[Gllug] [OT] Technobabble

[David Damerell]

On Wednesday, 23 Nov 2005, Jim Bailey wrote:
>On Nov 21, 06:12, David Damerell wrote:
>You keep claiming I am being absurd, talking nonsense and rubbish, yet
>all I did was supply some information to the list and expressed an
>opinion that such things were good.

And ascribed an evidently false position to the Chinese government.

>>Very good, tell me something I already know! Now, would designing and
>>installing chimney scrubbers with the technology of the era have made
>>any sense? No.
>No but they didn't make any sense at that time and context, and they
>don't make a lot of sense now.

OK, let's go round again with the renewables available to the
Victorians - a contrived example, but it's not me who said this has
always been true. That would be human and animal muscle power, some
hydro for driving machinery, and wind power for propelling ships. By
your argument, an organisation that started using these in the
Victorian era would have enjoyed an advantage over organisations using
non-renewable steam power from coal. This is a bit odd because steam
power had just largely displaced these technologies...

>>I'm not the one claiming China is taking effective action.
>If you can find anywhere in my comments the view that China is taking
>effective action I will be happy to apologise.  

"China and India have done the maths and know there growth is not
environmentally stable.  Anyone like myself, who has been in Calcutta
knows how much more immediate the enviromental cost of polluting
wasteful technologies are.  which is why India leads PV research and
development and China has recently ordered all new buildings to reach
new environmental standards and older ones be refitted where
possible."

What, are you going to claim that you thought this was completely
pointless action on their part, but didn't think that was worth
mentioning?

While we're justifying the claim of nonsense, here's some;

David>Hint; orders of magnitude more somewhat cleaner cars doesn't get you
David>reduced emissions. That's rearranging the deck chairs on the
David>Titanic.
Jim>It not rearranging deck chairs, it one of many, many things necessary
Jim>to stop the destruction of the environment

Yup; that's you saying orders of magnitude *more* cars are necessary
to stop the destruction of the environment. Huh?

>>the many reasons why your vision of a painless transition to a
>>fluffy-bunny future is completely false.
>Where do I claim a vision of a painless transition to a fluffy-bunny
>future?

"The Chinese have made the connection between eco-design, sustainability
and efficiency.  Which translates in to productivity and profits in
the real world always has always will."

Sure sounds to *me* like you're saying that the transition to your
preferred technologies can be made painlessly.

-- 
David Damerell <damerell at chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Tuesday, November.
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug