[Gllug] [OT] Technobabble

[Jim Bailey]

On Nov 21, 11:50, David Damerell wrote:
> On Monday, 21 Nov 2005, Jim Bailey wrote:
> >On Nov 20, 04:54, David Damerell wrote:
> >Actually it isn't I suggest that you read this article.
> >http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002312.html
> 
> Perhaps it is unclear to you that this is someone _talking_ but it is
> their _actions_ that affect the environment. And their actions are to
> increase emissions and energy consumption year-on-year.

My original post was to show that eco-design in building could be used
to greatly reduce energy consumption and thus make the possibility of
purely renewable energy policy much more likely over the longer term.  I
have already conceded in another post that we are probably going to
have to use nuclear power for at least the next 20-50 years.  However I
and many more people globally would prefer a renewables based energy
system.  How we can achieve that technically, which was the purpose of
my original post is an on going discussion.

You seem to be trying to turn it in to a debate on the political will of
China to make changes which is a fascinating area of speculation but one
more suited to the Oxford debating society.
> 
> >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.
> 
> That's just the usual nonsense. An obvious counterexample is that
> coming up with clean industrial processes in the Victorian era would
> have been enormously expensive and would not have provided any benefit
> to an individual firm surrounded by a thousand dirty industrial
> processes.

No you are talking nonsense, even the early industrial revolution the
connection was there ignored or misunderstood by just about everyone
but still there.

The replacement of Newcomen's engine by Watt's produced fuel savings of
around 75%, configure in the costs of transporting that fuel and the
profitability increases are obvious, what is not so obvious or even
cared about are the environmental benefits of 75% less fuel.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt_steam_engine

Relating eco-design to FOSS if it isn't labouring a point early in FOSS
movement only a few individuals such as RMS pushed the ideal of FOSS,
Later for reasons of profitability and efficiency IBM and Apple got
involved in FOSS.
> 
> This claim is often made and it's basically an attempt to reassure
> people by lying to them; the fact is that cleaning things up - let
> alone reducing production and consumption - are not going to
> painlessly escort us into a new green future where little bunnies
> gambol over the fields. These are painful and difficult processes
> which nevertheless are necessary.

I am actually planning a self build eco-house in the country some point
over the next few years.  Though any bunnies gambolling over our fields
are at risk of been shot, skinned and placed in the pot. :D
> 
> >Despite your efforts to make this a bivalent debate
> 
> A "bivalent debate" is one where when you talk nonsense someone points
> it out, right?

Support the claim of nonsense David, I am getting really tired of you
trolling for a emotional reaction.  Either that or you have somehow
drawn a whole series of conclusions on how I think and have made
decisions regarding the environment in which case you are talking
nonsense.
> 
> >>Hint; orders of magnitude more somewhat cleaner cars doesn't get you
> >>reduced emissions. That's rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
> >It not rearranging deck chairs, it one of many, many things necessary to
> >stop the destruction of the environment
> 
> No, orders of magnitude more somewhat cleaner cars is *not* one of the
> things necessary to save the environment. It is one of the things that
> will ensure the destruction of same. What is needed is _fewer_ motor
> cars (and cleaner ones wouldn't hurt, either).

Look I will try to explain this so that some one of even your limited
horizons will understand. 

Fewer cars would be a _nice_ option but the vast majority of people
don't want to give up their car and unless forced to do so by a police
state won't give up their cars.  In China, India and other emerging
nations the desire for a cars, fridges, etc. is very strong.

The solutions is to create clean goods to have a clean transport system
etc.  That is not a trivial task and one of humanities great challenges
of the 21st century, one that if we don't rise to we are dead.

-- 
Peace Jim :-)

keys:  http://freesolutions.net/jim/pubkey.asc

 My education has only been interrupted by 18 years of schooling.
 --George Bernard Shaw

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug