This should be interesting. Saddam Hussein, whose gun is a trophy in the Oval Office (am I the only one creeped out by that?) has been sentenced to death, along with several of his co-conspirators, for crimes against humanity.
Obviously I ain’t shedding a tear over his fate. I am reminded, though, that he was once an ally of the United States. And I am also pondering the repeated assertions by the President and all his spokesmen that we cannot “cut and run” and must instead remain in Iraq “until the job is done.”
Well…it’s done. Buh bye.
Our “job,” as laid out repeatedly by the administration, was to disempower Saddam Hussein and get his weapons of mass destruction. Well, there’s no WMDs, so that is never going to happen. And Saddam is slated to be executed. I don’t think you can be more out of power than being dead.
The only other job that remains is to get the Iraqis to stop killing each other. Here’s a news flash: Not going to happen. They’re going to keep killing each other over differences that go back since God-knows-when, and our presence is not going to deter that. The only presence that deterred it at all was Saddam’s, and the way he deterred it was through means so fierce and brutal that he was judged guilty of crimes against humanity. Now he will die but the killing will continue. And with him as a martyr, it will likely intensify. In the meantime there are people in charge of Iraq now who are our allies, but ten years from now, I will not be remotely surprised if they or someone else are using the exact same tactics that Saddam used to try and keep order. I don’t think we’ll ever know whether Saddam shaped the circumstances or if the circumstances shaped him. But we sure know that perfectly decent, upstanding service men and women were thrust into a situation where they had to keep order in a prison and they turned almost overnight into people whose actions were unrecognizable to their loved ones. So don’t tell me that Iraq won’t see the return of executions and secret death camps within the next few years, and then what? We start carpet bombing again?
Here’s what we know for sure: Iraqis are going to keep killing each other, will not be stopping anytime soon, and will doubtless ratchet up the body count once Saddam is a martyr. They’ll do it whether our young men and women are there or not. The ONLY question anyone should be considering is if our people should be killed while the Iraqis are going about killing each other, and whether anything is to be gained from their deaths.
I don’t think so.
Our job is done. Sooner or later, we’re going to have to acknowledge that it’s up to the Iraqis. I opt for sooner. There’s nothing undignified or wrongheaded about cutting and running. The administration has tried to characterize that notion as dirty and stupid…you know, just like they’ve done with the word “liberal.” I find it funny that phrases they don’t want to deal with, such as “death” or “slaughter,” becomes “collateral damage” or “acceptable losses.” But “cut and run” doesn’t get embellished into something acceptable. Me, I have no trouble with it at all. It’s not “cut and run.” Call it “strategic withdrawal.” Call it “organized troop relocation.” Call it whatever you want that will save lives.
In the words of the shepherd, let’s get the flock out of there. Because when Saddam dies, that place is very likely going to erupt whether we’re there or not. I vote not.
PAD
• 
Home solar cells do work. They are expensive but can mean a lot of energy saving on the long term. Here, were the prize of energy is higher than in your country, A Home installation pays itself in 10 years, 5 if its in a condo/apartment building. Actually, every new house in most parts of spain is now required by law to have such installation.
There is a new town close to Malmö, in Sweden, that buys electricity from the grid on winter but sell its surplus during Summer, and they are close to deficit zero on that matter. They combine solar installations with energy efficient houses. That is, by the way, a factor that had not been mentioned before; good termal isolation and natural air circuits make for healthier housing and save a lot both in heating and AC.
And the fun part is that its not even expensive, it only takes the house designer to spend some more time thinking before sending he plans.
>solar operations … smaller scale units on the rooftops of houses can serve as a supplement
Provided it doesn’t snow and cover the receptors. And that doesn’t work very well at night when people are home cooking food, using the air conditioner, watching that big screen tv, either.
Umm, you do know what the word “supplement” means, right? As in, “in addition to others”? Did you miss the point where I said that there will not be any single source of energy meeting all of our needs?
Yes, they do work better in certain climates and in certains times of day and certain times of the year, but they can be used as a backup for heating and electricity in homes to shave some dollars off their monthly bills.
As for the issue of not using it at night: Peak energy demand is during the daylight hours. Other energy sources can be used for cooking after dark. Plus, there are a number of ways in which heated water or other materials can be used to store solar energy for use doring off peak hours.
“Provided it doesn’t snow and cover the receptors. And that doesn’t work very well at night when people are home cooking food, using the air conditioner, watching that big screen tv, either.”
Not to mention that battery units can store up any unused energy during the day.
Add to all this is that as use of these alternative energy sources are developed, the effeciency of the technology will get better.
Posted by Ben Bradley
Manny:
“We don’t “need” gas, we’re addicted to the crap.”
A) Please lose the attitude, you’re starting to sound like Rush Limbaugh.
B) I do what I can. I admit to driving a P/U truck, however when leased, my wife and I lived in a rural area where 4WD was a necessity 5 months out of the year.
C) I vote heavily on enironmental issues. When our local version of the Shrub stated in the last election that he would withdraw Canada from the Kyoto Accord, I and my wife voted and campaigned against him.
D) Part of individual effort is debunking the efforts of the neo-cons to present global warming as “unproven”. The other part is education of the self and others.
E) Unfortunately, I don’t control where of what my employer chooses to put in the semi’s we drive. However, since my company recently was taken over by a larger outfit, some ideas I put into my employers head are now being acted upon.
F) In the transport business, our equipment generally runs cleaner and is better maintained than your personal vehicle. This is both regulatory as well as basic good business sense. Fuel is the single biggest expense in the transport business. Well maintained equipment is efficient equipment.
Additionally, the transport business has been transitioning to bio diesel well ahead of the pack. However, certain technical issues make universal use difficult.(Ask me about them if you’re interested.
G) On the personal side, my wife and I use flourescent bulbs in our home, and have started our families switching over. Our V8 beast parks as much as possible now that we live in the ‘burbs with public transit available. My wife’s pregnancy makes walking and bussing sometimes impractical, but we try.
What are you doing?
D) Part of individual effort is debunking the efforts of the neo-cons to present global warming as “unproven”. The other part is education of the self and others.
Sorry for the change of subject, but it ain’t just the neocons. South Park has done two or three episodes not-so-subtly implying that global warming is a myth (“Manbearpig”, “Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow”…possibly also “Smug Alert”) and that anybody who worries about it is retarded.
Oh yeah, and in “Krazy Kripples” they also portrayed Christopher Reeve as a guy who sucked the blood out of fully-grown babies in order to get their stem cells. That was when I stopped watching.
There’s also Michael Crichton.
South Park targets everybody and anybody.
If you can’t remember that when watching the show, well, you probably shouldn’t be watching it. 🙂
Actually, the point of the “Smug Alert” episode of South Park was that driving hybrid vehicles is a good thing and should be encouraged — but it’s a problem when people get smug about it.
If anything, Parker and Stone are more liberatarian than liberal or conservative in their viewpoints. If they believe in any political absolute it’s that there should be no limits as what can be satirized or talked about. Beyond that, it’s hard to pin down where they stand. For example, in the boy scouts episode, the message that they implied seemed to be that the Boy Scouts should drop their ban on gays, but people shouldn’t have the right to sue them in order to force the issue.
“Manbearpig” seemed to me more of a satire on Gore’s persona than his actual position on global warming. Same thing with the Day After Tomorrow where they took shots about both sides in the Katrina debates for caring more about who was to blame than solving the problem. There were some underlying jabs at the global warming debate, but then they turn around and say that hybrid vehicles are a good thing. Just don’t be a dìçk about driving one.
“Oh yeah, and in “Krazy Kripples” they also portrayed Christopher Reeve as a guy who sucked the blood out of fully-grown babies in order to get their stem cells. That was when I stopped watching.”
I think the point of that was to make fun of the people who object to stem cell research by making their objection look ridiculous
“And that doesn’t work very well at night when people are home cooking food, using the air conditioner, watching that big screen tv, either.”
Spoken like someone who doesn’t know how the system is designed to work. You ever gone into a Lowes store or other like retailer? Seen those solar powered lawn lights? What, you think that they light up the yard in the middle of the day?
:p
Solar cells would power some things in the day, but they would also charge large sets of rechargeable batteries. Those would help to power the home at night. Also, you can set the system up so that the cells only power certain things that would get more daytime use by choosing set items in the home to be wired to the lines from the cells.
There are lots of other things can help as well.
Everybody seems to know that we have light bulbs on the market now that will burn a brightly as a 100 watt bulb while only using about 25-30 watts. Well, we are also getting LED bulbs onto the market that are as bright as a 60 to 100 watt bulb and only use around 3 to 5 watts. granted, because they are not in mass production they are running around $25.00 to $30.00 a bulb. Yeah, that’s steep. The upside to that price tag is that the bulbs have a life span of 15 plus years.
My plan hs been to replace one bulb per month. Add up what you spend on bulbs in that time period. You’ll more then break even on the per bulb price, you’ll slowly save a bit more money on the old power bill and the if more people start buying more bulbs, the price goes down on the dámņëd things.
In line water heaters are great as well. They flash heat the water when you need it rather then heating the water all day. Again, drops the total amount of power needed to run your home and saves resources and $$$.
Going to buy or build a new home or upgrade the one you have? Geothermal heating is a great method of heating and cooling a building. Saves money and saves power.
Building a new home also allows you to look at some of the more green designs that take into account natural heating and cooling on a structure caused by the sun’s location in the sky. It blew my mind how much that can be factored into a design.
Can you guess that Jenn and I are looking to build in the next few years? We’ve been digging around and actually found that there are government grants out there that people can obtain to help pay for some of this stuff. That means that the cost for the average guy building his home won’t get too crazy for him to handle.
Each of these are small things that seem to mean little in and of themselves, but they add up. Get more homeowners to to do them and it starts adding up a lot. Drop overall power usage enough and you make those “unfeasible” power sources feasible and extend the time we can still use oil and gas while looking for better options.
The only problem? Getting enough people to care enough or to act. I don’t think that I’ll see it in my lifetime.
Thus endeth the greenish rant.
Rob, fully grown babies? Eat a lot of jumbo shrimp where you are?
I probably shouldn’t do this, but I’m going to any. Bill Myers, it wasn’t just a short topic, it was a very one-sided discussion.
Oh, Mike, with your Prius? Yeah, great. Buddy of mine has one. Now, explain to me, if you will, how I can get all my audio and video equipment to and from my jobs in a car that is so roomy that my son has TOYS that are bigger. Ironically enough, a Prius could fit in my trunk.
Starwolf–as far as moving closer to work–great plan, although most people don’t have the money to do so. Trust me, if we did, we wouldn’t be living where we are. Which leads me to my next point. I do a video or DJ job, I don’t know WHERE it’s going to be. Sure, I could limit my range, but that would also limit my prospects.
Jerry, trust me, if what I’m seeing is right, people ARE caring more. And I’d buy those bulbs if my family didn’t have the bad habit of knocking lamps off tables. Not especially coordinated around here. Seriously, that’s the only reason I haven’t done it. I’d buy one, my son crashes into the table, need another bulb.
> Solar cells would power some things in the day, but they would also charge large sets of rechargeable batteries.
Given how expensive square footage is in urban housing nowadays, this may not be such a good thing especially in apartment dwellings. And rechargeables tend to have a lifespan which could make them expensive to maintain too.
As for fluorescents, yes, more energy efficient, but one of the things my Japanese friends tend to remark upon [and I agree with them] is how much more we use incandescent bulbs here than they do over there. They like that. Probably due to the fact that it looks ‘warmer’ (though technically the actual ‘temperature’ of the light is cooler) than most fluorescents and less stressful on the eyes. There are reportedly fluorescents which mostly avoid these problems, but they are, of course, more expensive, so what you save one way, you get nailed on in another.
Oh, and, major use during daylight hours? Depends what part of the planet you live in. Here, in Ottawa, sunset was at 4:45pm today. I should think all the [non-gas] stoves and other heavy-duty household appliances powering up in the next couple of hours would be a healthy drain on the system. In fact, see the following:
“Most of us tend to use our air conditioners and appliances during the same times each day. From 2 p.m. to 8 p.m., demand for electricity is much higher, creating a ‘peak usage period.'” (From some ‘Energuide’ type page)
As seen above, a little over half that falls during the period of darkness, at this time of year, when solar is usless to us.
“Given how expensive square footage is in urban housing nowadays, this may not be such a good thing especially in apartment dwellings. And rechargeables tend to have a lifespan which could make them expensive to maintain too.”
Yeah, the apartment thing is a problem. But only in older buildings. New buildings can be built with the space for that kind of thing in them. Plus, the bubble is bursting on property prices. It may start getting sane again.
The lifespan thing is less of an issue then you may think. I’ve got some of the solar LED lights set up in the carport, the walkway and several other areas and they light up the area quite well. The things are still giving 100% after three years. And they’re the cheap ones. A well made one should last many, many years. And the systems should get cheaper, cost wise, as they become more common and better made.
“As seen above, a little over half that falls during the period of darkness, at this time of year, when solar is usless to us.”
Yeah, which is why you don’t go to only solar. The next two to three generations in America should start slowly swtching over. If they did that, then they would basically be in, for lack of a better term, hybrid houses.
We don’t have to be 100% off of the grid from day one (or day 1,001). But the more we get off the grid, or away from oil and gas powered grids, the less we need it and the better off we are.
Think about this while you’re shooting this stuff down. Someone shows you a way to do some of this stuff to your home and shows you how to get grants or a few one off tax breaks for some of it. It won’t cost you tons of $$$$. The upshot? Three years from now you’re paying less in electric bills then you are today, you can still run a few things when the grid goes down and we’re all a few gallons less dependent on oil.
What, trying to do that isn’t worth it because it’s not a 100% change overnight?
Some electricity providers “buy” your sun hours surplus in exchange for the power your system cant provide during the night (although power storage is getting more efficient by the month). As I mentioned, a domestic sun power installation on your roof can be amortized in ten years, less if we are talking about an apartment building. You can argue all you want about its innefiency but that ceased to be true 10 years ago at least. It works, its clean and it saves money on the long term. (Last year I worked in the design of over 16 buildings, from unifamiliar housing to schools and a medical center and EVERY ONE of them had a solar installation)
And it doesnt care you live in a cold area. It doesnt get much cooler than Malmö, and the lack of sunhours during winter is compensated by the extremely long days of the Summer. You give and take from the grid as needed and overall you save money and prevent fuel fossils from getting wasted. You ask me, goverments should make these installations mandatory, along with a more strict edification law that included a colegiate review on the design.
One of the reason houses in America are so power inneficient is the low thermal innertia of the materials you use. Too many walls you can punch through, too many heat leaks. I know there are good houses there too but also a huge amount of fast built houses that drink fuel in the winter faster than a cadillac. Also many are pre-designed and built just on any site by a contractor, not designed specifically for that site, thus making them ovens in the Summer.
See, there is this kind of attitude towards resources, on a particular basis, that can be resumed in “as long as I can afford it I am entitled to waste as much as I want”. I kind of remember a debate some years ago in the USA because there was a law to limit the vulme of toilet cisterns and many people thought that interfered with their god given right to spend as much water a sthey wanted to wash their crap away. It is pretty extended all ove rthe developed world (except maybe Japan and Scandinavia), because in draught-strikken spain some people insist on watering their scotish lawn at midday, and dozens of new golf courses are built every year.
“Too many walls you can punch through, too many heat leaks.”
Yeah, there’s a fact. I worked construction back in my high school days. It was a small crew of about six to eight guys depending on the job size. We built houses. REAL houses. You would need a tank to knock some of them over.
One time we took a job with a company that was falling behind in a new development. What a joke those houses were. You could cut through the outside walls with a good knife, the inside walls were crap and there was nothing between them.
That was in ’88. That company has since put up around 60% of the new housing developments in this area. The other 40% aren’t much better.
>One time we took a job with a company that was falling behind in a new development. What a joke those houses were. You could cut through the outside walls with a good knife, the inside walls were crap and there was nothing between them.
I know that one all too well. There’s a guy well known in these parts. Campeau. He was a major developer hereabouts. Didn’t go bankrupt soon enough to suit a great many people because it turned out his lovely-looking edifices were built by cutting so many corners, it was nothing short of amazing they didn’t turn out spherical.
One minor point: the building where I live was built by his company. The complex where I work was, too. The condo building where a friend lives, as well.
In all three instances, the entire brickwork had to be redone at considerable expense because bricks started falling off. When competent workers came to take care of that at my place, they discovered there was practically no insulation in the outside walls. By the time the work of replacing the entire brickwork and actually putting in insulation (not in that order) was done, we were out a lot of money (which we sued for and won back from Campeau) we also noted our collective heating bill had dropped to a small fraction of what it had been.
As for being opposed to solar and the like because it can’t solve 100% of the problem immediately, that’s not the case. Just pointing out that these may not be practical in the long run and that we need to press on with other sources soonest. Also, while it may save some money in the long run, in some other instances, it may turn out to be less cost effective.
Yeah, StarWolf. But the more we try, the better the odds that we get something that works (or works better then what we have now until we can find something great).
People.
As in, let’s encourage fewer births and see a reduction in the population. Fewer people, less demand, problems (lots of them) solved.
Sadly, we’re already at a place where many highly intelligent couples who see the problems with overpopulation are not reproducing, while many less intelligent, “be fruitful and multiply” types keep pumping out babies and more than taking up the slack.
The only growth we have in population here is due to immigration. I’ve yet to see environmentalists jumping onto the anti-immigrant Pat Buchanan bandwagon but it’s a logical extension of the “United States as the worst offender vis a vis global warming” assumption. An interesting case of When Political Correctness Attacks.
(For the record, I disagree. I like my immigrant kids. Best class I have.)
I’m not sure that’s true. Maybe in some states, but not over all.
Check it out.
I’m dropping the http: off of these because the filter is always catching my posts if they have too many links.
EU birth rates are dropping.
//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/278653.stm
Birth rates in Japan are dropping.
//ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31709
Three year old CDC report.
//www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/03facts/teenbirth.htm
Dec. 2001 write up on Iran.
//www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update4ss.htm
Fewer U.S. teens are giving birth.
//www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-10-29-teen-births_x.htm
2003 report on total U.S. birth rate drop. U.S. Birth Rate Hits All-Time Low.
//usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aabirthrate.htm
I’m not sure that’s true. Maybe in some states, but not over all.
Check it out.
I’m dropping the http stuff off of these because the filter is always catching my posts if they have too many links.
EU birth rates are dropping.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/278653.stm
Birth rates in Japan are dropping.
ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31709
Three year old CDC report.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/03facts/teenbirth.htm
Dec. 2001 write up on Iran.
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update4ss.htm
Fewer U.S. teens are giving birth.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-10-29-teen-births_x.htm
2003 report on total U.S. birth rate drop. U.S. Birth Rate Hits All-Time Low.
usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aabirthrate.htm
Sorry, left a bit out in the re-write:
“Sadly, we’re already at a place where many highly intelligent couples who see the problems with overpopulation are not reproducing, while many less intelligent, “be fruitful and multiply” types keep pumping out babies and more than taking up the slack.”
I’m not sure that’s true. Maybe in some states, but not over all.
Check it out.
See above.
🙂
“Sadly, we’re already at a place where many highly intelligent couples who see the problems with overpopulation are not reproducing, while many less intelligent, “be fruitful and multiply” types keep pumping out babies and more than taking up the slack.”
As foretold back in 1951 in Cyril Kornbluth’s classic SF, “The Marching Morons.”
PAD
“The Marching Morons.”
Heh, good story. Worth the hunt to track down. Anybody that can’t find it should at least see if they can track down the 2000X version.
“Sadly, we’re already at a place where many highly intelligent couples who see the problems with overpopulation are not reproducing, while many less intelligent, “be fruitful and multiply” types keep pumping out babies and more than taking up the slack.”
Dividing up society in terms of intelligence? Are we being a wee bit elitst here? Sounds kind of like you’re implying a “Master Race” deal here.
I’d watch it if I were you.
“Sadly, we’re already at a place where many highly intelligent couples who see the problems with overpopulation are not reproducing, while many less intelligent, “be fruitful and multiply” types keep pumping out babies and more than taking up the slack.”
I’m not sure that’s true. Maybe in some states, but not over all.
Sorry. I forgot, once again, to specify that my comment was based entirely on personal observation and anecdotal evidence rather than hard data, as is my wont.
Of course, with people like The Bills around, somebody has to raise that particular banner. 😉
-Rex Hondo-
Gøddámņëd Bills… they take the fun out of everything…
Oh, wait, I’m one of them, aren’t I?
Shìŧ.
“As foretold back in 1951 in Cyril Kornbluth’s classic SF, “The Marching Morons.””
You mean, someone used that premise before Mike Judge did?
In developed countries the birth rate is dropping, in developing countries the birth rrate is still high, some places more than others. The developed countries will not have enough peole to take care of the old + have a shortage of manpower. The developing countries have to many people and unemployment, which leads to immigration.
Households where both parents work, and who have white collar jobs tend to have fewer children than families in which the wife does not work and/or blue collar. (There are exceptions). This is not really about inteligent, but it does perpetuate poverty, as rich familes spend more money on fewer children while the poor spend less on more children.
I doubt that for the west alone to have a decreae in populated growth will be good for the environment, without a similar process happening in the developing countries.
P.J. O’Roarke pointed out that even if the population tops out at 14 billion, as Al Gore predicted, the entire population could reside in an area the size of the former Yugoslavia with the same density as New York City.
The problem isn’t overpopulation, the problem is that everyone wants to live like Americans, who consume 25% of the earth’s resources with only 6% of the population. NPR did a report on fools in China who have taken up the hobby of driving for hundreds of miles at a stretch for the sake of driving.
O’Roarke also pointed out that there are wealthy suburbs in northern California the same size and density as Bangladesh. The extreme deprivation of the latter could be traced to the top-down political stupidity of persisting in exporting jute, a third-rate fiber, when their fertile soil could be reserved for more lucrative crops.
If you can afford them, children are like free speech. The more diverse, the better.
Mike – Ultimately irrelevant. Even if people started living at third (or fourth?) world levels of consumption, unless something is done to halt the growth of the population, eventually we’ll run out of something or other with no replacement in sight. So, since we KNOW we’ll eventually need to do something about it, why not start now, in a careful, controlled manner, rather than a catastrophic, panicky manner later?
“NPR did a report on fools in China who have taken up the hobby of driving for hundreds of miles at a stretch for the sake of driving.”
That’s because, an hour after they’re done, they’re hungry to drive again…
PAD
P.J. O’Roarke pointed out that even if the population tops out at 14 billion, as Al Gore predicted, the entire population could reside in an area the size of the former Yugoslavia with the same density as New York City.
This sounds meaningful until you think about what a resource sink New York City is. How many people could NYC support if they had to rely on the resources they could produce themselves? How many people, how much land, how much water goes into producing the food, and power, and consumer products NYC uses, and in taking away its waste? If 14 billion people tried living at that density, there would soon be a lot of fewer of them without a lot of people on the outside providing for their needs.
P.J. O’Roarke pointed out that even if the population tops out at 14 billion, as Al Gore predicted, the entire population could reside in an area the size of the former Yugoslavia with the same density as New York City.
Which would be good news if the only issue of concern was the actual issue was how much space each person physically occupies.
But O’Roarke isn’t taking into account the number of acres needed to grow food for each person, the amount of mineral and energy resources that are consumed to provide, and how the wastes generated are to be disposed of.
And yes, all of the the things that go into each individual’s “ecological footprint” are disproportionately greater for Americans than for, say, people living in China. But, there is no feasible way to support a population of 14 billion on this world, even if everyone reduced their lifestyles to that of a Chinese peasant farmer.
I don’t specifically remember the area required for solar energy to cover the fuel needs of the US, but it is surprisingly small. For the NYC-dense former-Yugoslavia, you wouldn’t need more area than Montana reserved for solar energy. Add the desolate parts of Australia or Mexico or Africa, and you have more energy than anyone would ever need, and all for free.
As for food, I wouldn’t be surprised if the current global food supply could feed twice the global population. The major obstacle in feeding the hungry isn’t in supply, it’s political.
Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2006 04:49 PM
I don’t specifically remember the area required for solar energy to cover the fuel needs of the US, but it is surprisingly small. For the NYC-dense former-Yugoslavia, you wouldn’t need more area than Montana reserved for solar energy. Add the desolate parts of Australia or Mexico or Africa, and you have more energy than anyone would ever need, and all for free.
You’re talking about large-scale solar-generators, not solar-powered homes. You’d need raw materials for creating the solar collectors and related infrastructure, manpower to construct them, and further manpower to maintain them. Moreover, you’d need all of the same to create the infrastructure needed to transmit that power to where it is needed.
This further illustrate’s Den’s point that the space needed to support a population extends beyond the mere physical “footprint” they would occupy.
Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2006 04:49 PM
As for food, I wouldn’t be surprised if the current global food supply could feed twice the global population. The major obstacle in feeding the hungry isn’t in supply, it’s political.
I’m afraid that’s a bit simplistic. Take, for example, the nation of Rwanda. Even before the awful genocide of 1994, Rwanda has been in dire straits. 90 percent of the people rely on subsistence farming to support themselves, but the soil is becoming depleted and the country’s population is growing, which is why there is widespread and chronic malnutrition there. Rwanda is also landlocked with few natural resources and minimal industry. Building any kind of sustainable economy in Rwanda would require more than a mere change of government.
When citing that 14 billion people could live in a territory the size of the former Yugoslavia with the same density as NYC, I wasn’t suggesting it would be self-sufficient. I was making the point that we have the whole rest of the world as a resource to solving problems we are enduring due to our inefficiency and waste. Yeah, these solutions can’t be implemented casually, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t available to carry a substantial burden.
There’s also ethanol from sugar, even with the US tariffs to keep the prices high, and there’s even algae — or would you rather keep the back of your hand to your forehead over the price per barrel of oil and its supply? This country isn’t dedicated to researching energy alternatives, but if we were, we would find plenty.
My understanding is that the soil of the fertile crescent of Iraq, that nurtured the birth of civilization, is soil that was prone to become depleted. That isn’t true for all soil. What’s simplistic is overlooking conservation measures that can keep soil fertile, all for the disasturbation of surrendering to the end of the world rather than taking the initiative in alternative solutions.
Again, My understanding is that the current global food supply could comfortably feed twice the global population. That the food can’t be matched with the hungry is not a supply issue.
Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2006 05:49 PM
When citing that 14 billion people could live in a territory the size of the former Yugoslavia with the same density as NYC, I wasn’t suggesting it would be self-sufficient.
Then I don’t see the point of bringing that up. All it does is illustrate the amount of space they’d take up, which is irrelevant in a discussion about the resources necessary to support such a population.
Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2006 05:49 PM
I was making the point that we have the whole rest of the world as a resource to solving problems we are enduring due to our inefficiency and waste.
The “whole rest of the world” is not equally useful. Yes, you could put solar collectors in a desert area, but there is a practical limit to how far you could transmit the energy it would generate. Meaning solar collectors could be part of the solution, but probably not the entire solution.
Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2006 05:49 PM
Yeah, these solutions can’t be implemented casually, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t available to carry a substantial burden.
I never said otherwise.
Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2006 05:49 PM
There’s also ethanol from sugar, even with the US tariffs to keep the prices high, and there’s even algae — or would you rather keep the back of your hand to your forehead over the price per barrel of oil and its supply?
I’m very much a proponent of alternative energy sources. I read with great interest Jerry C’s explanation of how he’s constructed a home that utilizes alternative energy. When my girlfriend and I are ready to buy a house, I’m going to give serious consideration to building a new home that takes advantage of some of those energy-saving innovations.
Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2006 05:49 PM
This country isn’t dedicated to researching energy alternatives, but if we were, we would find plenty.
There are many alternative energy technologies out there at varying levels of maturity. I agree with you that we should be investing in the best of those in order to build a sustainable energy infrastructure.
Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2006 05:49 PM
My understanding is that the soil of the fertile crescent of Iraq, that nurtured the birth of civilization, is soil that was prone to become depleted. That isn’t true for all soil. What’s simplistic is overlooking conservation measures that can keep soil fertile, all for the disasturbation of surrendering to the end of the world rather than taking the initiative in alternative solutions.
“Disasturbation?”
Anyway, I’m not “overlooking conservation measures” in order to surrender “to the end of the world,” I’m merely looking at the world as it is. Rwandans are overcultivating their soil, no doubt. There are other factors, however, including erosion, that are contributing to the problem.
Teaching soil conservation techniques to subsistence farmers would require a significant outlay of resources, however, and would also require the cooperation of the populace. Politics plays a role, to be sure, but so does geography, economics, and culture. I’m not being simplistic. Quite the opposite, I’m looking at the problem in all of its facets.
Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2006 05:49 PM
Again, My understanding is that the current global food supply could comfortably feed twice the global population. That the food can’t be matched with the hungry is not a supply issue.
No, it’s not. It’s a combination of geographic, political, cultural and socioeconomic issues.
Oil has to be pumped out of the ground and transmitted across the globe. Instead of tankers filled with oil, tankers could be shipping as much compressed hydrogen as we have rising ocean-levels.
Instead, we’d rather spend a $½ trillion+ to buy oil from Iraq we won’t see for a generation. That’s stoopid with two ohs.
Well, then, what’s your problem?
Again, I can only ask what your problem is, then. There’s almost no farming taking place in Manhattan, but the residents there still seem to get fed.
Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2006 08:28 PM
Well, then, what’s your problem?
And with that, the cycle begins anew… if I let it. And I most assuredly will not.
Everyone, I may be slow to learn my lessons, but learn them I do.
Shrouds at maximum intensity. Course laid in for better uses of my time. Warp engines… engaged!
That the food can’t be matched with the hungry is not a supply issue.
No, it’s not. It’s a combination of geographic, political, cultural and socioeconomic issues.
Again, I can only ask what your problem is, then. There’s almost no farming taking place in Manhattan, but the residents there still seem to get fed.
Ooops. I intended to delete everything after “warp engines… engaged!” After all, that’s stuff Mike wrote, not I.
>There’s almost no farming taking place in Manhattan, but the residents there still seem to get fed.
Yup, thanks to a complex infrastructure which sees to it the food is delivered to that area where people can then partake of it. Left to its own – say by a collapse of that infrastructure – Manhattan would see starvation or at least malnutrition overtake a large majority of the population in short order.
Charles Lindberg crossed the Atlantic Ocean without even a radio, and today your kid can’t pick up a diet pepsi from the 7-11 without putting downthe cell phone from her ear. Yeah, if the infrastructure goes away, we all die.
How soon are you going to boycott your local grocery store to free yourself from your dependency? And which goes first: that, or your internet connection?
I thought folks would find this article interesting:
Denver-area homes and businesses using solar panels, etc
http://tinyurl.com/szybm