Seriously thoughtful Contemplating the Onuissance

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Yes... if we can convince our own carmakers to actually make sensible cars, and not continue to build SUVs (they actually wonder why the SUVs don't sell when gas prices go up!).

An example: Mitsubishi is selling the all-electric i MiEV in Japan, is about to introduce it to the European market under the Peugeot and Citroen marquees, and it will outrun and outlast a Chevy Volt hands-down for less money... and yet, American automakers don't have the sense to go to Mitsubishi and say, "Sell us a license... we want to start building that car here." They don't have the sense to just buy an i MiEV and reverse-engineer it.

Some old dogs just can't be taught new tricks, and when they start to suffer, sometimes they have to be put down.

Sure you can convince US automakers to do so. Just stop buying their cars, and let them go bankrupt. Although, sadly, that doesn't seem like a workable example, since they already are bankrupt, and are even getting bailed out. Why oh why did they have to survive until now? They'd been doing badly for years now.. And now they're probably going to be saved because you can't afford the added unemployment. sigh.
Honestly, I can perhaps understand allowing Ford another chance, as they're at least marginally investing in better mpg (here), but GM? Let them die.

Originally Posted by pilotbob

@steve Bigger cars are already taxed more due to the increased wear and tear on infrastructure.

BOb

In every state?

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Sorry, I've heard endless tales of catastrophy "if we didn't do something" (usually couched as some version of give up your freedom/lifestyle/future for somebody else's fears). Well, we "didn't do something" over and over and the world didn't come to an end. It just got more affluent. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying catastrophy now. Maybe the wolf is really coming, but I'm not even certain about that. And certainly not going to give up my lifestyle for other people's fears.

NOFI, but are you saying that the post-9/11 changes haven't been an assault on your personal rights/lifestyle? Or don't those changes count because you're not usually confronted with the effects (all the databases that track what you're doing, and that will store records of any travelling outside the USA for at least a decade? Or are terror threats somehow more real than global warming threats? Even if terror threats are more tangible (which is hard to argue for or against because no additional attacks happened that were unambiguously prevented because of the constant fearmongering), they sure cost you a heck of a lot by way of taxation. Only G.W. said you didn't have to pay them yet, as war costs are just as easily put on a credit card as personal expenditures.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

But note that "legislating incandescent bulbs right off the shelves" isn't an optimum solution either. For example, the lightbulb in my unfinished attic hasn't been changed in more than 20 years -- it was there when we bought the house and has yet to burn out.

When it finally does burn out, it makes good economic sense to replace it with the bulb that has the cheapest up-front cost! It is used so rarely that the up-front cost absolutely dominates any possible energy savings from using a more efficient bulb. So why does it make sense to require me to replace it with a CFL at 5x the price (or more!)???

Xenophon

By the time that bulb burns out, the cf and led bulbs will have faded to a more economical bulb with a smaller embedded energy value. And that same incandescent bulb in your attic might consume more than your whole house will!

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The United States is (again) at a crossroads: We must alter our debt management systems, our personal living systems, our civic systems, our transportation systems, our power systems, and our work systems, and we need to do them all now, before we as a nation plunge over the abyss. Americans are directly responsible for many of the problems we face... like someone who recklessly runs up the limit on their credit card, we have used up our credit, and now the bill is due.

But Americans are also notorious for their fervent aversion to admitting they have done anything wrong, and therefore anything that must be changed. And Americans as individuals are notorious for talking the talk, but not walking the walk, and "letting everyone else take action." It seems every American has an excuse for why they can not recycle, or take a bus, or drive a smaller car, or use CFL lightbulbs, or turn down their thermostat, even while their neighbors ably manage to do those things. Americans have become the ultimate isolationists: Once their front door is closed, they are on sovereign territory, and no one can tell them what to do.

But if we as a nation do not do these things, we face complete collapse... and may take the rest of the world with us.

So: How do we convince Americans that we all need to take action, even when we do not want to, for the good of a planet? How do we invoke the "S" word--sacrifice--without being labeled "communist" and run out of town on a rail? How do we get a nation of people together, who do not seem to want to have anything to do with each other?

The US is a great nation of builders. Unfortunately, purposes other than growing, such as expansion by taking, have been set on them to continue, to a point where leaders and heads had only pilfering in mind for sport.

But lately a great man came who will refocus the challenge and take back the colours of meaning.

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Interesting. I am waiting for this http://zeropollutionmotors.us/ . But you are right. Why don't Ford or GM go out there and get this and bring it to market much sooner. Also, with a "big" name (not bankrupt yet) car maker building and selling it the market acceptance would be much higher.

BOb

Wagonner has one day said that "GM will never build a small engine". That says a lot about the philosophy of thinking behind that company. And he is not alone.
You've all heard about the movie "Who killed the electric car."? Well GM will do it again by charging 45K for one?!?

The original site is http://www.theaircar.com
The cars were invented by a French engineer called Guy Negre more than 10 years ago. I've signed a promise of purchase for one of those cars when they get here.

The concept of the engine is fascinating and turns around the fact that air explodes, like fuel, at compressions around 30:1.

On an other note, electric cars should be sold with a solar powered station.

Two of my favorite sites are:

http://www.autobloggreen.com and
http://www.homepower.com (Their links pages at the end are phenomenal)

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

By the time that bulb burns out, the cf and led bulbs will have faded to a more economical bulb with a smaller embedded energy value. And that same incandescent bulb in your attic might consume more than your whole house will!
[SNIP remainder that is on a different topic]

At some point in the future, CFLs and LED bulbs will get cheap enough that it will make sense to replace that bulb whether it has burned out or not. If you look at the unfortunately long discussion I posted on the question, you'll see that it's pretty easy to decide when to do it.

I look forward to your predicted improvements in lighting tech. But in the mean time, I'll upgrade stuff that'll make a bigger difference.

Xenophon

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

At some point in the future, CFLs and LED bulbs will get cheap enough that it will make sense to replace that bulb whether it has burned out or not. If you look at the unfortunately long discussion I posted on the question, you'll see that it's pretty easy to decide when to do it.

I look forward to your predicted improvements in lighting tech. But in the mean time, I'll upgrade stuff that'll make a bigger difference.

Xenophon

Just read Home Power once in a while to stay current with RE. (renewable energies)

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

I rather expect that Ralph Sir Edward will look at my analysis and say:

There's a bunch of low-hanging fruit that are "no-regrets"-style changes. Of course we should all make those, it's just common sense.

For example, if your refrigerator is more than 10 years old, it's probably* financially sensible to buy a newer, more efficient model -- even if you need to take out a loan to do so!

Xenophon

*A very few of the most efficient models from 10 years ago might not make sense to replace. Replacing any other refrigerator of that vintage pays off in 4 years or less. That's a "no regrets" change. You win, whether global warming is a problem or not. There're plenty more items like that out there. Spread the word!

And Ralph does. The vast majority of light bulb are CFL, just like Xenophon. There are specialised needs in Texas, so last year I install light/heat reducing window screen on the south/west windows. $460 with an estimated payback in 2 1/2 years.

He does "no regrets" changes, as he has the money to do it with. (When you've been unemployed for 9 months, you don't do big appliance changes). And don't overlook insulation!

But he get peeved at the "Thou Art Slime" attitude because he refuses to go live the "Urban Peasant" lifestyle. According to the Economist, China will exceed the US in CO2 emissions in five years. Yet everybody wants to blame all the problems on the Good Old US.....

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

NOFI, but are you saying that the post-9/11 changes haven't been an assault on your personal rights/lifestyle? Or don't those changes count because you're not usually confronted with the effects (all the databases that track what you're doing, and that will store records of any travelling outside the USA for at least a decade? Or are terror threats somehow more real than global warming threats? Even if terror threats are more tangible (which is hard to argue for or against because no additional attacks happened that were unambiguously prevented because of the constant fearmongering), they sure cost you a heck of a lot by way of taxation. Only G.W. said you didn't have to pay them yet, as war costs are just as easily put on a credit card as personal expenditures.

Yes, they have, but the "War On Drugs" changes have been worse since the early 1970's. No knock search, money tracking laws, denial of money for legal counsel, seizure of assets without trial....Actually the "War On Terror" has added less than the "War On Drugs".

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Yet everybody wants to blame all the problems on the Good Old US.....

You keep saying that, as if the U.S. hasn't actually caused any of those problems... and to justify Americans' being too petty to rise above insults from anonymous foreigners and Do the Right Thing, too small-minded to prove that we can be better than they are, better than they think we are. Is that, in fact, how you feel about America?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You keep saying that, as if the U.S. hasn't actually caused any of those problems... and to justify Americans' being too petty to rise above insults from anonymous foreigners and Do the Right Thing, too small-minded to prove that we can be better than they are, better than they think we are. Is that, in fact, how you feel about America?

If I may remind you, your first post was all about America's need for change to help the world. I'm merely pointing out that's there a lot of other people in the world causing the same problems (if they are problems) and a narrow, unifocus, view on America's causitive/curative role is in essense loading all the world's problems on one set of shoulders. That may not be what you're saying, but that's what I'm reading. And I disagree with it.

Do the Right Thing (your caps, not mine). That's do Steve Jordan's right thing. It's not a universal belief. You beliefs, no matter how firmly held, do not (and should not) force me to follow them. That's called liberty. The right to do the wrong thing if I see fit. That's what America was founded (warts and all) on.

As to the rest of the world, I don't think of them. (spot the quote) I have no interest in the "white man's burden". I believe in trading fairly with other people. I believe in peace through strength. And I believe in letting people have responsibility for their own lives. Based on your words, you want to remake the world in the image of your needs and concerns. Non Servum

Ralph Sir Edward

[Daithi]

Onuissance or The "Age of Responsibility" scares me.

I'm fine with considering my impact on the environment and acting accordingly, and even adovcating my fellow citizens do the same. However, I have a fear that zealots will mandate their views of responsiblility on me at the expense of my liberty. I also fear that my labor will be expected to finance the other people's views of responsibilty.

For example, a few years back I purchased a new home that had low-flow toilets installed and that would have been fine if they actually flushed but they often didn't. Given the choice to make my own decision I would have opted for a toilet that actually worked even if I had to pay extra for the water.

Here in the U.S. many states are also making it illegal to sell dishwashing soap that contains phosphates. Once again, the legal dishwashing soap doesn't actually get your dishes clean and housewives are forced to drive across state lines and smuggle back in soap.

There was an article on the Drudge Report today that said California was considering banning large screen TVs. Quite frankly, I don't want other people making the decision for me that I shouldn't have a large screen TV. I don't want other people mandating what foods I can eat. I don't wan't them mandating how much excerise I should get, or how much of my money should be saved for my future, or a whole host of other items that I currently get to decide for myself.

In a college English coarse 15 years ago I remember a guy coming down hard on Muslims for not treating women with equal rights. A Muslim women then stood up and ripped this fellow a new one. She very strongly defended Muslim culture by pointing out that their society had very strong families, started from a premise to not objectify women, had far fewer problems with things like drugs, teen pregnancies, eating disorders, pornography, and a Jerry Springer culture. Her culture took "responsibility" seriously. She made some good points, but nevertheless I still prefer the liberties I am provided by the U.S. culture.

I don't mind be asked to live more responsibly or having others point out where I can improve, but I'm really leary about having government mandate a resposible lifestyle for me.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Daithi

She very strongly defended Muslim culture by pointing out that their society had very strong families, started from a premise to not objectify women, had far fewer problems with things like drugs, teen pregnancies, eating disorders, pornography, and a Jerry Springer culture.

This argument is entirely specious, by the way. Consider: the only way they're not "objectified" is by wearing burqas, or at the very least scarves that conceal their hair (something considered to be sensual). Look at what happens when western women go to the mid-east without adopting local dress. They're constantly stared at, called vicious names, and the fact that they don't cover themselves entirely is seen as an invitation to be raped.
(The same pretty much held for the Italy at least until the 1990s. See the link)
Anyway, it doesn't fly. Only when they do lots and lots of things to insure they don't "Provoke" men, they're off the hook. As soon as they do, the men are not "responsible for their actions" anymore.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It seems every American has an excuse for why they can not recycle, or take a bus, or drive a smaller car, or use CFL lightbulbs, or turn down their thermostat, even while their neighbors ably manage to do those things.

Am I the only one who noticed that this sentence is self-contradictory?

Kate

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Am I the only one who noticed that this sentence is self-contradictory?

Kate

Apparently he considers his neighbors to live in another country...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Well, I suppose we can close this thread right here, then. It seems clear that there will be no Age of Responsibility: Instead, we can expect an Age of Disaster, followed by everyone waving their flag and blaming everyone else for letting everything go to Hell, just before they burn/drown/starve/get shot/get eaten.

As I always suspected.

Thanks for renewing my faith in Humanity. Out.

[Daithi]

Are those our only two choices? Either accept your vision of the "Age of Responsibility" or suffer burning/drowning/starving/getting shot/getting eaten/going to Hell and the "Age of Disaster".

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Note: I'm not suggesting that the lightbulb should be incandescent forever! I'm asking "where should I start?"

Nor is anyone asking you to change the current light bulb or not use the incandescent lights you already have. This is certainly going to be a gradual change. As you replace things the hope is the new ones will be more efficient and will contribute to the reduced use of power overall.

BOb