
These catalysts are able to use other fuels like ethanol, ethylene glycol and gasoline, and ethanol comes from renewable sources.
Acta wants its catalysts to be used in laptop computers, mobile phones, electricity supply, automotive power and hydrogen generation.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 2:25 am
26 May 2007
If burned in water, yielding hydrogen that is then burned elsewhere, its energy is less efficiently used, so more is needed, plus you have the very considerable hazards attending the production of large amounts of hydrogen. Not quite as bad as storing large amounts of combustible hydrogen, since ideally only a little would exist at a given moment, but that ideal might not always be attained.
We have all seen people ride an aluminum internal combustion engine, usually without incident.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:37 am
26 May 2007
Isn't that the same as constructing a chemical battery onsite?
Hell, for instance wouldn't flow batteries be a better alternative to that?
_
But then again, why would we even need to go that route?
For a transitional vehicle, Series Plugin Hybrids are the only electric drive vehicles which make sense.
Hydrogen on the other hand would require massive infrastructure right out of the gate.
It would never get past the chicken-egg scenario of hydrogen infrastructure versus hydrogen cars.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 3:01 am
26 May 2007
Hey, Jon:
Yes, I appreciate that you don't expect me to answer all your questions, heh heh. But I can at least answer some generally.
Much of the potential PV installation I refer is on existing structures, which obviously were not designed with PV or even solar domestic water heat in mind. As such though they can be widely used for those purposes. The weight is not an issue, but for other uses of roofs, such as gardens or other planted areas weight can be. Water logged soil is very heavy and roofs need to be properly constructed for that use. They typically are not. We all have heard of roofs collapsing under the weight of water in storms, so that is an issue. Planted roofs are nonetheless a valid use for otherwise wasted space, and they also have the value of less heat gain while also providing thermal mass.
Roofs angled to the South in the Northern Hemisphere (opposite in the Southern) are in fact ideal. Flat roofs generally require brackets or other framing to present the panels more perpendicular to the sun angle, being more critical with higher latitudes: flat roofs on or near the Equator are ideal, having no such requirement.
There are manufacturers who have designed PV panels which are incorporated into gable roofing so they can actually take the place of composite shingles. And some that can be rolled out on existing roofs. (Yeah, rolled!) And where you have conventional gabled roofs the one side facing the Sun is the place to focus on.
Awning style PV on the sides of building is appropriate, providing daylighting or view is not compromised, and there are a lot of examples in use. Secure attachment is extremely important, but architecturally difficult though for new construction, unless the architect has the imagination to incorporate the PV into the design.
I read somewhere an urban planner saying that in the U.S. we have covered over an area equal to the state of Ohio, so we can easily imagine the potential area. The portion of that space that is unused must be vast, and again, anyone who can look down from a high vantage point over any city (not to exclude small towns) can easily appreciate that vastness.
A point I have consistently made here and elsewhere is while research in efficiency continues, there is no reason to wait. If the U.S. had waited for cars to operate at 100 mi/gal, there never would have been an auto industry. Plus, solar and wind are FREE resources and all we need are the collection, conversion, and storage devices to take advantage of them. Wind and Sun are also egalitarian and universal, and practically infinitely sustainable. Emergy and financial costs are far better than anything else we got.
I hope this helps.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:12 am
26 May 2007
When it came to car manufacturers choosing how to power their forklifts with pollution free energy, that they use to build our cars.
Do you think they chose hydrogen?
Hell no, they went Electric.
Not just electric, but quick-charge.
http://www.posicharge.com/ford.html
PosiCharge Unveils Innovative Motive Power System Implemented by Top U.S. Companies
http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/504773
The percieved disadvantage of electric is that it can't charge fast enough. This stems from the idea that electric batteries charge at a linear rate. When in reality they charge MUCH faster when going up to just 80% charge.
The original EV1 could charge up to 80% capacity in under 15 minutes.
http://www.altfuels.org/events/otherafv/quikchrg.html
If it's good enough for these guys:
Then it's good enough for me.
- Ford Motor Company
Toyota Motor Manufacturing
Hyundai Motor Manufacturing
Tower Automotive
American Airlines
Dallas Fort Worth International Airport
Delta Airlines
Del Monte Food
Kraft Foods Inc.
Nestle Foods
http://www.posicharge.com/5-0.html
Particularly when you consider who Tower Automotive is:
Tower Automotive has made successful body structures, lower vehicle structures, suspension components and modules for nearly every major automotive manufacturer in the world, including: BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Fiat, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Honda, Renault, Nissan, Hyundai Group, Isuzu, Mazda, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo.
We have over 60 locations in four continents, 12,000+ people and annual revenues of over $2.5 billion.
http://www.towerautomotive.com/02.htm
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 3:19 am
26 May 2007
Given the caveats that would make them so, are they unique in that respect?
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:22 am
26 May 2007
Emergy expresses the cost of a process or a product in solar energy equivalents. The basic idea is that solar energy is our ultimate energy source and by expressing the value of products in emergy units, it becomes possible to compare apples and pears. (S.E.Jorgensen 2001, p. 61)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergy
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 3:31 am
26 May 2007
Sorry about the impatient tone. I do appreciate that part of the purpose of Gristmill is to discuss the technologies by which declared goals can be achieved. But threads such as this one which start out purportedly about vision have sadly demonstrated a major difficulty on the part of many in this online community of distinguishing means (technologies, social and financial structures etc) and ends (purpose, vision, desired outcome). Are we in any doubt about the ultimate desired outcome - a sustainable balance for human life on earth? Are we in any doubt about the major immediate threat to that balance - anthropogenic global climate change? Are we in any doubt that severe reductions in carbon emissions must be a major necessary component of our efforts to mitigating that threat? Of these dare I say self-evident truths, the last has a measurable outcome capable of being directly effected by concerted human effort. Sounds like a goal to build a movement around to me.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:41 am
26 May 2007
Hydrogen on the other hand would require massive infrastructure right out of the gate.
The infrastructure would be your local gas station. They just opened a Chevron in florida to serve up Miami's new fleet of hydrogen buses.
Also, regular gasoline engines can use hydrogen with just some simple modifications to the fuel injector...so there's no reason that we can't start putting hydrogen into all the gas stations, and set up mechanics to convert every car on the road to hydrogen right away.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 3:45 am
26 May 2007
Ethanol and virgin-oil bio-diesel have carbon-emission problems because they are produced from that thing that you seem to have just implied they are not produced from: fossil fuel.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer#Health_and_sustainability_issues
Nitrogen is unlimited, but nitrogen fertilizers are presently made using fossil fuels such as natural gas.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:59 am
26 May 2007
For everybody else I am trying to avert a disaster that will occur after my death, a thankless task.
I can not solve this problem alone, working in isolation. I need some help. I need licensed engineers in structure, mechanics, heat transfer, micro circuits,,,
This thread has convinced me that we are confused and mired in chaos.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 4:05 am
26 May 2007
Hey, Nucbuddy:
I am not sure I understand your question but I will try to answer anyway. First, solar IS free regardless of our means or ability to take advantage of it, or even the scale we can achieve; a coupon for something free at the store is still free regardless of whether we can get there. I do agree it can be frustrating if we cannot take advantage.
I don't know that solar and its easily accessible manifestation as wind are unique as energy sources, and to me that isn't too important. What I think is more important, and what may be unique, is the combination of its free nature, its egalitarian quality and its essentially infinite sustainability. In other words, solar may be absolutely unique in its infinite value and its free nature.
And everyone, please forgive me for sounding at once condescending and ethereal, but I will remind us that all the energy on Earth came from and comes from the Sun, and we are all the stuff of stars.
And Sunflower:
Just to add to the definition you offered: "emergy" is a Portmanteau word made of "embodied energy", in general meaning merely the energy required to make something. This energy should be comprehensive, from exploration and extraction of materials, right up to the energy in the blister pack and the ride home from the store, and even its ultimate disposal.
And Spaceshaper:
Heh heh, in a perverse way you may be right, that the fossil fuel industry may try to extract it all by 2053, and bank all the billions of bucks they made, leaving the rest of us no better off!
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:07 am
26 May 2007
Considering theres only 1 public Ethanol-85 station in California, what makes you think that a hydrogen infrastructure would happen overnight?
Companies like Chevron like Hydrogen because it distracts people from demanding a solution that would actually get us off oil.
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 4:31 am
26 May 2007
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 4:32 am
26 May 2007
We don't need nuclear, but we want it.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:37 am
26 May 2007
Hydrogen has been at every gas-station I have ever seen.
google.com/search?q=hydrogen+carrier+carbon+cowan
Permalink
BruceMcF Posted 7:17 am
26 May 2007
And even thought we can, we should still push for less reliance on cars, because the car-reliance transport system is close to a perfect mechanism for every increasing miles traveled per transport task ... getting to work, the supermarket, the kid's activities after school.
Virtually Yours, BruceMcF
Energize America 2020
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:25 am
26 May 2007
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:48 am
26 May 2007
Spaceshaper, is it possible that we are in some disagreement (I mean, probably not here), as to the ideal society? My ideal society includes no cars or suburbia, which I think would actually make most people much happier, and my ideal world includes economic/political democracy, which certainly is not the case with the rich and powerful...but, and to somewhat address Sunflower's point, I think that discussions like this are very important. Maybe they seem chaotic, but that is because how the global social/ecological/economic system works is not only chaotic, but probably the single most complex system humans have ever tried to figure out.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:51 am
26 May 2007
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 8:36 am
26 May 2007
Burning dried cow turds for cooking fires perhaps?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:24 am
26 May 2007
Hydrogen has been at every gas-station I have ever seen.
google.com/search?q=hydrogen+carrier+carbon+cowan
Thats no different than zinc-water, or aluminum-water.
Which has to be electrocuted before it's used.
Furthermore I can only hazard to guess that if Boron has the same issues as weighing atleast the same pound per mile as aluminum.
Really, thats like trying to run an electric car off of hundreds of non-rechargeable batteries.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 10:31 am
26 May 2007
I agree the discussion has regressed into favorite agenda snipping. So, okay, let's get back to the slogan/vision thang. I have a problem with the tendency, as someone here expressed it, with the 'elitism' that can creep in. This is why I think the "20% by 2020" and the "80% by 2050" are too abstract for the kind of future Jon Rynn is talking about. By the way, Jon, we agree on that vision, especially the economic democracy aspect.
It was also mentioned that even wanting the government to put the PV panels on roofs or by extension put the battery powered cars on the road is not the best way to proceed. If we wish not to proceed that way, we need to end the subsidies and legislative favoritism that Big Oil/Big Coal/Big Nuke/Big Auto get from the government. Then, we need a populist movement to achieve the fine goals that Spaceshaper points out. If a populist movement is the answer, we need a slogan that people can understand on a PERSONAL basis, and I don't think "20% by 2020" and the "80% by 2050" are easily acted on by the individual person or family. They are too much "top down" slogans rather than "bottom up" slogans.
These are by no means meant to be real candidate slogans, but they have the 'Every [Hu]man' tone I refer to:
"Put Yer CAR on a CARbon diet!"
"Your current car: Batteries NOT included."
"Hold your face up to the Wind and Sun and feel the FREE energy."
"Paper or plastic?" "No, Thanks, I always have my own shopping bags."
"Support global Carbon reduction AND make a friend today--carpool."
"Wanna finish that book this morning? Take the bus!"
"Scientists have now calculated how many American soldiers it takes for one barrel of oil, but they are now in hiding!"
"Your bicycle is lonely. Make it up to it, put some air in the tires, and give it some love."
"If that apple you are eating came from Chile, did it need a passport? Do you know if it is healthy?"
"Support global Carbon reduction--buy produce from your local farmer."
"Ya wanna to tell your electric utility to shove it and reduce global warming?--Put PV panels on your roof!"
"My wind turbine is bigger than yours!" [Hey, it really is!]
"A lot of the fruit and vegetables at YOUR grocery store REALLY needs to rest--it just completed a LONG TRIP--halfway around the world!"
"Anybody know what 'wheat gluten' REALLY IS? Support local organic agriculture!"
"Get the cattle out of the ghetto/barrio/slums! No more factory farms!"
Yeah, now that everyone has finished laughing (or rolling your eyes, or shaking your heads, or....), these are just examples--your actual mileage may vary.
It seems to me these are far more immediate and tangible, something the average person has more direct connection to, and can act on more readily.
If we have an effort that works from the bottom up, simultaneously with the top down approach, many we can realize our goals more rapidly.
This is also why "Be the change...." has so much power and resonance. It empowers us all to be examples of local, individual, everyday change.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:48 pm
26 May 2007
"Support global Carbon reduction--buy produce from your local farmer."
"Hold your face up to the Wind and Sun and feel the FREE energy."
The shorter the better. But this still gets back to my original post, and as SustainableGreen said, we need a populist movement, it can't be just individuals -- and yes, we can do both the individual and the movement at the same time (hopefully). One of the problems of suburbanization is that people are so atomized and isolated that it's hard to get a movement going.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 12:55 pm
26 May 2007
I don't consider asking rhetorical questions to be respectful. Of course, being respectful may not be your cup of tea.
There are many substantive issues you bring up but I don't see the point of replying if your attitude is to degrade and patronize.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:56 pm
26 May 2007
[Boron is] no different than zinc-water, or aluminum-water.
Gasoline stations do not sell boron. Gasoline stations sell gasoline. Gasoline is a hydrogen carrier. It is carbon-based, it is convenient, and an infrastructure for its distribution and use already exists.
google.com/search?q=%22hydrogen+carrier%22+convenient+carbon+cowan
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 8:22 pm
26 May 2007
Sure. I will certainly get to finish my book. It will take me 2 hours to get to work by bus. 45 minutes by car. In which I get to listen to my audiobook. And I get to sit. Rather than stand..
Car beats bus any day. What is required a massive investment in public transport.
Some years ago there was a town in Belgium I think that made buses completely free for all. The idea being that the cost of building all these roads for cars was a bit of dead end road... Providing free transport for all was actually cheaper than all those construction projects. I wonder what happened after the first year?
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 8:23 pm
26 May 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-fare
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 2:23 am
27 May 2007
Hey, Jon:
Thanks for the feedback. I wish others would scratch their heads a little and suggest some slogans that have a legitimate real feel and yet still can resonate with everyday people.
I further wish that others who insist on using forums for their own tangential obsessive issues would go somewhere else and find a sandbox to play in. Read the introductory comments and statements, and stick to the topic.
It occurs to me that one thing that should be established is that attacking the problem with one single approach is not the best answer. Some of us here have championed one approach over others and we are talking past each other. I think that everyone, even Colin and JMG, would agree we need a three- or four-pronged approach, one in which people of many talents can find a comfortable position and a productive function.
First, there needs to a top-policy cadre who will work to explain to politicians, and slap them on their fat heads, why the corporate oligarchy needs to be put in a jail cell for the sake of sustainability. Hansen and Gore would be two examples of this cadre. The "20% by 2020" and "80% by 2050" needs to be hammered on hard as a national and international policy target.
Second, related to my silly slogans, there needs to be practical tangible actions that individuals and their famillies can take. "One-a-month" could be tied to a set of real actions (not just my off-the-cuff examples) to add to the sense of accomplishment and progress. Do the light bulbs, join a local enviro group, buy a programmable thermostat, write to your politician, ride the bus, look for a farmer's market, write another letter, get online and learn more about AGW, get pissed about clearing in Amazonia and elsewhere so ADM and Cargill can make more billions on biofuels at the expense of species and biodiversity, lobby for electric (battery or fuel cell) cars, etc., etc.
Third, and I guess this where most of us who contribute here, or perhaps lurk and read, are best is to be the officers and enlisted non-commissioned officers in the populist movement, to spread the word, live by example, do all the things in the paragraph above, talk to people, get them interested, educated, and involved. We understand much of the issues and can explain things to others. Local governments, NGOs, civic groups, religious groups, farmers, any possible entity need to hear from us.
Fourth, where is the AGW/Global Carbon Reduction version of MoveOn.org? Isn't this a role Grist can handle? Or maybe, a consortium of environmental groups should set one up in a hurry, one with a brand new name to focus attention and avoid any inter-group jealousy. Unabashedly borrow MoveOn's model and use it to the max. I think they would be flattered, and it seems to me there is a broad overlap in motives and goals, and even the database of likely interested participants. Get the newly 'born-again' evangelical environmental movement involved. They must have millions of email addresses and other databases of people.
This fourth feature needs to help coordinate and support the first three approaches. What seems to be lacking is a really well organized focus to provide people with a, well, organized focus, one that will have buy-in by millions, allowing them to act effectively. I suspect there are a lot of people who would welcome some direction, ideas, and inspiration. If there is such a central organizing entity, PLEASE someone TELL me about it. Let's GET the word out!
Just as a microcosm of sorts, there are a lot of us here who have ideas, but the open dialogue provides little focus. I have mentioned that sometimes it is like herding cats around here, and others might feel I am one of the cats myself. As such, this is a great place for discussion, but the public would throw their hands up in disgust if they tried to engage in any meaningful, helpful interaction here.
Let's get better organized.
"Be the change...."
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:21 am
27 May 2007
We rich, mostly white middle class, can afford to feather our green nests. People I talk to from China and India want money. Cash is a religion in China and survival in India.
Our currently stable social climate could change overnight (Iran, economy, the unexpected...) suddenly making AGW mitigation a low public priority.
Self interest is a stable motivator especially during times of chaos. My contributions here are to advocate significant money saved and made, the opportunities of self interest, which also have the by-product of curtailing global coal. The goal is to zero-out coal with economics. A coal tax replacing payroll taxes would be a big help. So would seed capital from economic and political endowments.
The public will follow credible first steps towards a safe and sustainable future. Jobs and self reliance are most important to most of the people.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:16 am
27 May 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 8:55 am
27 May 2007
hp.com/halo
news.google.com/news?q=hp+halo
cnn.com/2007/US/04/27/teleconference.popsci
of all the advancements you'll see in your workplace over the next 10 years, realistic videoconferencing is the one that will change everything.
[...]
Next-generation videoconferencing isn't like today's monitor-size peephole to a tiny, jerky, muffled slice of life. It's rich enough to capture all the gestures, expressions and other essentials of human communication.
"It's an emotional and physical link between us," says Hewlett-Packard research scientist Mark Gorzynski, shaking his head at the thought -- which I know because I can see him doing it on the high-definition video screen in front of me.
I'm at HP Labs in Palo Alto, California; Gorzynski is in Corvallis, Oregon. But we're "together" in HP's Halo Collaboration Studio, a setup the company introduced a year ago. (Cisco debuted a competing system last month.)
Each Halo room is, in effect, half of a beige conference room, linked to any other identical-looking Halo room by four 60-inch plasma screens, an echo-free audio system, and a proprietary, low-latency, superfast data network.
The sound is good enough to have multiple simultaneous conversations across the table, and I repeatedly forget that there's a lot more than a table between us. HP has installed 75 Halo rooms around the world: an early one for Jerry Seinfeld, who is producing his new animated movie from a Halo room in his New York office linked to DreamWorks' California studio, and the rest mainly for pharmaceutical and financial-services companies, which must constantly communicate with a far-flung sales force.
Permalink
lorna salzman Posted 4:20 am
25 Apr 2008
Permalink