Hmpf’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Actually, talking about drying racks, this here is the most useful version, IMO: http://www.yatego.com/tv-versandshop/p,492d0d58f2c96,480ddbe256e190_6,flügel--wäscheständer?sid=08Y1258550240Y11aad775ad81ccb6de It's pretty much the German standard, I'd say. I suspect it may also be something of a German specialty, though - or at least I wasn't able to find anything like in when I lived in Britain. The advantage of the German model over the British one (which tends towards the vertical, like the one linked by Splashy above) is that it allows you to hang a fairly great amount of larger pieces like shirts and trousers and big towels (not to mention sheets!) without having to hang them all over each other so they impede each other's drying. Everything hangs in parallel. It's also big enough to take one entire load of laundry from an average washing machine.On A surprising sneak peek at the clothesline revolution posted 4 days ago 31 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Just to encourage people who don't have expansive lawns or a warm climate: I'm European, living in a temperate to cool climate (Germany), in a *very* small flat without a garden, balcony, or veranda. I dry all my clothes in my flat; always have done. So do my three flatmates. Each of us has her or his own clothes drying rack, which we keep in our respective rooms. So, it's entirely possible in most climates and at all times of the year to dry your clothes inside the house without a dryer - I even did it when I lived in Britain, which is fairly cool and fairly wet.On A surprising sneak peek at the clothesline revolution posted 1 week ago 31 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I've been reading Colin Beavan's blog, on and off, for more than a year, and I think Elizabeth Kolbert is selling him a bit short. In the time I've been reading his blog, Beavan has written repeatedly about the larger social implications of his experiment and has encouraged his readers to act as politically conscious citizens. He has encouraged, and (I think) participated in acts of civil disobedience and has asked his readers to contact politicians. He is also currently working on setting up a website and organisation that will help people to change their lives towards sustainability. No Impact Man may have started as one individual's gimmicky eco stunt, but it definitely seems to have worked as a consciousness raising exercise for Beavan, and that's an important step in the journey towards activism.

  The impression I get from his blog is that Colin Beavan understands that we need, not only individual action, *and* not only political action, either, but a fundamental culture change - and like so many of us, he is trying to work for that culture change as best he can. Conducting and publicising an experiment that shows people that a radically different lifestyle is possible, and may even make people happier than the current one, seems like a very valid approach. Not the only thing we should do, no, but it's good that a blog like that, and a book and movie like that, are out there.

  On No Impact Man, Elizabeth Kolbert, and the civic sphere posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Regarding the odds

  This is how I figure it:

  There may be a 99% chance that we're already screwed.

  But if we don't even try to do anything about it, then that becomes a certainty.

  A 1% chance of being saved is still infintely better than guaranteed catastrophe. On NASA: Another brutally hot year for the Siberian tundra posted 11 months, 1 week ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  @ MAD MAC

  There's a difference between 'habitable for humans' and 'habitable for civilisation as it now exists'. (You probably noticed that I wrote: "I'm not equating the three things separated by slashes in the previous sentence, btw - I'm just listing them in the order of likelihood of their being threatened.")  

  Sure, a few million or even a few billion will probably survive even the most catastrophic potential outcomes (except if we get a repeat of the Perm-Triassic Extinction, but even then, with some preparation, it would probably be possible to build refuges for a few thousand or so)... But to me, even 'just a few' billion dead is quite apocalyptic enough. Mass starvation etc. certainly will not be very conducive to world peace, either... So, the observation that humanity will probably survive in some form, is not much consolation.

  Also, even if it could be assured that we, i.e. humans, would be able to deal with the impending changes just fine, there's still the issue of the rest of the biosphere that does not have culture and technology to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances. On Methane releases from under the Arctic seabed could jeopardize GHG stabilization posted 1 year, 1 month ago 31 Responses