Comments dissociated has made

  • No AC

    Look for an old church while you're there, one with two feet thick stone walls. You should find it cool even without AC.

    You can tell there's a different way of thinking in Europe, or maybe it's just that they've been doing things that way for so long and their streets have always been that narrow, so they work around it. I miss the buildings. North American ones are shabby in comparison, and design so incredibly limited and unvaried here. Some friends of mine (who've never been to Europe) keep insisting that it's because North Americans want everything to be cheaper upfront, but I don't buy that. It's just an established pattern and less regulation that leaves us with crappier, more uniform products. The more research you do, the more you realize we're getting the lowest common denominator compared to Europe.On Observations from a freshly minted Germanic expert posted 1 year, 4 months ago 3 Responses

  • and also offsets..

    On the topic of funding from offsets, has anybody heard of this for funding better public transportation, or augmenting it in ways to make it more attractive, increasing ridership? I suppose the accounting would be far trickier, so maybe that's why it's not an obvious choice.On Goldman says oil 'likely' to hit $150-$200 by 2010 posted 1 year, 6 months ago 58 Responses

  • wiscidea - solar ovens

    I've looked into this a little bit too, because I thought I'd read solar ovens were cheap, but then I came across several people selling them for prices comparable to conventional ovens. I've heard they've been widely distributed in Darfur to increase safety of women, preventing them from needing to travel far from home in search of fuel. If someone knew what they were doing they might be able to start a program to distribute them and get funding from an GHG offset company. It seems like there are a lot of areas where providing funding or other types of assistance to developing countries could provide far greater returns per dollar in terms of GHG reductions than in the developed world where we have more efficient technology. Also in terms of the way food is produced, this might be a factor, preventing deforestation for both food and fuel amongst desperately poor and hungry people. And then there's the added bonus of building up social capital and good will, preventing the need for mass migrations..On Goldman says oil 'likely' to hit $150-$200 by 2010 posted 1 year, 6 months ago 58 Responses

  • Getting food to market

    I thought some people might find this interesting:

    The hauling fee on a trailer load of vegetables can cost a grocery store $1,000. That store can be billed an extra $400 to cover higher diesel prices.

    Easson said his customers plead for discounts, but he can't run his 150 trucks without that money. He said a smaller firm in New Brunswick has already parked its trucks after explaining the choice to its main customer.

    "They said I'm going to withdraw service for three weeks while you think about whether to pay the fuel surcharge or not, and if you pay I'll open up, and if you don't I'll stay closed," he said.

    On Goldman says oil 'likely' to hit $150-$200 by 2010 posted 1 year, 6 months ago 58 Responses

  • Correction

    That should be long distance, not long term.On A candidate finally discusses public transit ... at a random lunch posted 1 year, 7 months ago 30 Responses

  • Geography, Population Spread

    Just to be clear, I'm all the way behind rail for long term transportation of goods and people. I just think it's important to realize the barriers to it. And of course density is not on its own so important if you have major population centers that it makes sense to link. If you have high population cities and a lot of commuting and travel between them, it doesn't matter so much if there's virtually no one in between. One of the reasons some European countries have better transit is because they probably have more tax money to spend because of their density. If Canada or the United States can implement a system anywhere near to what Europe's got, and keep fares down and people using the service up, it'll be a greater accomplishment because of the obstacles.On A candidate finally discusses public transit ... at a random lunch posted 1 year, 7 months ago 30 Responses

  • Plus...

    To build for rail or run a bus system, the operators (government or private) must pay for the buses or trains, their maintenance and fuel or power, as well as administration, station and stop construction and maintenance costs. Whereas with cars, the individual owners at least cover those things (while needing parking spots and polluting, etc. which are some of the externalities). There's probably information on the costs somewhere online, but it seems the more people available to even choose to take mass forms of transit, the more financial sense it makes.On A candidate finally discusses public transit ... at a random lunch posted 1 year, 7 months ago 30 Responses

  • Population Density

    I think you need to look by nation and continent. The U.S. ranks near the bottom for population density. Europe has just under 70 people per square km and North America has around 20. I also wasn't talking about high speed rail in particular. Some places it doesn't make sense to even bother with it because the nation is so small and there are so many towns (stops) between major cities. I know most about Switzerland (and still not a lot, just from casual observation). It's a tiny country and it's between city transit is really like an extension of its in-city transit. You can buy a universal pass for the country for less around 3,000 swiss francs. The population density of the country is 176 per square km. A low income worker in Switzerland might make 3,000 swiss francs in a month there.

    My "theory" is maybe complete garbage. I don't know enough about relative costs of building for cars vs. rail and other public transit systems. But I wouldn't want to imagine densely populated areas like that more filled with single occupant cars than they already are. On A candidate finally discusses public transit ... at a random lunch posted 1 year, 7 months ago 30 Responses

  • I lived there...

    for three years and married a European. If my post made it sound like I think Europe's somehow superior (inviting your apparent attack on it), that's only a result of my inability to express myself adequately (I guess). I don't pit nation against nation or continent against continent, or at least I try not to.On Are low gas prices an inalienable right? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 34 Responses

  • ...and for the poor

    Seniors also get a discount on public transit and we've recently had subsidized passes for low income people. I suspect different places in the U.S. do similar things.

    On a side note, I have to say that a lot of greens in North America look to Europe for solutions, but it's important to realize how Europe came to be the way it is. The cities there are more pleasant to look at and walk around in and environmental awareness is better, but I suspect that it's all because of density and pre-existing infrastructure. Density means more tax payers, means more money for social programs, education (how about that free or near-free or even paid university in some countries?), means less space to muck up with garbage and pollution, means scarcer resources (water is much more expensive and much better conserved, as is energy). Once it becomes really too expensive for big segments of the population to drive to work, and/or food prices get much steeper, things will change in North America. I guess my point is Europe would have looked the same if they'd had the same space and (lack of) infrastructure when cars came about. Often people look to Europe, which, it's good as a model, but it's really much more difficult to create change here, and it's not because of individual choices or because people are any more "selfish" or uneducated in N.A., it's because we haven't had the same limits as Europe. Oil scarcity will probably be the first real limit.On Are low gas prices an inalienable right? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 34 Responses

  • Cheaper Transit for Students

    Canada's somewhere in between Europe and the U.S when it comes to transportation. The university in my city recently had a referendum and passed a universal (with certain exceptions for students who couldn't use the bus) bus pass for students. It cut the cost of 8 months of bus travel by about 75%. The students' union pushed it because of environmental concerns, but the positive effects of ridership going up 1/3 and less traffic on main arteries were felt all around. Still, students you'd hope would have learned somewhere along the way complained that, "Why should I have to pay when I drive my car and already pay for parking, insurance, gas and payments?" not realizing how subsidized driving is. The bus pass will come up for re-evaluation and a new vote in a couple years, so we'll see how that goes.

    Do places in the U.S., schools and colleges, anything post-secondary, have anything like this? We previously had a student pass that really wasn't at all cheaper, especially if students only came to and from the U.On Are low gas prices an inalienable right? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 34 Responses

  • More information on air cannons also

    Also from the article for anyone interested:

    '"It was sad because it could have been avoided," Willie Courtoureille, a Cree hunter from Fort Chipewyan, said of the Syncrude duck incident.

    The air cannons used by Syncrude and others to scare away birds from the tailing ponds are not very effective, he said. Courtoureille said he wants to see the companies make more intensive efforts like using boats and crews to deter birds from landing on the ponds during periods of high migration.

    "Have maybe a month scaring ducks," he suggested. "They've got the money."

    Courtoureille said a problem right now is that most of the marshes and wetlands are frozen because of the severe cold weather in the region, making the oilsands ponds particularly attractive to migrating birds at this time of year.'On Reason #689,251 oil sands suck posted 1 year, 7 months ago 9 Responses

  • PM to investigate

    Now the Prime Minister's getting involved. But he's the Canadian equivalent of Bush, so... we'll see. He's probably just trying to score points or make sure the sands' rep doesn't get any worse than it already is, in Canada and around the world.On Reason #689,251 oil sands suck posted 1 year, 7 months ago 9 Responses

  • Rail in Europe

    Europe has better rail because it's more densely populated too, which means there's more taxpayers. Despite that, they still have a lot of drivers. In Switzerland where divided highways are the norm, they frequently have traffic jams on the highway in some areas. You can drive from end to end of the country in 2-3 hours (depending on whether it's east-west or south-north) and yet people still have ridiculously long commutes. Germans too, some of them commuting across the border into Switzerland where the pay is better. It's true that Europeans have better transit systems, but there are lots of "selfish" drivers with ridiculous commutes for such a densely populated area of the world. Plus, their speed limits are higher in both Switzerland and of course Germany, though I don't know about other nations.

    I suspect that higher gas prices will eventually take care of long distance travel by car, but it's really in the cities where it makes the least sense to drive and fuel mileage is the worst. Unfortunately, as everybody green-tinged knows, we (North Americans) built ourselves into this mess.On A candidate finally discusses public transit ... at a random lunch posted 1 year, 7 months ago 30 Responses

  • Thanks

    Okay, yeah. The company was complaining because of the royalties increase cutting into their profits, and I guess threatening to sue, so now they're not in as good a position to claim the high ground since they're not following their part of the agreement. But, it's an opinion piece. Who knows how things will actually play out.

    I don't know if these cannons would have been in use all winter or not, because most birds around there head south to warmer climes in winter. But in most cases the weather's more extreme in January than April. I don't know if he's talking about a big snowstorm or what, but you'd need more information to believe there's any substance to his claim. Knowing some of the conditions people in the industry work in, out of necessity to keep things running, it sounds like they just dropped the ball.On Reason #689,251 oil sands suck posted 1 year, 7 months ago 9 Responses

  • Link broken

    For whatever reason, I can't bring up the article. Maybe a direct quote or a sum up how it helps the government?

    The thing that's truly disgusting is that it could have been prevented if the company had lived up to its most basic obligations on the environmental front. Never mind the huge environmental impact of the sands and how deficient obligations and monitoring tend to be in that area on projects like this. They're allowed to have open, surface toxic ponds sitting around as long as they just use the crudest of tools to keep wildlife away, and they can't even make sure they've done that. But, considering stories I've heard of oil riggers out on ocean rigs hunting sharks (no doubt illegally, considering their status) just for trophies, a lot of people in this industry don't seem to worry too much about other forms of life, or in some cases their own rig workers, considering safety standards on some rigs. Sort of like some other environment-destroying industries that are the "enemy of the human race." I'm sure if there were other opportunities with equal pay, a lot of people would be happy to get out of oil, etc.

    But, the federal government is financing carbon capture in windy provinces where I've heard wind energy could be more productive and cheaper to set up, and I don't know of any schools or apprenticeship programs or even many companies teaching or doing wind turbine maintenance, solar energy installation or even green roof installation. Canada's in the same place as the U.S., even though our population is probably more accepting of the human role in climate change and would like to see action on it. People were still more concerned about government corruption and gay marriage in the last federal election than they were about the fact they were voting in a party whose leader still doesn't really "believe in" climate change.

    I'm not too hopeful. People say one thing and do another, or they don't have enough information to act according to their beliefs.On Reason #689,251 oil sands suck posted 1 year, 7 months ago 9 Responses

  • Relationship between AB gov't and oil companies

    It's close, at least in the sense that they've made Alberta rich. To understand the phenomena of the oil sands, if you're unfamiliar with the economic and social impacts, look into the expansion of Fort Mac (mentioned in the article). It's been difficult for the gov't to keep up. Alberta draws more and more attention from the rest of Canada (and obviously the rest of the world) for its environmental impacts, so that's not going to reflect well on leadership that's quite happy with the arrangement as is, but the citizenship is mostly relatively content, and they're the voters there. Still, I think anger is natural, no matter the arrangement. They're supposed to follow the rules set out for them, the conditions for development, and they obviously slacked off and tried to cover it up in this case. It would arguably be more troubling if he stood up for them or acted calm.

    As long as the financial return is good on that oil, it's going to be extracted. There are a lot of people involved in the oil industry, not just the oil sands, and they're making good money. So I don't know how easy it would realistically be for the government to turn too hard against it by imposing more regulations and taxes, especially considering it only recently became profitable to extract this low quality source of oil. In Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, I'd hazard a guess that most people know somebody working in the oil industry or in jobs dependent on it. I know plenty, many of whom didn't even need to finish High School to be making better pay than many university graduates make.On Reason #689,251 oil sands suck posted 1 year, 7 months ago 9 Responses

  • Fighting amongst ourselves

    I agree that it's ridiculous to be coming down on each other, within the green movement and with people who are willing to at least give the green movement the benefit of the doubt. I just came from another corner of the web where the discussion is about how offensive the recent Time magazine cover is because of the soldiers lifting a tree instead of the flag. Most people there think it's offensive and try to claim they feel that way because it's exploiting that symbol, but it's clear that virtually everyone claiming it's offensive thinks climate change is "over-hyped." Others called the story boring and said they'd rather hear about vets than climate change. There is still a lot of work to do. I suspect there also might be strong resistance building to the idea of climate change requiring a war-size effort to fight as well. That idea has barely broken into the mainstream (or maybe still hasn't), and yet it's already being spoken out against, and undoubtedly you can imagine some will be calling the idea offensive.

    The same site recently had a poll about the news story people are most tired of, and climate change was one of them. Most Grist readers undoubtedly think the story isn't getting enough attention, and yet a lot of people there think it's getting too much. The fact that it's grouped in as just another news story is offensive to me.

    The comments at that particular site are mostly from people who are so militantly against the idea of climate change being serious (which I don't really understand why they're so vehement, considering all the side benefits for health, energy security, the economy), but you can see in the polls that things are more evenly split, yet you don't hear from the people concerned about climate change much in the comments. People (including me) are put off by the outspoken comments from the other side, and yet here we bicker amongst ourselves. Mind you, if you're not "debating," then there's probably not much to say. We still need to convince everyone else that climate change isn't a "vague threat," a "hoax," or "over-hyped." I have no idea how to begin to do that, but clearly we shouldn't turn on each other because it's easier, and just because we can still think logically after reading each other's comments.On Enough with the internecine warfare over Lieberman-Warner posted 1 year, 7 months ago 10 Responses

  • Good work...

    And maybe she could use this to better make her point too.
    Those people at Investor's Business Daily might want to take note. And Yahoo! News might want to take note that that should be in the "Anti-Environment" section. From time to time there's some really biased article from this "publication" and I always stupidly start reading it and get more frustrated and then angrily think, "Who wrote this?!" Then after seeing their logo I close the tab and accept that I've just wasted precious moments of my life reading spin.On Sebelius to Kansas legislature: posted 1 year, 7 months ago 1 Response

  • Preparation?

    It's a chicken and egg thing. You get the public transit that people demand. They'll be scrambling as people can't afford to drive anymore and trucks for freight no longer make sense. What, you expect preparation? Hopefully the resources are still there that things don't get chaotic. I'm already more concerned about getting a job I don't have to drive to than most of my other job search criteria, and wondering how I'm going to offload my car and its ridiculous loan. Stupid me.

    The government may, if we're lucky, understand the threat but can't justify spending the money until the public totally sees it too. And, you know, people won't see it until it happens, especially with the state of media and education.. And all those overestimations of fossil fuel supplies.On Let's rebuild our national rail network instead of repealing the gas tax posted 1 year, 7 months ago 31 Responses

  • Hmm..

    And yet she wants to build green buildings. I wonder if she found out about green buildings while researching climate change..On Skeptic stage dad to impressionable teen daughter: 'MOTIVATION!' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 31 Responses

  • Gas Tax Break

    So, this is probably not a good idea, hey?On Why a carbon price beats technology breakthroughs posted 1 year, 7 months ago 11 Responses

  • Obama said...

    I do recall Obama said something about how religion can support climate change action or something like that. I remember agreeing with however he phrased that particular comment. People are willing to do a lot for religion that they wouldn't do otherwise, so if the major religions of the world became convinced that this truly was a moral issue, and started really incorporating that into their belief systems and activist efforts, the impact of that would be profound, especially considering that people who tend to be strongly religious often don't (so far) overlap much with those who tend to be concerned about climate change. But, as has been said before, climate change is not just another environmental issue. It really is a moral issue that's very connected with the economic futures of poorer countries. People just aren't quite seeing it yet, as the vast majority of people still don't fully realize what the role of the rich countries has been in the state of poorer countries thus far. Religion and spirituality has a lot of potential if it's uncoupled from dogma. Can't see the forest for the trees...

    I honestly don't remember much of his response beyond that either.On Clinton & Obama to be queried on CNN tonight at 8pm EST on climate posted 1 year, 7 months ago 8 Responses

  • Same old...

    I saw the second half of the program and the last bit of Hillary's section. The first questions they asked Obama about were abortion and whether he believes the creation story. The next questioner wanted to ask specifically about evolution, but Obama had already covered it, so there was a bit about climate change thrown in there by the questioner. The phrase "cap and trade" sounded mysteriously out of place amongst all the other phrases floating around. I didn't see the Rev. Sally Bingham at all, so if she asked a question it must have been of Hillary earlier on.

    There was one question about poverty, whether Obama would commit to reducing it by 50% in ten years. He suggested he would keep the section of government that supports religious organizations but for poverty reduction, not recruitment.

    If the forum was as good as the issue listed in this post, it would have been great. Unfortunately, as a person who believes deeply in what seems to be the central tenet of Christianity, I can't help but feel people are still missing the point. There's so much more to be accomplished if people can get away from issues that there will just never be full agreement on. Why these questions were asked at all, I'm really not sure. On Clinton & Obama to be queried on CNN tonight at 8pm EST on climate posted 1 year, 7 months ago 8 Responses

  • People don't know what they're missing

    Not needing an automobile, convenient, reliable public transit, walkable communities = pure bliss. Less air pollution, the extinction of the word commute, healthier lifestyles, better looking cities...It's a failure of the imagination on the part of "society." Imagine a city without cars, without so much asphalt, ugly, multi-lane strips that notch up your anxiety level just having to cross as a pedestrian. An ugly environment, an unhealthy lifestyle, time sucked away for the sake of the automobile. It's sick and twisted, but somehow it crept up on us and now we can't imagine life without it. Well, most of us can't, apparently.On Word posted 1 year, 8 months ago 10 Responses

  • Wood-gas stoves?

    What about solar cookers? This is the most under-done, easy way to cut deforestation in many countries, and reduce the "Asian cloud," or whatever the P.C. term for it is now.On Drawing actual conclusions about the international challenge posted 1 year, 8 months ago 11 Responses

  • loe.org

    Maybe nobody's mentioned it because Grist readers are so familiar with it (they were involved in the presidential forum Grist did), but Living on Earth's weekly show (loe.org). I especially like how often they do pieces about environment-human health links. A few months ago they did a piece on corruption in government regarding the mining industry that I thought was pretty good.On Seeking ideas for good green listening posted 1 year, 9 months ago 7 Responses

  • Suzuki's emissions

    Obviously this isn't his whole carbon footprint, but The Hour did a piece on a day in the life:

    http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1308On Notable quotable posted 1 year, 9 months ago 3 Responses

  • More Time

    Sort of a backwards approach maybe, but with more time away from work it becomes easier to live more sustainably. One easy example is to think how the modern world would change without packaged foods and restaurants that let you eat and run. If you spend more time at work it's difficult to live without processed or prepared-by-others foods. Maybe not so much restaurant foods, but packaged foods are packed with unhealthy ingredients and chemicals, not to mention the packaging itself, and they require more energy to make than foods closer to their natural state. If you have more time you might choose a greener option for commuting too, and possibly not commute as much at all, if your work week is cut down to fewer days, not just shorter days.

    If people work less, they might consume less because the economy is producing less. That's hard to prove though. Many people have suggested that if people aren't at work they'll trample the natural environment spending resources, energy, etc. on entertainment. It depends on what the new free time is spent doing, really. Does a shorter work week translate into less income? Does it mean employers have to pay more per hour of time worked? That would mean less money in corporate hands and more in employees'/consumers' hands. Is that money just shoveled back into more consuming? I don't have enough knowledge of economics to really sort it out. There's also the psychological/sociological aspect of possibly reduced stress from better work-life balance. Maybe if people have more time they won't feel so much pressure to make themselves happy by buying more stuff or showing off through purchases.

    I doubt the true impact of a shorter work week can be known without it really being implemented, although I don't think 35 hours is that substantial a change. Many European countries have experimented with this. France is a well-known example. A reduced work week might mean more jobs to go around but there's apparently still high unemployment in the country. There are lots of books on the topic. The bottom line seems to be that most people still aren't interested in giving up any income to have extra time.On Shorter work week bleg posted 1 year, 10 months ago 7 Responses

  • Media...

    It's typical. Sometimes it can be something which comes out biased from the wording alone, but obviously there's more blatant stuff like this. There was a recent AFP article about Bali that used phrasing along the lines of changes to the wording "allowed" the U.S. to sign on. Maybe that's just poorly written, but it implies that there was no way the U.S. could change its position, when in fact if it weren't for the current administration the U.S. could be "allowed" to sign up for much more ambitious goals. It's misleading. It doesn't place responsibility where it belongs. The media only serves its corporate owners, certainly not the public's need for good information.On Press peddles Republican talking points on energy bill posted 1 year, 11 months ago 4 Responses

  • A better life

    Walkable communities and farmers markets might be part of this, but probably working less is also a big part of it. If you don't need excessive income to spend on "stuff," then you don't need to spend so much time at work, and people would have more time for everything else they're just trying to squeeze in around work and housework. Why do people work so much, if not for more money? The economy would have to be entirely restructured to serve us again, instead of us serving it, working over a third of our hours just to spend what we earn in off hours to keep the system grinding on and growing. The biggest obvious problem is at the lower income end of the spectrum. The poor are working full-time and can barely make ends meet, especially single parents, so there's no room to cut back hours. This is all related to simple living and the slow movements, which sometimes (sometimes not) just have ecological benefits as a side effect.On Scaling back our energy-hungry lifestyles means more of what matters, not less posted 1 year, 11 months ago 24 Responses

  • Green enough for me

    It seems like an appropriate message.  The problems the world faces, environmental ones, population explosion and aging, they are problems that are pretty difficult to solve if the world's people remains at odds.  The question is how to close the gap in wealth and happiness that causes resentment while remaining within the bounds of the resources we have available to us.  There's definitely a lot of room for improvement, but a whole new value system, a different set of goals, seems required.On Robert Wright at TED posted 2 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses

  • Green Google

    Google invested in solar a couple years ago already, and I think they were working to power their servers with solar.  They also gave some employees free bikes recently.  Just Google it.  ;)

    Tech companies probably tend to be more forward looking, because they aren't afraid to use new technology to solve big problems.  Plus they have quite a lot of money, so it really can be significant if they can work on environmental issues and invest in R and D for things like solar.On Yahoo! posted 2 years, 7 months ago 4 Responses

  • As a Canadian..

    ..why do I have to go to a UK media source to find out my stupid government is acting like a road block on this?  I haven't seen anything about this in Canadian newspapers so far.  I'm pretty sure if more Canadians knew about this, there would be more upset.  The Conservatives are pretending to be green, but this is what they're doing behind the scenes.  Democracy would be a lot more democratic if people had more information..On Really posted 2 years, 7 months ago 3 Responses

  • news coverage

    There's a bit of coverage in Yahoo! News' Environment section.
    http://news.yahoo.com/i/2736;_ylt=AvN48pg9hS_48ujE3nIaHdM ...  I think the media is most attracted to protests with huge amounts of people, not so much "distributed protesting".. so maybe that's the problem?On Get out there on the street! posted 2 years, 7 months ago 12 Responses

  • Yes Southern Alberta is one of the sunniest areas

    .. in Canada, but NORTHERN Alberta is not so sunny.  It is however close to Saskatchewan, which has lots of uranium.  It's not surprising they want to use nuclear to cut this HUGE source of emissions, which is one of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters in the country, and a rather important obstacle to Canada meeting its Kyoto targets.  There's also the proposed Carbon dioxide pipeline:  http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2007/03/06/carbon ...On Using nuclear power to extract oil posted 2 years, 9 months ago 9 Responses