Private Jet Aficionado Laurie David On "Greening Our Airports"
You gotta take a step back in awe at the hubris of a Hollywood soon-to-be-ex-wife who takes private jets and owns a second home in Nantucket and who's begging the rest of us to save energy by unplugging our shavers. Larry David's estranged wife is also worrying in print (on the HuffPo, natch!) about all the empty soda cans the airlines are throwing away, writing:
...An NRDC investigation found that the U.S. airline industry discards enough aluminum cans each year to build 58 Boeing 747 airplanes. In a single year, U.S. airlines also discarded 9,000 tons of plastic and enough newspapers and magazines to fill a football field to a depth of more than 230 feet....Action tips for the week:
Even when they are 'off,' leaving appliances plugged in still uses energy, so remember before you leave home for summer vacation to unplug all electrical appliances and devices to save energy.
...If you plan to drive to your vacation destination, make sure your car is running efficiently. Keeping your tires properly inflated can improve your gas mileage by more than 3 percent. Saving a gallon of gas will keep 20 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, and leave more money in your pocket for those vacation treats!
Gee, thanks, Laure! How many gallons of gas does that private jet use? How many thousands of pounds of carbon dioxide does it put into the atmosphere? So...you luvvvv the environment ("Here, Bambi!...Here, Bambi!") -- just not enough to stoop to flying first class.
In fact, it seems you take a private jet to the darnest places! Here, in the Texas A&M student newspaper, The Batt, a student says he saw you arrive in one for one of your global warming lectures:
Laurie David, the producer of "An Inconvenient Truth" and global warming activist, told Texas A&M students to change their "individual behavior" in order to consume fewer resources and to help battle global warming. As an employee of Easterwood Airport, I would like to point out that Mrs. David flew to our campus in a luxurious private jet, which could be seen from 10 miles away due to the thick plume of smog it left in its wake. I am neither denying nor confirming the epidemic of global warming, I am simply pointing out that hypocrites such as Mrs. David don't care about the environment, only their own political agendas. This is proven time and again by these celebrities' and lobbyist's "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.Richard Pawlik
Class of 2007
Ever wonder why I never blog about climate change or global warming or whatever we're supposed to call it? It's because I study evolutionary psychology pretty seriously but I really don't know a rat's ass about physics or climatology. (Doesn't seem to stop Laurie!) Meanwhile, I've been meaning to put up a piece by reason's Ron Bailey on the subject, as he's someone I trust to be impartial judge of the science.
And here's another guy who's likely to have a wee bit more acumen in stats than the average Hollywood soon-to-be-ex. That would be Professor David J.C. MacKay of the Cambridge University Department of Physics, who holds a PhD in computation and neural systems from Cal Tech and a "starred first in Physics," whatever that is. But, as Lewis Page puts it in the Register/UK, chances are, "he knows his numbers":
And, as he points out, numbers are typically lacking in current discussion around carbon emissions and energy use.MacKay tells The Reg that he was first drawn into this field by the constant suggestion -- from the Beeb, parts of the government etc -- that we can seriously impact our personal energy consumption by doing such things as turning our TVs off standby or unplugging our mobile-phone chargers.
Anyone with even a slight grasp of energy units should know that this is madness. Skipping one bath saves a much energy as leaving your TV off standby for over six months. People who wash regularly, wear clean clothes, consume hot food or drink, use powered transport of any kind and live in warm houses have no need to worry about the energy they use to power their electronics; it's insignificant compared to the other things.
Most of us don't see basic hygiene, decent food and warm houses as sinful luxuries, but as things we can reasonably expect to have. This means that society as a whole needs a lot of energy, which led MacKay to consider how this might realistically be supplied in a low-carbon fashion. He's coming at the issues from a green/ecological viewpoint, but climate-change sceptics who are nonetheless concerned about Blighty becoming dependent on Russian gas and Saudi oil -- as the North Sea starts to play out -- will also find his analysis interesting. Eliminating carbon largely equates to eliminating gas and oil use.
"I don't really mind too much what your plan is," MacKay told The Reg this week. "But it's got to add up."
He says he's largely letting his machine-learning lab at Cambridge run itself these days, and is personally spending most of his time on trying out different energy scenarios.
MacKay sets out his calculations in a book, Sustainable Energy -- Without the hot air. You can download it here (http://www.withouthotair.com/). As he says:
The one thing I am sure of is that the answers to our sustainable energy questions will involve numbers; any sane discussion of sustainable energy requires numbers. This book's got 'em, and it shows how to handle them.He emphasises that the book isn't quite finished yet, and says he's always glad to hear from someone who has something to add or has spotted a mistake.
That's science for you. It's a beautiful thing. More people should try incorporating some into their self-serving P.R. campaigns for the environment.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, if you read the whole piece, you'll see that MacKay finds nukes -- and innovations in nuclear energy -- to be our best bet for the future.
Register link via aldaily
Amy
Thank you once again, (and the good doctor) for being an island of reason in a sea of madness. As for fossil fuel usage, we do have to realize that it is A finite commodity. What we need do is make better use of our own natural resources, and end this insane dependance on foriegn ones. Is anyone familiar with the old saying " The best time to look for A job, is while you have one. "
We have to have A co-ordinated effort of exploration for new resources and experimentation with new energy producing technologies. This country has never needed to stand at the corner with A cup in it's hand
( Ala O.P.E.C. ) and this is not A good time to start.
teebone at June 29, 2008 2:22 AM
How *one gallon* of gas produces *20 pounds* of carbon dioxide is beyond me--unless Laurie has found some way of breaking the laws of physics.
ern at June 29, 2008 5:08 AM
I'm sure she was talking about the energy it takes to extract, refine, and transport, a gallon of gas. I'm not saying her numbers are accurate. In fact, coming from someone so gloriously and sanctimoniously hypocritical as herself, I'd wager there's a serious fudge-factor built in to any numbers she might present as "factual information".
That said, as soon as she can tell me how to get 300 pounds of tools and 500 pounds of building materials to a customer's house 20 miles away, during a snowstorm, without using my big, 4WD drive truck, I'll start listening to what these eco-phonies have to say.
Maybe.
Bruce at June 29, 2008 5:18 AM
«How *one gallon* of gas produces *20 pounds* of carbon dioxide»
Gasoline is carbon + hydrogen.
To burn gasoline, you need a lot of oxygen, which is freely found in the air.
CO2 = a bit of carbon left from the gasoline plus the oxygen that was brought into the reaction.
But don't be swayed by "20 pounds" or anysuch frankly irrelevant number: that's like worrying about 20 grains of sand more or less in the ocean.
Or if you insist in worrying, put it another way: each of these "20 pounds" were stolen from the atmosphere millions of years ago by plants which are now rotten and become petroleum. You are simply returning to the atmosphere that which nature intended for the atmosphere and which the plants took.
Whathever. It's just as irrelevant as worrying about the air you inhale and the CO2 you exhale.
El-Visitador at June 29, 2008 5:35 AM
Bruce,
I'm sure Laurie would say that the customer should not be stressing the environment by building or adding on to a house, but instead should invest in an eco-sustainable condo within walking distance of the customer's job. Never mind that Laurie spent a lot of money and carbon remodeling her house in the Hamptons, including filling in wetland to expand her patio.
Laurie would suggest that you, Bruce, pull a trailer with a Prius. After all, her servants drive hybrids.
Gordon at June 29, 2008 5:42 AM
"Eliminating carbon largely equates to eliminating gas and oil use."
It has obviously become to hard to refer to the actual thing that our self-appointed climate savers want us to eliminate - carbon dioxide. Can we commit to using the correct term for the molecule in question, since we're all so obviously concerned about the scientific aspects of "global climate change."
Chris at June 29, 2008 6:38 AM
That was actually her house in Nantucket, Gordon. Here's a link:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1526756/posts
I would love to see a photo of her getting into a private jet at Santa Monica Airport. Looked for one last night, but couldn't find one.
Amy Alkon at June 29, 2008 6:52 AM
Actually, here's a juicy comment from one of her Nantucket neighbors:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/05/larry_david_par.php#comment-30694
Amy Alkon at June 29, 2008 7:14 AM
Somewhat off-topic, but related to solid facts, the blog Junkfood Science is an excellent source of fact-based health info written by Sandy Szwarc, BSN, RN, CCP.
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/
I mention this only because an article by her came up right after this article in my Google news reader, and reading fact-based information is such a welcome relief from the crazed rantings I see, read and hear from most "news" programs.
Donkeyrock at June 29, 2008 7:19 AM
She's kind of a nitwit about use of her material. It's actually excerptable under "fair use" doctrine, but she has a kind of crazy copyright notice at the bottom. As I'm going through identity theft insanity now now the last thing I need is trouble from somebody who doesn't understand that material can be posted in a small excerpt for purposes of discussion.
More on my identity theft and Bank of America's incredible laxness here:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/06/17/bank_of_america.html
If you can, freeze your credit at all three credit bureaus. I did it in 2005, and it's the only reason my life isn't over as I know it. Google "security freeze" and your state.
Amy Alkon at June 29, 2008 7:25 AM
Algore uses more energy in a month that I will use all year.
And he has the balls to ask me if I'm ready to change the way I live?
Laurie David flies all over the place on a private jet to tell everyone how they need to save the planet. Why not teleconference instead, you arrogant bitch?
Physician, Heal thyself!
brian at June 29, 2008 7:36 AM
Mankind has always had leaders like Laurie who require a cleaner world than the rest of us due to their great burden of being a lightworker for humanity. That doesn't excuse the rest of us from having a large environmental footprint. In fact, Laurie's right in asking us to reduce our impact so that she can continue on her important mission of teaching us to be less of an imposition so our leaders can continue their efforts in an overall carbon neutral environment.
Laurie's a modern day visionary and inspirational leader; a Marie Antoinette of our era. Like Marie, she carries the burden of developing ideas and solutions for the great harms mankind has caused, and requires a creative environment that allows this important work to be undisturbed. Flying with the filthy masses in first class, having to waste precious minutes going through airport security lines and all the other impacts of public travel would dramatically impair her capacity to bring us visions of change. Laurie, Al Gore, Barack Obama and other inspirational lightworkers need our support for their work untainted by the filth of the intellectually diseased masses. Do your part to live with less so mankind's thinkers can be pure in thought!
redherkey at June 29, 2008 7:36 AM
I stole a neat simile a while back from someone cleverer than I am--whose name I don't remember. Sorry. The original writer applied it to something else, but it works perfectly for climate change warnings.
Trying to stop climate change by making changes in one's lifestyle is like a passenger trying to prevent an impending train wreck by running toward the rear of the train.
Axman at June 29, 2008 7:51 AM
Martha's Vineyard, I believe, not Nantucket.
Gintz at June 29, 2008 8:01 AM
Over the years the novelist Michael Crichton has made a lot of sense on the issue, and he presents the information in a way most regular people can understand. Easy to find at his web site. I found the Charlie Rose interview especially good because Crichton explains some of the problems with statistical models used to predict climate change (or anything else).
And he is not a Hollywood dope. He has a PhD in Anthropology and an MD from Harvard Medical School.
Makes you want to smack him around, doesn't it?
John Oh at June 29, 2008 8:15 AM
Of course, the leftoids discount anything Chrichton says because he lasck proper "credentials", but when the guy who started the Weather Channel says it, they discount it because "he's a heretic" or some such nonsense.
Global Warmism is a religion. Anyone who speaks heresy shall be burned at the stake. Well, since that would have too large a carbon footprint, we'll have to settle for lying about them instead.
Global Warming is the single greatest hoax ever perpetrated upon the human race. It has as its singular goal a creation of a one-world feudal serfdom with the high priests of Global Warmism as the lords who will guide us misbegotten imbeciles to the promised land.
brian at June 29, 2008 8:36 AM
Teebone, I hate you for saying those things, which are so very, very wrong.
> we do have to realize that
> it is A finite commodity.
Says who?
[There was a bad movie called “Pushing Tin” a few years ago. It falls apart after the first fifteen minutes, but before it does it explores the pomposity of people who use the word “finite”.]
Why is so important for people say that? What is so great about thinking that there's a decimal number for something like this? I tell you why: It's simple. Everybody can relate to that time that you and your sister came running to the cookie jar when you were little kids, and she lifted the lid and slammed her arm down into the thing... And her face fell as she told you it was empty. Outta cookies! It's fun to think that oil could be a lesson so easily learned (and easily survived.)
And even the lesson of the cookie jar is misbegotten: Eventually the grown-ups detect the need, Mom bakes more cookies, and everyone gets fat and happy. That's how things work in the grown up world in which the kids live: Human innovation answers markets. Maybe people hate it because they want to think that God in Heaven gave us all that oil... They don't want to depend on Mom or British Petroleum or any other human agency.
And here's where my hatred slips into high gear: It reflects a failure of gratitude to humanity. The Teebones of the world really believe that when the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock, the first thing the Pilgrims did was walk over to the Shell station to us the restrooms (which were filthy). But it's not like the countryside was covered with gas stations by the hand of nature. Human beings put all those gas stations there because they knew they could make money at it. Our needs are changing, so humanity will adapt.
Humanity has never run out of anything. Put another way: We've run out of stuff all the time, so we've found substitutes. In the 19th century, scholars were terrified that they wouldn't be able to read at night because we were running out of whale oil... But it worked out OK. I read at night all the time, and do it cheaply.
When you're riding your car down the freeway, you're not just burning gallons, you're riding on human innovation. You'll pay someone for solving those problems for you. Don't whine too much when they get rich: That's what you wanted, dummy.
> What we need do is make
> better use of our own
> natural resources
I personally am against drilling on the California coast, and I have strong reservations about drilling in Alaska. And anyway, a few billion barrels here or there aren't going to cut it.
> "The best time to look for
> A job, is while you have one."
That ain't how it works. Bringing about the innovations that replace oil will be whole lot of painful work. No one's going to want to get started on it until they know there'll be a big payoff.
I think it's entirely possible that your grandchildren will be living as well as you do from oil and closely-related technologies. If not, they'll probably be living as well anyway.
And as the price of old goes up, we get better and better at finding it.
> We have to have A co-ordinated
> effort of exploration
Fuck that. Fuck that with a stick. The least likely source of innovation is an enterprise lead by a single authority. Especially, especially, especially if that authority is Al Gore (and his secretary Laurie David.)
Wanna know why this man is my intellectual hero? Because he's patient with people who are wrong. (See the second half hour.) I couldn't never do that... It's like a comic-book superpower.
Crid at June 29, 2008 9:12 AM
Couldn't be neverin'. Fuck. That comment was going so well right up to the end
Crid at June 29, 2008 9:17 AM
Some interesting articles. Also interesting is that these are by older scientists with extablished careers who can say what they believe without worry about next year's grant application.
+++
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa576.pdf
Is the Sky Really Falling?
A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories
By Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and professor of natural resources at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and an author of the 2003 climate science “Paper of the Year” selected by the Association of American Geographers.
His research has been published in major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science. He received his Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979.
His most recent book is Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.
+++
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494
The Question of Global Warming
By Freeman Dyson, June 12, 2008
New York Review of Books. Reasoned comparison of the costs and benefits of dealing with Global Warming and some of the irrationalities of the debate.
+++
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010763
Global Warming Delusions
BY Daniel B. Botkin 10/21/07
President of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at U. California, Santa Barbara
The popular imagination has been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis. Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life, ours and that of all living things on Earth. Contrary to the latest news, the evidence is thin that global warming will have serious effects on life. Most evidence suggests the contrary.
Andrew Garland at June 29, 2008 9:43 AM
Thanks for posting this, Amy. This woman is reminiscent of Cher, a fabulously wealthy woman who reportedly lives in an 18 room mansion in Los Angeles. Yet she had the audacity to say a few years ago that we were all living beyond what we required and needed to cut back.
Give me a break! And don't even get me started about Al Gore and John Edwards!!
One person I do respect on this front is actor Ed Begley Jr. He walks his talk, often taking public transit instead of driving.
Hypocrisy will kill a cause faster than you can say "carbon footprint".
Robert W. at June 29, 2008 10:15 AM
Hmmmm.
1. CO2 is extremely beneficial to plants. One reason why the dinosaurs were able to stay alive was the enormous amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Imagine the amount of plant matter required to keep a Brontosaurus alive for one day.
This is because higher CO2 levels allows plants to grow faster, healthier and reduce the amount of water required.
2. The only real source of viable energy is nuclear. Just about everything else has so many downsides that they're simply not viable.
3. The best way to deal with future energy R&D is to provide prizes. Make them big and attractive because you only pay the money when someone fulfills the requirements.
McCain proposes a $300 million prize for an efficient car battery for electrical vehicle use. He could increase that to $1 billion and it would still be cheap.
For instance a $10 billion dollar prize for establishing a lunar colony with at least 5 people for at least 1 year would be more than worth it. Plus having that prize available shows investors that regardless of any commercialization there will still be that $10 billion dollar payout at the end of the rainbow.
memomachine at June 29, 2008 10:18 AM
> The best way to deal with
> future energy R&D is to
> provide prizes
The sweetest prize is market dominance.
Crid at June 29, 2008 10:23 AM
Hmm. Regardless of whether you think Man is the cause, the North Pole may go ice-free this year. And calls for conservation are no less true just because someone who is not conserving makes them.
If you wish to understand how a vehicle works, and little bit about how gasoline produces CO2 without any hyperbole, I suggest a look at this link. I've been arguing against ignorance of common practices for some time, and this is my thread about cars, and why how they work is important.
Radwaste at June 29, 2008 10:28 AM
Hey, I've been using reusable bags at the grocery store for years, and I drive a Honda Insight. I think it's wrong to pollute the air unnecessarily and to unnecessarily use resources. Also, I'd like to support OPEC as little as humanly possible. But, Laurie David reminds me of LA DWP chief Nahai -- who called for water conservation by Angelenos, and then...whoops!..doesn't bother doing any himself.
http://witnessla.com/city-government/2008/alan-mittelstaedt/my-wayward-servant/
Amy Alkon at June 29, 2008 11:02 AM
Or, we could all listen to this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY
Flynne at June 29, 2008 11:49 AM
If you think the calls for reducing carbon dioxide are draconian, just wait until the enviro-nazis focus on the REAL greenhouse gas---water vapor.
You watch: next up for criminalization is anything that emits water vapor.
This insanity is truly mind numbing: every living creature on this planet exhales carbon dioxide. Every plant takes carbon dioxide in. Yet CO2 is somehow an evil pollutant.
Oh, and by the way, if the north pole will not have any ice this summer (as screamingly headlined on Drudge this week) where are the inundated coastlines we are supposed to have? Huh? Huh? (Crickets)
I live one third of a mile from the Pacific Ocean. No abnormal rise so far. Beaches are fine. Still there. I'll take any bet that if the North Pole goes iceless this summer, I'll still have a beach to enjoy.
Koblog at June 29, 2008 11:50 AM
> calls for conservation are no
> less true
I think you mean "appropriate", so that's what you should have said. It's loose lips that our sinking our ships, not the rising oceans.
> I've been using reusable bags
> at the grocery store for years,
If that's not a Laurie-Davidian claims to religious virtue, I don't know what is. I think of all the restources that go into making a life like yours... The processed food, the communications, the synthetic clothing the international travel... But people want credit for a couple ounces of plastic bags every year.
Environmentalism is a faith that makes Catholicism seem sensible.
Crid at June 29, 2008 11:59 AM
"Oh, and by the way, if the north pole will not have any ice this summer (as screamingly headlined on Drudge this week) where are the inundated coastlines we are supposed to have? Huh? Huh? (Crickets)"
If you hear crickets, they're in your head, where your middle-school science class used to be. When floating ice melts, water level doesn't change.
Enjoy your thought-free beach.
Radwaste at June 29, 2008 12:11 PM
While the arctic might "so ice-free this year", the antarctic ice cap is growing...
steveH at June 29, 2008 12:14 PM
Flynne... I agree with a lot of what Newt says... But it's crazy how peopel are so eager to punish the speculators. If they wanted to punish speculators who lose money too, that would be different. But they only want to punish speculators who win the bet that we're going to want more energy.
This is psychosis.
Nonetheless, Flynne, it's time for you to leave your daughters, your boyfriend and your job so you can move to California so we can date. A few times.
Crid at June 29, 2008 12:31 PM
If that's not a Laurie-Davidian claims to religious virtue, I don't know what is. I think of all the restources that go into making a life like yours...
They're vast. I have no illusions about that. But, I'm from the midwest. In general, I also don't buy new things if old things still work. Unnecessary waste is dumb.
Rad, the cricket remark was really funny.
Amy Alkon at June 29, 2008 12:39 PM
What bothers me is anyone like me who claims that we cannot conserve our way out of our energy needs is immediately accused of supporting pollution and waste.
Which is insane. Is it really an either/or proposition? Either you support the stagnation of human civilization, or you're for unfettered destruction of the biosphere?
Please.
I'm not against conservation. I don't think that government-mandated conservation is worth a lick, but conservation is not a bad thing. Anything that improves efficiency is generally good, so long as it makes economic sense.
And the time for burning oil for fuel is coming to a close. At some point, all the other things we can make from petroleum are going to be worth more than energy production. At some point, an economically-feasible alternative will show up that will cause this change. Just as petroleum displaced whale oil.
But alarmism on the subject of global warming is stupid enough. When the high priests and priestesses of the Church of Global Warming are seen to be committing the sins of gluttony and desecration, one has to wonder if they really believe it, or if it's all another power play.
brian at June 29, 2008 12:57 PM
> I'm from the midwest.
Yes, me too. We have all the virtues of thrift and industriousness and good grooming that come from that humble, sensible heritage... But our lives have been nonetheless improved by burning through fossil fuels like nobody's business.
Be true to your school, dance with the one who brung ya', etc.: Don't pretend that in that you have no quarrel with the natural world.
Crid at June 29, 2008 1:08 PM
Sorry for typos, it's one of those days.
My point is, to mock David is like a parishioner making fun of a clumsy deacon... When you claim to have no business in the church anyway.
Crid at June 29, 2008 1:12 PM
I'm all for modernity. Much more than we have now. I think we should have gone nuke long ago, and likewise think the car companies in America were super-lazy and short-sighted in the 70's and beyond.
You like breathing polluted air? Me, neither. My first car in Los Angeles, when I was barely making it on my writing, was a pink Rambler. 1960. Put out more crap into the atmosphere than a coal plant. I was a runner back then, and realized that it was important to buy a car that didn't foul the air -- as soon as I could afford one. I likewise try not to waste resources unnecessarily. But, I still fly to Paris -- not going to stop going there, and I'm not up for a really long swim across the Atlantic.
Amy Alkon at June 29, 2008 1:30 PM
Rad- I tried to follow your link, to the article about oxygen generators, but it seems to be broken...
http://forums.augusta.com/viewtopic.php?t=519
Humanity will come up with the better mousetrap. I hope it comes from Americans.
Eric at June 29, 2008 1:59 PM
oops- I meant the treadwell.com link.
Eric at June 29, 2008 2:01 PM
Crid says:
"Teebone, I hate you for saying those things, which are so very, very wrong.
"> we do have to realize that
> it is A finite commodity.
"Says who?"
Absolutely, Crid. Every other species on the planet goes into a decline when it runs out of its required resources, but not us. We have technology. We have imagination. When hunting and gathering got iffy, we invented agriculture. When drouth caused famines, we invented irrigation. When we were about to mire ourselves down in horse manure, we dug coal, developed steam power, and built railroads. We discovered petroleum and invented automobiles. If we run out of oil, something else will come up. And after that plays out, another option will arise. It always does, because we're not like other animals. We're exempt from ecological limitations. Even though we're pretty much stuck inside a 6-mile-deep atmospheric film on the surface of a small planet, finitude means nothing to us. We're just going to keep on going and going and going, to infinity and beyond, because that's our manifest destiny!
Yeah, right.
Besides that, back off of Flynne. I've got her at the top of my list of people to call if my wife ever kicks me out of the house. ; )
Axman at June 29, 2008 5:23 PM
Every other species on the planet goes into a decline when it runs out of its required resources, but not us.
That's a big part of what MacKay is talking about in the Register piece. We've just been a bit slow to innovate in the energy department, and part of the problem is all the hysteria about nuclear energy, which has its risks, but what doesn't? You weigh the risks and benefits and see how it comes up. MacKay does that way better than I can, and comes up (apologetically, in his case) rather nuke-positive.
Amy Alkon at June 29, 2008 5:59 PM
Eric, the link is now at www.treadwellcorp.com. They updated it on me. Sorry.
If you can't stand to read through forums, I explain some of the basics of the combustion of gasoline here. Some of the other factors appear in discussion. It's really the tip of the iceberg (koblog). People spend their whole careers learning how to formulate gasoline.
-----
I'm wondering. With some of the opinions above... do you people only maintain your car when it breaks down, or do you have it maintained before that point?
Radwaste at June 29, 2008 6:09 PM
I'm wondering. With some of the opinions above... do you people only maintain your car when it breaks down, or do you have it maintained before that point?
The problem is diseconomies of scale. Sure, I maintained my car when I owned one. It doesn't follow that I, or anyone else, can plan the world's energy usage. That's a lot bigger endeavor.
Planning doesn't scale well. Markets are a better solution to large problems. I wish more people understood this.
Shawn at June 29, 2008 10:27 PM
> But, I still fly to Paris --
> not going to stop going
I hear ya! Tourists love France for the light near the Med, the art in the museums, the wine in the valleys, and the food throughout. I personally have often dreamt of a gentle drive through the countyside.... Maybe, I dunno, a quick afternoon jaunt from the sleepy hamlet of Mulsanne to the quaint village of Arnage... (Like this, from 1:45 to 2:45. Be a man: Go full-screen mode and hang on to your nuts. As it happens, this outing will take you past a place named for my old teenage haunt of Indianapolis. That means it's fate! It's just gotta be fate! God wants me to do this vacation!)
The only downside is, fulfilling this fantasy will require fossil fuel. But that doesn't really make it "unnecessary".
Amy, you've got to stop using that word. No one who ever lived will ever know what's necessary and what's not with that degree of refinement and certainty. Here's a great rule of thumb: People who live in modernity live richer, healthier, kinder, longer, more decent lives than those who don't. That ought to be enough for you. You should want everyone in the world to be able to go to Paris now and then.... Better the Louvre than Mecca.
Crid at June 30, 2008 12:18 AM
> We're exempt from
> ecological limitations
Axy, that's the pinnacle of a big paragraph: You're having a lot of fun being sarcastic. I think that's what most contemporary environmentalism is about, is looking down on other people and being snotty.
Consider the movement's most beloved artifact: Gore named his book "An Inconvenient Truth." Get it? It's "inconvenient"... So sorry to harsh your mellow this way... but it's the *truth*, man! So, like, deal with it....
You can just picture a shitwit teenager, a young dickwipe of indeterminate gender, standing there with the back of a wrist on the hip, teeth clenched and jaw jutting forward, eyes staring you down nearly crosseyed over a wrinkled nose, and a smirk on the lips.
The expression of immature perspective is apparent in another way:
> because we're not like
> other animals
This particular scrap of sarcasm imagines that someone, somewhere is keeping score... Teacher, Mom, God, somebody. And that the way to get points on the board is to live a long time.
Personally, I'd rather have ten human generations live in modern comfort and progress than have a thousand more live in the stupidity, starvation and cruelty that is our heritage.
Your mileage may vary. But if it does, you're probably an asshole.
(Also, read this article, which suggests that the struggle has a 'local' arena as well.)
> back off of Flynne. I've
> got her at the top of my
> list of people to call if
> my wife ever kicks me out
Well, my wife has kicked me out, so I'm at bat. Sorry, slacker, better luck next time.
Crid at June 30, 2008 12:55 AM
That was me, sorry. Browser thing.
Crid at June 30, 2008 1:17 AM
The software's having a weird time of it tonight. Anyway.....
> comes up (apologetically,
> in his case) rather
> nuke-positive.
And he should apologize.
I used to want to visit this carousel. It's in Chernobyl (Pripyat actually). I wanted to see that and the Hotel Polissia Hotel a couple hundred yards to the southeast.
My interest was entirely pornographic: It would be fun to see a commie city frozen in the amber of its own criminal incompetence. It would be fun to gloat, and pick through the worthless and abandoned belongings of a contemporary generation that had bungled so many fundamental things. I imagined walking through the hotel and hearing the echoes of authoritarian industrial conferences where productive but weak-willed performers had been silenced, while their peers in the Holiday Inn ballrooms of Tulsa and Fond du Lac had closed rewarding sales contracts and gotten on with their lives.
But as it turns out, Chernobyl hasn't been left as it was. Even though the furnishings are as poisonous as can be, and everyone knows that, the bones of the city have been picked clean by scavengers.
That's what you need to know about nuclear power.
Crid at June 30, 2008 1:18 AM
Well said Amy. I'm all for being greener, but when people telling me to cut down on my energy consumption fly around in their own private jets and helicopters then I'm not about to listen. Here's an interesting fact:
The reason that so many of the old monasteries and abbeys in the are so large is because of a unique service the monks used to offer to warring kings. Obviously wars in medieval times costs lives and if a king had willing started such a war then he'd committed a sin and needed to devote the rest of his life to forgiveness in the eyes of god, but kings were busy people, so monks offered to do it for them. One monk would pray forgiveness for each solider 'killed' by the monarch, of course in exchange for money. It was big business, especially in a huge war where there's be thousands of monks employed.
So maybe this is happening again. All these musicians and movie stars who own jets and work in an industry that does little more than entertain realize that their decedent lifestyles are wrong, but rather than giving it up, they're asking us to pay their penance by making sacrifices for them.
Now maybe if they paid me I'd be more inclined to help...
Mark at June 30, 2008 1:47 AM
So, let's make excuses because the issue is so big, and ignore what people say when they actually have it right but don't do as they say, because we hate rich people.
And don't use nuclear power because they're all like Chernobyl.
Right?
Radwaste at June 30, 2008 2:07 AM
Raddy, BE CLEAR when you're trying to make a point.
> don't use nuclear power
> because they're all like
> Chernobyl.
Understand that when times are tough, an no tougher than they are in Ukraine today, people will swallow poison to make a buck off a used radiator.
Crid at June 30, 2008 2:28 AM
Or, y'know, ignore what they say on the assumption that if they were correct they'd be living to the same standards they set for us.
Face it, if Global Warming is true and such a big threat, then don't the alarmists have the greatest responsibility to live up to the higher standards they expect from us plebes?
This is how I know Global Warming is a hoax. The same people that claimed we were all going to freeze in the 70s are now claiming we are all going to drown. And their solutions are eerily familiar, and somehow all involve the deconstruction of liberal industrial democracy.
brian at June 30, 2008 3:57 AM
PWC.
Second paragraph should have the "don't" removed, and the "?" replaced with a ".".
But the point is the same.
brian at June 30, 2008 4:42 AM
I used to want to visit this carousel.
I just visited it last month. It was an interesting tour. Our guides said that there will likely be tours for another year or two before Pripyat is closed to public tours or perhaps they will be restricted to walking on the streets and looking. We got to go inside various buildings and really look around. The problem is that no one is doing maintenance and sooner or later someone on a tour is going to get hurt which will provide the reason for a change in policy.
Radwaste and Amy, of all of the options I know about now, nuclear power seems to be the best, but I have one huge concern with it: the liability. If you think this is adequate, well, let's just say I beg to differ.
I understand that none of the other energy sources are currently free of externalities either. They all should be and then they should all just compete. That is how this problem should be solved.
Shawn at June 30, 2008 5:22 AM
Crid, Axman, cut it out, I'll share - but the daughters and I are a package deal, and I really don't see BF going anywhere any time soon. And at the reunion Saturday, Johnny Franco was hitting on me left, right and center, and told me one of these days he's going to sweep me off my feet! (I love being in demand. Should I sing now?) >_O
Flynne at June 30, 2008 5:34 AM
Crid, you were on a roll last night, and I thought it would be fun to jerk your chain. Thanks for your reply. You didn't disappoint.
And thanks for characterizing my style as that of a snotty teenager. I was shooting for embittered old man, but your remark makes me feel young again.
I'm not being sarcastic here. I really do look forward to reading your posts. And Flynne's, naturally.
Axman at June 30, 2008 7:39 AM
As someone else pointed out, she has a house on Martha's Vineyard, not Nantucket. The Vineyard is known more for the trendy beautiful people while Nantucket is much more "old money".
John Forbes Kerry's second rich wife inherited her husbands House on Nantucket. That's how Nantucket got stuck with him.
I read an interview with Laurie David where she acknowledged that she wasn't doing a lot herself to combat "global warmimg" but she was doing what she could. She used the examples of having her dry cleaning returned to her WITHOUT the plastic wrap and getting a rule put in place at her kids school that says parents are not allowed to sit with their engines running when waiting to pick up the little tykes. Oh, the sacrifice!!!
sean at June 30, 2008 9:02 AM
> It was an interesting tour.
I envy you. My brother lives in Moscow, and I asked once if he'd ever thought of going down there just to see what things were like in a Soviet city twenty years ago. He said there was no point: They're all just like they were twenty years ago.
And speaking of irradiation, did you happen to visit this thing as well?
Crid at June 30, 2008 10:16 AM
Every other species on the planet goes into a decline when it runs out of its required resources, but not us...because we're not like other animals. We're exempt from ecological limitations.
Sure we are! And so, Axman, how doth the lowly fly?
From News of the Weird, Week of June 29, 2008:
Ironies: Evolution scientists at Switzerland's University of Lausanne reported in June that over the course of 30 to 40 generations, ordinary flies tend to live longer if they're stupid. The researchers guessed that heightened neural activity overtaxed their systems. [Agence France-Presse, 6-4-08]
Heeheehee! >_O
Flynne at June 30, 2008 11:14 AM
Scary. I'm agreeing with both Brian and Crid on this one.
It's long been a pet peeve of mine rich people in their big mansions telling me to turn the thermostat in my itty bitty apartment down to a freezing 68 (well, in NY in February it is anyway; crappy apartments are never well insulated).
You hear so muich conflicting information that it's hard to know what to think but overall, if anything, there's too much people using too few resources and Brian's making me wonder about this.
However, as far as my environmental footprint (what a freaking cornball phrase!) goes, I do know this -- if anything I'm owed something. By choice, by poverty, I've made such a low environmental impact, I figure I could win the lotto tomorrow and not worry about my use. So damned if I care. When I see the rich assholes living like I do (and I don't blame them for not doing so, I sure as hell wouldn't if I had their money), then maybe I'll think about it more. But until I see them on the buses living in tiny spaces, they can shut the fuck up. (Boy, I'd love to see them on the buses -- service and safety would magically improve overnight.)
I am not proposing they do. Someone mentioned Ed Begley above and, yeah, while he gets points for not being hypocrite, he's just plain freaking nuts.
That said, the lot of us, couldn't even be talking about it without using the energy that powers computers and the internet (and I'm willing to bet even Begley's on-line).
We need to think about this thing, yes, but do let's stop making it into a new religion. We had to think what to do when whale oil was no longer feasible. As cities grew bigger and bigger, it got less and less feasible to get around by horse and buggy and we can up with cars. I think Crid and Brian have got some good points.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
And, yes, Amy, I do use tote bags at the store but only because my rolling back pack is a heaven-send carrying them on the bus then two blocks to my apartment and the bags pile up and become a pain. The spillover that doesn't fit in my backpack, the light stuff, goes in the plastic bags, which I reuse as wastebasket liners so what the hey, pass on them just so I can buy liners? (No, I'm not leaving my baskets unlined. Ewww!)
Donna at June 30, 2008 11:49 AM
Interesting. Here in the Ukraine there's a strange mix of traditional, Soviet, capitalist and oligarchic influences. I doubt that there's a town here that looks like it did 20 years ago, although there are certainly buildings that do.
Chernobyl felt a bit like visiting a ghost town in Nevada or Utah to me, but of course with the ugly Soviet art and architecture and a greener climate. Actually, my favorite moment of the tour was on the bus back home when they played an old Soviet propaganda short with a lot of footage of the town and bragging about the wonderful life the "peaceful atom" was bringing.
We didn't visit the "Woodpecker," but we were able to see it from the top of one of the buildings in Pripiat.
Shawn at June 30, 2008 11:51 AM
Hey, if you want the whole story, you have to dig for it, and at a site with a minimum of editorial content. Try NOAA.gov, USGS.gov and NASA.gov. They post the raw data, so you can sift through it and make your own conclusions.
The conclusion I've made is that long before climate busts us, the population boom will. Go look at fisheries tonnage.
Maybe Apophis will fix that temporarily. Probably not, of course.
Radwaste at June 30, 2008 3:32 PM
Rad, if you're so concerned about overpopulation, why don't you take yourself out of it?
I mean, really now. Ehrlich has been beating that drum since 1964. The tune's getting stale.
We are not going to overpopulate and starve to death.
You do realize that they are growing fish on farms now, right? There's even one in the middle of the desert in Arizona where they grow bass and tilapia.
Human ingenuity will always outpace population growth.
brian at June 30, 2008 9:36 PM
Stop, Brian, you are making me think now.
Rad, those are all government sites. You think I trust only government sources? I hate to be as paranoid (though I admit I am) as lujlp but that would be the same government that wants to control us all. You got anything by anybody whose words I can put more stock in than that?
I have often thought (to beat lujlp at the paranoia) that it's interesting how much the government wants us to starve, work harder and harder and enjoy less and less creature comforts. This is exactly how cults break down the will of the individual. That creepy thought has led me to wonder just how much of this fear-mongering is for real.
Let's not forget what a large part of the government Al Gore was before we just take his word for it that an inconvenient truth is the truth.
Growing less and less "liberal" the longer I read this blog though really I always was somewhere between two extremes.
Oh and, Brian, I'm just kidding. I rather like it when people fuck with my preconceived notions and make me think.
Donna at July 1, 2008 7:08 AM
"Rad, those are all government sites."
And we never went to the Moon, because NASA is a government agency, right?
The point is, go look at the data. Then, ask yourself, "Where is my favorite "news source" getting its data?" Yes, this will require deep thought on your part. Sorry!
The plain fact is that only governments can afford to put projects like Hubble, etc. up there. You should think about the scientific community, too. How do you think their vote splits?
brian, I've posted the graph of time vs. population before. Here it is again. Feel free to point yourself out on that graph.
Be aware that the most altruistic government you can imagine - one that you personally would run - has to deal with a plain fact: the more people, the higher the costs. This means that you make do with less.
If you're anywhere in California and cannot see this, you need to look again. If you think the price of gas is going up only because of conspiracy and not because there is competition for it, you need a lot of tuition refunded.
And do try to be consistent. The next time your vote is based on whether government can "give" you something, remember that you don't trust the agencies they support which actually publish data for peer review. This means you should not believe any campaign promises (especially those from senators having a duty to address the issue at hand already).
Radwaste at July 1, 2008 8:16 AM
Rad - you are making the same assumption re population that the global warmists make re temperature - that it can and will increase without bound.
That is not the case. Assuming it to be so is a fatal error of reasoning.
Industrialization, and the improvements in life quality that it brings, has a tendency to depress fecundity. Compare relative rates of reproduction in industrial nations, emerging nations, and backwater hell-holes. Which is highest?
The NASA temperature data is suspect for a few reasons, by the way. What you get without FISA is NOT the raw data, it's a subset. There are adjustments applied to the data, and nobody but Hansen knows what they are. He hasn't (to my knowledge) published his algorithms yet, and reverse engineering of his published data revealed several flaws in his models - almost certainly intentionally put there to skew the results in his ideological favor.
And any government that is powerful enough to give you whatever you want is powerful enough to take everything you have. The appropriate response, therefore, is to elect politicians who promise to do nothing other than roll back the government as it presently exists.
brian at July 1, 2008 10:06 AM
Sigh. We're all perfectly safe now, because industrialization is going to allow us to slow, then halt, population at sustainable levels - and we won't be eating Soylent Green.
Criminy.
This isn't the first day I've spent looking at climate or population data, not is it the first day I've spent on a dozen other issues.
I'll be thrilled to hear just what kind of industrialization satisfies people worldwide. Did you not look at fuel costs and food production and transportation issues? That stuff takes time.
History buff? Just how many have been killed by their own governments recently and why?
After I say, "look at the data", the truth is out there. You (plural) can go to Rush, Air America, CNN, Newsweek and other people with an axe to grind if it makes you happy. But confirmation bias just makes you feel good. It doesn't do much else.
Be my guest to point out where I said to trust any one person about anything.
This is not ultrapessimism. It is my reaction to foolish policies, one of which is the tendency to say something will be OK as a matter of... hmm... faith.
Radwaste at July 1, 2008 3:14 PM
Rad - it's not faith, it's history.
As long as there is such a thing as a free man, there will be innovation.
You saying "look at the data" is the same thing that Paul Ehrlich said.
Looking at the data is all well and good, but it's utterly fucking meaningless in the long term if you don't look at the way things change.
Ehrlich's problem was that he assumed that population growth was geometric and food production growth was, at best, linear. When food production growth turned out to be geometric, and with a steeper curve than population growth, he was proven wrong.
And to date, he has not admitted it. He made his dire predictions about India before I was born. Since that time, the Earth's population has more than doubled.
And the only places people are starving is where the local government wishes it to happen.
You can look at the data all you want. When you make invalid assumptions about future movement of that data, you're going to get an invalid future.
And your first invalid assumption after "looking at the data" is that population growth will continue without bound. Which we already know to be bullshit, as China, Japan, and most of Europe are headed for massive population declines in the next 30-50 years.
brian at July 2, 2008 4:32 AM
You don't have to know a lot about physics, just a little about statistics (like you because of your study), a little about measurement technique and just use common sense that a statement like this: "in 100 years the average earth temperature has risen 0,7 degrees Celsius (i am from Holland) with an uncertainty of 0,018 degrees Celsius" made by some "scientists" is not science. It seems to me that it is impossible to compare measurements of 100 years a go with recent data and come to such an accurate statement. Still the global warming theory, which if true has so much consequences, is based on this assumption.
Also, if the problem is not proven to exist, how is it possible to be sure that CO2 is the cause?
The behaviour of Laury David (giving very bad examples) does not do her cause any good. On the contrary. If i were a global theory fanatic i would want her to quite this job.
Accutune at June 16, 2010 10:55 AM
This is the appropriate blog for anyone who wants to seek out out about this topic. You understand so much its nearly laborious to argue with you (not that I really would need…HaHa). You positively put a brand new spin on a topic thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just great!
what to get your boyfriend for valentines day at January 28, 2011 12:17 PM
A core hearted appriciation for bringing up the documents. I know you were tied up with another important project, but somehow you got both assignments done.
sunlinq at September 13, 2011 3:39 AM
Leave a comment