Comments JoshS has made

You missed the

most sustainable group in Cleveland...  E4S!On Can Cleveland bring itself back from the brink? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 7 Responses

actually jonas

if you examine what's happened to our agricultural system in the past 100 years, it's the "agricultural experts" that are exactly the trouble.

once you begin treating the soil as a resource to be extracted, the clock measuring its useful life has started to tick.On What's causing the sudden run-up in food prices? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 39 Responses

I agree with you both

Stern deserves credit for admitting his mistake, something that economists almost never seem to do.  Especially as they almost always prove themselves wrong.

But I agree with Wolverine's primary point...economists should not be making the science/policy/action decisions on their flawed cost/benefit analysis.

One day that'll mean geo-engineering because a few economists think it's the "lowest cost" solution.

The world of nature doesn't acknowledge our human view of economics.  On Nicholas Stern says climate change worse than he thought posted 1 year, 7 months ago 4 Responses

that's one of an estimated 30 million...

"Lion:
a) no choice of millons of different foods
b) no factory farming
c) no chemicals
d) no horrible years of confinement
e) no pollution caused due to factory/intensive farming"

How about chimpanzees, with a choice but still eating meat?

But you're pronouncing an absolute rule against meat eating, while in the same breath, saying "eat anything" in times of emergency, scarcity or necessity.  What of cannabalism, when no other options exist?  That ok?

Sorry for the fast thought about how our industrial paradigm emerged, and metastasized into our agricultural system.  I'm not blaming that one on the vegans  ;)

Intolerant because the word selfish, defined as "devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others," absolutely mischaracterizes my position of agreement with Wendell Berry and others, writing of farming as a set of ancient values, of stewardship, of morals, of a people on a land.  When done with respect, farming of plants and animals rises to the level of a sacrament (or moral equivalent for those who don't believe in God), but when done badly, as in industrial agriculture, farming and anyone's contribution to the system, essentially is a form of sin (or moral equivalent in relativistic systems).

My point, is that "organic" in a Wendell Berry sense, eliminates the "factory" from the farm, no horrible years of confinement, (almost all) chemicals, etc...

In that way, meat farming returns to the ecological paradigm in which it evolved, and as such, becomes more sacrament than industry.On 'Heart-healthy' pork from pigs with bad hearts posted 1 year, 8 months ago 33 Responses

Demand and sick experiments are different things..

"Demand for pork--even demand from those who only eat it occasionally--is what drives these sick experiments, not that you, or any flesh eater, should be held complicit."

Absolutely not...that's completely against common sense.

I'd never knowingly eat a GMO animal.  Never buy it or try it.  Thus, no market.  Given that most consumers prefer labels, it's just as wrong to assume that "because you eat meat, you are driving these sick experiments."

It is the nature of our industrial paradigm that is driving these disturbing experiments, not meat eaters.On 'Heart-healthy' pork from pigs with bad hearts posted 1 year, 8 months ago 33 Responses

it doesn't cost more!

You wrote..."It takes time for the extra money invested in green building to pay off; same with retrofits."

That's not true...anymore.  Solar panels are not a proxy for green / non-green!  They can constitute one component, but unfortunately as they're one of the most costly options, there appears to exist a perception that green building must cost more.  Many builders have proven otherwise.  It's just time for the rest of the educational curve to catch up.

Same with defining "green".  "Green" and "Sustainability" don't mean much anymore, if anything.  Especially given the inherent tendency of the Bush administration (and others through history) to take words and redefine them (water boarding is what?!), it is essential that the "green" community define itself and its message.  How?  Science based standards.  Same goes in construction...ecology and biology provide indisputable standards on which to measure "greeness".  Think Biomimicry.  Think conservation biology.

But building "green" does not cost a cent more than traditional construction, as a first cost.  Over a lifecycle, homeowners continue saving more and more...probably akin to compounding interest!  And with more and more externalities measured, I would bet (these bets seem to be going around), that dollars and cents proof will bear out that green building never cost more than traditional construction.  Maybe solar panels do, but that's not the same thing.

Beyond that, to a more theoretical level, I'd argue that this statement was NEVER true...when you factor in all externalities caused by "non-green" construction, it has been cheaper to build green, from the start of time.On A public policy silver bullet that's available to fight global warming today posted 1 year, 11 months ago 6 Responses

honest question

aren't we already close or beyond this percentage, already considering the declines in ecosystem services...?

i am beginning to think that virtual modeling will be our downfall, particularly any model with the label "economic".On Jim Manzi replies to Ryan Avent posted 1 year, 11 months ago 29 Responses

because...

we have just a few years to avoid the worst.  and it's a moral issue (think your very own Holocaust arguments...).

so empty victories are not a basis for celebration...they're wasting time and manufacturing illusions that we're solving the challenge.

like another poster above said, if our solutions are not tied to scientific standards....well, we'll go the way of the other 99% of species to walk, crawl, swim, flagellate the earth.  

our only difference...we'll probably be the first species in the earth's history to document our extinction (or stupendous ignorance of it!).

:)On Greens need to learn how to celebrate their friends and their movement posted 1 year, 12 months ago 31 Responses

Hmm...

Spaceshaper, I disagree with your blanket disagreement of my blanket disagreement.  :)

I definitely can see how my post left certain impressions open to interpretation, but I'm not arguing that radiant floors are for everybody or every climate.

I disagree with the essential reasoning behind Wilson's disagreement about radiant heating in certain climates, namely colder climates with greater numbers of heating degree days.  It's written with the beauty of a true non-builder's thinking.  :)

That said, other excellent strategies exist for such climates as well, not involving radiant.On Umbra on radiant heating posted 2 years, 4 months ago 11 Responses

Cheney's just giving himself

some old school cover, killing substance, virtue and reality in policy through process.  It's just built-in future damage control, for this day, knowing it'd arrive at some point.  

Fighting the release of this list gave Cheney many benefits.  First, time.  Time itself is a resource...as much as the environmental community may have protested the particulars of his Energy Policy itself, much effort, time and money was wasted in arguing for disclosure of who he met and when.  From an effects perspective, that information is essentially meaningless, no more than a red herring to waste time, energy and money of his opponents, I'd bet.  Beyond the lost opportunity costs of time (and money and effort), Cheney wins a modicum of credibility with middle of the road people, while reinforcing his standing in the Fox-watching community.  Why?  He can easily now claim that he met with environmental concerns and gave them due regard.  That shifts the burden back on us, so to speak, to argue conspiracy, that he ignored us, etc.  In a "he said, she said" thing, nobody wins...it's just more of the same old deterioration of virtue, truth and integrity, begotten by process and form without substance.

I just mean, now Cheney can just say, "hey, I met with them.  There was never any issue here.  Now let's get back to the business of serving the American people."  He's a bastard for sure, but incredibly resourceful and intelligent.

There's no reason to let this nonsense of process distract from the reality that renewable energy never really had a chance with Cheney to start with...no matter who he met with.On Pretty much what you thought it was posted 2 years, 4 months ago 7 Responses

Oh man...

even more errors!  Sorry...I mean, the only answer today is reducing CO2 emissions, not offsets!

Offsets could work when and if they prove themselves out scientifically, that they work restoratively in a reductionist sense.  But as others have written above, implicitly justifying destruction of, say, a forest or species because a "no worries!  We'll just offset!" rationale...well, we're losing much more than the global CO2 battle.On In which I clear everything up posted 2 years, 4 months ago 26 Responses

No...You Missed My Nutshell.

It is the ecological indulgence that I disagree with, not the moral.

Aside from your rhetoric (i.e., "strangely heated" as if there's no way a reasonable person could hold an even relatively reasonable argument against offsets), certain other aspects of offsets concern me, apart from some moralistic "Robbing Peter to Pay Paul" dimension.

As GreyFlc writes, what assurances does the market provide relative to actual cost, i.e., in ecological terms?  Sure, markets do a great job of fixing price, but we're .  So big deal that an offset is a project.  Of course it is, but that's not the point.

Here's the crux of the underlying assumption that you make, with which I disagree...that, the ecological CO2 equation balances favorably for the world and its 10 to 30 million species -- that the ecological damage caused by CO2 emitted TODAY is balanced out by an offset project occurring TOMORROW. Think...CO2 over a tree's life cycle. Simply...there is a temporal dimension to all of this, and it goes without saying that we don't have all the time in the world.  Not to mention...are these offset projects restoring forests and habitat, or just planting trees?  There's a difference.

I am worried solely about the ecological balancing, between offsets and the perception of continuing consumption as usual that offsets seem to feed.  I agree that inspiration, awe, wonder and all that good stuff (such as a better quality of living) goes much further to transform behavior, markets and the world than does guilt and criticize.  That's a different issue...until I see hard science on the value of offsets relative to CO2 emitted TODAY (or that incremental amount of CO2 emitted by virtue of an offsetting justification), then the only answer to avoid what appears almost cataclysmic at this point...is to simply reduce offsets.

And here's an honest question (I admit I must research more)...until you draw a clear line, any offset would appear to counterbalance existing emissions, not work proactively to reduce overall CO2 in hard numbers.

Beyond that, Wiscidea hits the qualitative aspects of offsets as good as I have read anywhere.  In describing the paradox, the truth of it to me seems simple...offsets seem innocent enough, but actually work counterintuitively against everybody's overarching goal, massive reductions in the hard count of CO2 molecules.  Offsets seem to counterbalance, in a dynamic un-equilibrium, even they preserve a somewhat steady state, we will have lost the fight.  On In which I clear everything up posted 2 years, 4 months ago 26 Responses