Comments TariffDude has made

ugh

Why do tie-dyed shirts always come up when someone makes this point?  Is it because people have to badmouth hippies so they aren't perceived as hippies themselves?  If tie-dyed shirts and clean energy no longer have anything to do with each other, why bring it up?  

Let's examine this asinine quote more closely.  Gov. Strickland is clearly using the idea of tie-dyed shirts in a pejorative sense.  Yet at the same time he's implying that tie-dyed shirts, a synecdoche for counter-culture in the 60's, and clean energy were at one point connected.  Doesn't that mean tie-dyed shirts have a better track record on this than suits?  Energy efficiency and not polluting the environment never actually made bad economic sense.  Tie-dye got it right and business suits got it wrong.  No one has ever said, "Not giving a shit that your employees work 20-hour days and are miserably poor and hungry is no longer just a business suit kind of idea, it's, like, totally far out, man."
On Notable quotable posted 1 year, 9 months ago 3 Responses

Baggage

Exactly, I've always felt that economics was a red herring.  Bjorn Lomborg says we get more benefit just using the oil, the Stern review says it will end up costing us more.  But the monetary cost doesn't intrinsically mean anything, since it's tied to subjective assessments of value.  The best way to look at it is in terms of physical reality and our maximum potential.  If all human agency were directed towards solving a problem, at arriving at an ideal state, for example where we don't get any energy from fossil fuels, that could probably be achieved in purely physical terms in a matter of years.  That's why WWII is such a popular point of comparison when climate change is discussed - because that much mental consonance directed benevolently eliminates problems efficiently.  If it were cheaper to kill someone than not to, (say a rich guy whose money you could steal and flee the country never to get caught, guaranteed) most people wouldn't do it because it's wrong.  It doesn't really matter how much it costs to drive an SUV, it's just not the right thing to do to overconsume.  Same with famine as you mentioned.  There's more than enough food in the world to feed everyone, yet such is not the case.  How is economics not the problem, much less the solution?  It's time to remove arbitrary "costs" from our thinking about solving problems in the world.On Our challenge: surviving the rule of economists posted 1 year, 12 months ago 9 Responses

Read my mind...

I was thinking the exact same thing recently.  Most of the routes Google Maps gives will be impassable by bike because it favors interstates, where biking is illegal.  How hard would it be to have a "disable interstates" feature, at least?  I'll definitely drop them an email.On Will Google Maps or Mapquest be the first to help folks travel green? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 16 Responses

Wait a second..

I'm a little hesitant to embrace the idea of segregated roadways for bikes.  The main barriers to increased bicycle use are psychological, not infrastructural: bicyclists and potential bicyclists need to realize that biking in traffic is statistically safer than driving, and drivers need to recognize bikes have a right to the road.  Segregating bikes from the main road is not a good way to convey this message.  Put one segregated bikelane in a town, and all of a sudden all the cyclists in the road look like they are breaking the law.  Besides, think of the complications to intersections - left turns would be a nightmare, and you'd still have to look out for the right hook (one of the most common collisions, totally eliminated by riding in traffic) I'm not saying seperate lanes are useless, I'm sure they are handy in places where bikes are moving significantly faster than cars, such as city gridlock, but on the whole they are impractical and damaging to cyclists. On What would we do if bikers' lives were worth as much as auto convenience? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 13 Responses

Ok

Well, point taken on the hybrid bike, but as far as potholes go, relegating yourself to the edge of the road is still your decision, and you don't have to do it.  I've been on the highway at night, with 18-wheelers, when it was pouring.  I can pretty much guarantee that you aren't going to get rear-ended; this is the most prevalent and irrational fear among bicyclists.  If a driver is looking anywhere, it's probably forward.  You are much more likely to get swiped by a car trying to make a right turn in front of you.  You can avoid accidents like this by occupying the whole lane, and if your hybrid bike is as fast as you say it is, you should be able to do this without significantly holding up city traffic.  I don't know what the biking scene is like in Seattle, but I would encourage you to take full advantage of your rights as a legitimate traffic entity.On Bike commuting fashion tips posted 2 years, 8 months ago 52 Responses

Example

"Further thrust came from a government-industry effort (spearheaded by Al Gore, then the vice president) called the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. The managers of that program decided that California's electric-car initiatives were too ambitious, so they set the goal of constructing a gasoline-burning vehicle that could get three times the fuel economy of a conventional automobile. The only way to achieve that kind of mileage was with a hybrid, which would require electrochemical cells of one sort or another. The prospect that auto makers might build such cars in larger numbers further spurred research on electrochemical cells."

From here.On An opportunity for reflection posted 2 years, 8 months ago 35 Responses

appropriating science

You make a good point about how we base everyday decisions on a more tenuous scientific basis than global warming.  The fact that we compromise freedom of speech to legislate "indecent" material off the airwaves for fear of the harm it will cause to children, while doing little on global warming, the consequences of which are clearly much more severe, really suggests that politicians are just appropriating science for their preexisting agendas.  How much proof do we have that swearwords on the radio will turn children into criminals? Is there really a consensus?  After all, better sorry than.. wait..On Hint: the people who deny we're causing it posted 2 years, 9 months ago 6 Responses

Hmmmm

You have to admit, that is a whole lot of electricity.  Frankly, I'm just a little curious.  What could he actually be doing with all those kilowatts?  Waaaait a minute! That dirty hippy's running a grow-op!On Same as it ever was posted 2 years, 9 months ago 37 Responses

Take a nap, maybe?

Greenpeace just wishes kids were that pissed off.  On What do you think? posted 2 years, 9 months ago 10 Responses

Yeah

Pretty sure those are clips from the original audience in an Inconvenient Truth.On Or global comfortabling? posted 2 years, 10 months ago 5 Responses

Eh...

I think it takes the funny parts of the SOTU and makes them less funny.  Bush said 'Democrat majority' not 'Democratic majority'.  There was a minor row about it.  Also when Bush starts talking about oil dependence, Cheney smirks, big time, because he knows it's meaningless.  That's when I cracked up watching the real thing.On Animated Bush posted 2 years, 10 months ago 1 Response

Uhhhh

That looks pretty stupid and dangerous, but I guess if you want to discourage driving.. (by encouraging whiplash)On Funny video alert! posted 2 years, 12 months ago 2 Responses

ok

You made an interesting point about base/intermittent power sources.  If it's true that the wind energy you pay for with the card invariably displaces these types of sources then perhaps it is closer to an offset, but like atreyger said, this money is going to litigation, production; wherever the company needs it to go.  So the kilowatt rating is... dubious.  If it's an offset, it doesn't seem remotely quantifiable.

My original point was that for it to be considered an offset somebody has got to be getting wind energy who would've been getting energy from coal (or whatever).  But just for the sake of argument, what if a company is able to produce wind or some other type of renewable energy more cheaply than RCE, but doesn't resort to deceitful means to supplement its production to the point that it is cost-competetive?  I'm not opposed to green tags in principle (although I might dispute the degree to which they are literally an offset) but just the way this company advertises them.On Are the wind credit cards deceptive? posted 3 years ago 20 Responses

The cards are highly malicious

I posted a comment on Shea's picture post (which he evidently deleted shortly thereafter) which read as follows:

"Just admit that the cards are deceptive. They absolutely do not represent an "offset" in any way, shape or form. They are a subsidy, a charitable donation to a corporation, nothing more. It might be accurate to say that purchasing one of these cards is equivalent to not cutting down X number of trees, but to say it is equivalent to planting X number of trees assumes that any power this company generates with wind would otherwise be generated in some other known way, which would require you to be able to read the future - which, of course, is nonsense, just like this entire scheme."

I get a distinct impression this guy is out to make money first and help the environment second.  Otherwise, why  not be upfront about it?  Sure, you can argue about what the definition of "is" is, but aren't you ashamed of yourself?  I hardly consider souring people on wind power (to which there is already a large amount of irrational opposition) a public service.On Are the wind credit cards deceptive? posted 3 years ago 20 Responses

Shine, bladder

On Apropos of absolutely nothing posted 3 years, 1 month ago 24 Responses

Surroundalism

I consider myself a surroundalist.  Although I agree that it does not have the same meaning as what people imply by using the word environmentalist.  But it is a good thing to be, I don't give non-surroundalists the time of day.On Vote! posted 3 years, 1 month ago 26 Responses

Ditch Freecycle

Are all Freecycle chapters based on Yahoo groups?  The real problem with Freecycle, at least the group that I belong to, is that it is hard to use effectively - one has to carefully scroll up the entire list of postings to see whether something has been taken, one can't view offer/wanted posts separately, etc.  I inquired to my local moderator whether these things could be fixed and received an answer that it is all based on national rules.  We need a Freecycle with an interface that actually makes sense (Freebay).On freecycle: TM, and R.I.P. posted 3 years, 4 months ago 31 Responses

Hmm

This feels like a pretty basic environmental ethics dilemma, but it's a subject I have to admit I've only just skimmed over.  I'm hesitant to rehash already-covered ground, but I can't resist throwing my two cents in on such an interesting question.

It is my perception that "the environment" is often used synonomously with "the ecosystem" nowadays.  That, I think, is where this controversy principally stems from; an environment (though this may be contentious) is an inherently separate entity from that which it surrounds.  Humankind is not part of its own environment, but humankind excluding me is part of my environment.  Humans are not part of "the environment" per se, because there is no "environment" per se; environment is relative.  Humans are obviously a part of the ecosystem.  

The more relevant question becomes, to my mind, are humans part of nature?  What quality do humans possess that would exempt them from inclusion under this term?  Nature in a broad sense, though perhaps not the most common, can simply mean everything in the physical world, in which case humans are certainly part of nature.  Of course, nature has also come to mean that which is not affected by humans, and thus we arrive at a semantic roadblock.  We might as well ask, "What is the meaning of nature?"  Well, words mean what they mean.  

Does it make sense to say something is "good for the environment" or "good for the ecosystem for that matter"?  My answer is simple although others might disagree - it makes just as much sense to say something is good for everything as it does to say that it's good for the environment, and I think one would be hard-pressed to find something that they felt was good for the environment but bad for everything or vice versa.  To an individual, what's good is good and what's bad is bad; what one considers good or bad reflects one's comprehensive worldview.  

I agree with the rest of the post.  I think you have come to a similar conclusion to the one I have come to.  The answers to most questions with answers are intrinsic in nature - if you have two rocks on a beach and you go and find two more and bring them back, you have four rocks on a beach.  Nature perpetuates itself because life that has a will to live, lives.  To perpetuate itself, it must be in balance.  Squirrels never worry about the sustainable yield of acorns, but if that system becomes unbalanced, to return it to balance might involve a lot of dead squirrels.  Humans are unique in their adeptness at evolving in behavior.  Whether that will amount to a saving grace remains to be seen.  If not, maybe we'll get smarter.  Or dumber.
On Some quasi-philosophical blather posted 3 years, 4 months ago 17 Responses

Ice age comin'...

"Although usually loath to discuss the meaning of his often-inscrutable songs with the press, he openly described..."

Thom Yorke has a lot of lyrics which seem to be about alienation due to technology, and nobody ever stopped using a cell phone because they heard a Radiohead song; if anything, they got a Radiohead ringtone.  Forgive me if I'm dubious as to whether this album will have any impact, but at least it's a good sign, in a way.  

I was much more encouraged by the recent poll: when more people in this country believe in anthropogenic global warming than evolution, that is real progress.On Thom Yorke's solo album focuses on climate change posted 3 years, 4 months ago 3 Responses