On Oct 28, 2007 5:44 PM, David Ernst <david.ernst@davidernst.net> wrote:
> Quality of life here is sky-high, probably about the best any people
> have ever experienced in the history of humanity. The air and water
> are clean and the flora thrive as well. What you are suggesting below
> is that there's a price to be paid down the road because of global
> warming, and that's a very good thing to remember. However, what I
> was saying was that the presence of Indiana's power plants (which,
> I'll reiterate one last time, use about the most polluting of all
> known technologies) do not leave the landscape decimated nor the air
> unbreathable.
Coal may be about the most polluting of all known technologies, though
from what I've heard I'd wager our coal plants are significantly more
efficient than the ones in China.
Anyhow, you're certainly right that Indiana is far from the worst
quality of air and such on the planet. Still, I always wonder about
the quality of the air, of the water, of the forests, etc. here back
before Europeans showed up.
However, this whole assertion sounds to me a lot like when young
smokers claims that their smoking does not really affect their quality
of life right now, so they're not really motivated to quit yet. ;-)
> If you view carbon-in-the-air as synonymous with pollution, then I
> suspect that your claim is correct. I grew up in a city (Cleveland)
> that was reknowned for a sizable river that "caught on fire", which of
> course was really the pollutants in the river. I've visited that very
> section of river several times recently (including my last trip to
> visit my parents, remember that from the beginning of the
> conversation?), and the river surface and the air around it and the
> lake that it flows into are all unspeakably cleaner than when I was
> young. I can't back it up with data, but I'm not the only one who
> believes that the US is cleaner than it used to be.
Well, I suppose that's how I was using the word pollution in my last e-mail.
Yeah, that's certainly good to hear. Hopefully the rest of the world
picks up those habits from us like they've picked up the habits that
got the river cruddy to begin with.
> Of course, your assertion was about the world, so that's different.
> To some degree the US is exporting its pollution, but I think this is
> less a factor than that we know more about how to do things cleaner
> and as a society we're putting energy into actually doing it. These
> things are good. I think the message here should be "don't let your
> previous successes go to your head, there's still much to be
> addressed!" That's a very different message than "the world just
> keeps getting more and more polluted." Again, pollution is a
> catch-all, there's no simple way to compare "how polluted" two things
> are to each other. So, to talk specifically, we'd need to define what
> kind of pollution we're interested in.
Well, in my premature opinion—formed over the past week of
consideration—the pollution of the air and the oceans are the most
sticky kinds of pollution to deal with. You can clean up a river
without too many impossible problems; that's a local problem with a
local solution. Dirty skies and oceans is a global problem, with no
apparent global solutions; just a mind-boggling amount of little local
solutions.
The only sorts of global solutions to these problems than I can see
would be to come up with economically compelling alternatives to
polluting activities. For example, the use of solar and wind power
must be so much of a brain-dead good decision, financially—both in the
short and long term—that people forego using dirtier methods of
power-generation. The economic benefits of NOT dumping waste into
rivers, lakes, and oceans need to outweigh the economic benefits of
doing so (or at least the economic inconvenience of doing so needs to
outweigh the economic inconvenience of not doing so).
> >I don't believe "every bit of development is bad", though I think I'm
> >probably an environmentalist because it's painful for me to consider
> >how quickly our world's wild spaces are being destroyed, taking the
> >away from future generations for negligible economic gain today.
>
> Right but again, if you're just looking at the geographical footprint
> of a power plant, you get incredible bang-for-your-buck for that. set
> aside a few acres for a power plant and the lives of a million are
> transformed. If you ask me, if your goal is to preserve wild-space,
> you're much better off not eating meat than limiting construction of
> power plants. And of course, none of this compares with limiting
> population growth.
I meant only to emphasize that I must be an environmentalist, not that
a is related to b.
However, it shouldn't be missed that if a power plant produces waste
that can negatively impact our environment, that it needs to be
counter-balanced by a large enough section of wild space (growing
forests, mostly, in the case of CO2) somewhere on the planet that will
absorb the waste. Shouldn't this also be considered part of that power
plant's geographic footprint? Without that balancing wild space, I
completely disagree about the bang for your buck.
And speaking of limiting population growth—isn't the act of building a
power plant to transform the lives of a million (by, say, providing
refrigeration, better sanitation, hospitals, etc.) encouraging
population growth?
How does that affect the geographic footprint of a power plant? ;-)
> >I'll concede that's a dent, but how sustainable is that in terms of
> >how long will that fuel be available in economically viable
> >prices?...without considering the environmental impact of adding yet
> >more carbon to our atmosphere.
>
> I'm not suggesting we should build lots more coal plants. Remember,
> Itaipu is a hydro-electric plant, it doesn't produce any carbon
> emissions at all! Of course, hydro-power has huge environmental
> impact, and I think putting on carbon blinders leads to some terrible
> results. going on a tangent, if you visit the Inconvenient Truth's
> website to calculate your own carbon impact,
>
> http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/carboncalculator/
>
> you'll find that just by the fact that you live in the midwest, you
> can't compete with people who live in the Pacific Northwest. That's
> because much of their power comes from hydro-electric power. That's
> good for carbon emissions, but none of the envionmentalists I know
> are really big fans of the countless dams in the PNW, and I've never
> heard any suggest that we should be building more dams to save the
> planet, even though that would reduce my personal carbon impact by a
> huge percentage. Different technologies have different impact,
> focusing on one thing misses the forest for the trees.
Heh, nice pun. And good point. I wonder what the negative impact of
solar power will be...of wind power...
> Now, there are certainly things that power companies in the midwest
> can do to reduce their environmental impact, and I'm very much for
> encouraging that. That's why I participate in Duke Energy's GoGreen
> program.
>
> http://www.duke-energy.com/indiana/products/gogreenpower.asp
>
> through this program, I allegedly pay them to convert 400kWh per month
> (slightly higher than my household usage) of power from a tradition
> source to something greener for $10/month. I can't deny skepticism
> about how well it works, but I did receive an announcement of some
> green plant they were involved with, and I head the president of Duke
> on NPR extolling the virtues of conservation. Sorry I'm not able to
> find web links about these things, but it does seem that the company
> is aware that people want them to be clean.
Now that sounds like possibly a really awesome program, and bravo for
Duke for figuring out how to get people to invest in them. I would be
willing to do the same. I'll have to research my options at AEP.
My guess is it'd still be more advantageous in the long-term to put up
a few solar panels oneself. But then, I'm renting so that's not really
viable.
> I actually do think the car companies are trying frantically to come
> up with some other alternatives, and I'm glad about that. I bet
> executives at the "Big Three" cringe every time they hear the word
> "Prius". It does make them look lumbering that it takes them so long
> to bring things to market, though.
Hm, and that's even after being protected from the harsh reality of
the free market by tariffs. I think you're right in pointing out that
foreign car manufacturers are bringing beneficial market forces to
bear on our domestic car companies.
> >I'm a computer geek, on a computer geek mailing list, so that's what I
> >get excited about and write about.
>
> Very good point! And again, I certainly think improved computer
> efficiency is great and I've already expressed my wish that thin
> clients were a lot more common. I'm not against you. I just think
> energy is better spent elsewhere. Indeed, what inspired my original
> comment was the idea that 25 big power plants for a billion computers
> was not a bad deal. I'd like to see how many big power plants it
> would take to keep a billion people's living spaces at 72F. I'm not
> going to take the time to compute it now, but I'd wager that it'd
> dwarf that 25 number. Thus, I'll continue to encourage my friends to
> heat/cool their homes wisely and think about their computers as a
> sideline curiosity.
Yeah, I can understand that.
> >I understand that when surrounded by SUVs, central air, and Boeing
> >747s it's hard to get excited about reducing the power consumption of
> >your computer at home, but I work with computer labs, and if we
> >consider your estimate correct, then each of our 20 station computer
> >labs is the equivalent of one automobile and we have the equivalent of
> >7 or more automobiles running.
>
> If you're not already doing so, turn them all off at night and you'll
> cut that number to 3.5! :)
Yeah, that's more of a social change than anything (isn't all of this,
though?), and I'm trying to make it easier for the labs to be shut off
through the use of iTALC. It's a lot easier to ask a teacher to turn
off all the computers if you provide a "turn off all the computers"
button.
Perhaps a little awareness-building is needed...
> right, I was aware of this actually. My graph was of just cars and
> computers put together, and computers were already a pretty small
> slice. add in those other things you mention and I suspect computers
> will be near the bottom of the list.
True.
> Very interesting, and thanks for the perspective. Based on your
> descriptions, I'd wager that your family lives in a large city.
> transportation needs in such places are very different than in less
> densely populated areas. The value of a car/truck to a farmer must be
> immense. Plus, all of those taxis, buses, etc, also use energy. More
> efficient, yes, but supplying such services to a billion people
> presently without them would be a huge impact as well...
Yes, the vast majority of Venezuelans live in large cities, or near
enough. The value of a car/truck to a farmer is immense because it
gives them a much greater "bang for the buck", as it does here.
Though, of course, the "bang for the buck" to ALL of us from a farmer
with a truck, I would wager, is significantly more than the "bang for
the buck" of my driving my Camry.
I agree, and I suspect that supplying efficient transportation
services to a billion people presently without them would have to be
counterbalanced by the billion people who use transportation most
inefficiently now having to change our habits.
Presently my fiancée and I each have a car, and we must use the car
every day to get to and from work (approximately half an hour both
ways, not the longest commute I've ever had). We must use cars to go
to the grocery store, and most of our errands into the city involve an
hour or more in the car. I really dislike this car lifestyle, but Fort
Wayne was designed with everyone owning a car in mind.
Venezuela isn't, Japan isn't, and one can get around just fine in
those places without a car. Japan's train system, incidentally, is
absolutely excellent.
I suspect in time we'll have to redesign cities like Fort Wayne and
Indy, or come up with vastly more efficient automobiles.
> It is indeed great! I love the Internet! :)
Don't we all?
> I'm with you on the AC. I live without AC, and even worked at home
> without one this summer (a few very uncomfortable days, I admit, but
> it's definite doable, and I sure hope American's don't export their
> wimpiness about ambient temperature).
Well, the economics of air-conditioning in the tropics, combined with
the economic realities of wealth distribution, certainly discourage
that type of wimpiness.
> However, I hold to my position
> on cars... we're extremely used to easy transportation, people who
> don't have it would find it extremely desirable I think (whether they
> are driving or a cab driver is). Anyway, it doesn't much matter
> whether they'd prefer easy transportation or Internet/computer access,
> because they will almost certainly want both once they can afford
> them.
True. I just hope that easy transportation doesn't have to be the
American standard of everyone driving their own car.
> So much for keeping my comments brief! Sorry about that... I love
> this kind of conversation, what can I say. Thanks for challenging and
> educating me!
Likewise!
> David
Simón
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
