j_b

Yeah, it snowed in Seattle last week and the temperature around my belly button was a freezing -1degC, which unequivocally confirms what the stooges for the fossil fuel industry have been saying about global warming. I also smoke 2 packs a day and I am fine, so there, take that you doomsayers. Did I mention that my heating ducts used to be covered with asbestos and I don't have lung cancer?

To be sure, I am not saying we should shut down existing nuclear capacity before we have adequate clean replacement but I don't understand how investing in more nuclear today won't take away from developping clean alternatives in nations that have unlimited solar potential (like the USA). Many types of solar plants are modular and require a fraction of the lead times demanded by new nuclear and coal power plants. Solar power technology is far from being optimized but it won't be for a while longer if we only make half-hearted attempts. Developping more nuclear today will commit us to another 40-60 years of nuclear plants in our environment.

We have limited funds so why bother with pushing for more dirty nuclear when we could use all of our money in cleaner, forever unlimited and ultimately cheaper sources of energy?

The residential sector represents >20% of the total US energy bill (40% with commercial)and probably near the same % of CO2 emissions, so drastic changes are ineluctable in both these areas. On the other hand, ramping up the residential demand for more efficient clean technologies will contribute to optimizing it and decrease unit cost. It seems safe to say that directly subsidizing in part the cost of increasing the efficiency of homes is likely to be a good investment. Concerning financing alternatives clean source of energy, we have no choice at least because of climate change and energy independence (think of all the savings in the bloated military/war budget), so whether we build solar plants or wind farms or more diffuse power generating grids, it's a matter of geography and not whether we'll spend the money to do it.

Energy savings through increasing efficiency and substitution is indeed an essential part of the equation toward sustainable energy consumption. I don't really believe in true altruism so most of my attempts aren't really out of the ordinary and were guided by finances and philosophy; most important changes needed modest investments that we are fortunate to be able to afford and are confident will eventually pay off. To tell the truth, it wasn't very hard because I have always despised most conspicuous consumption and non-durable goods. I strongly feel that quality of life is enhanced through quality and sobriety, which doesn't imply I am always sober. To be more specific yet brief, over the years we have increased the efficiency of our old house (new insulation, new windows, new appliances that I am concerned have little durability due to planned obsolescence, >90% energy efficient furnace coupled with a heat pump, for the big ticket changes). We regulate closely the temp of our home and put on a sweater before we turn up the heat, unplug electronics, etc ... In other areas, we got rid of all but one of our cars. We are left with a 35mpg, 10 years old japanese car that is shared by everyone in the household; we bike, take public transit, walk and have a zipcar membership for the times we need an extra vehicle. We try to buy local product to avoid susbidized long transport of goods, eat little red meat (once every few month perhaps) and pretty much prepare all food from scratch. Sorry, but that's not enough. And you have failed to even consider the input energy all of your replacement initiatives required. Words and feelings without real solutions amount to nothing. Along with many other things, I also didn't mention you were a dimwit but It doesn't mean I haven't considered it.

Nuclear has important unresolved issues (safety, waste, proliferation, ...) and is very expensive and will remain so no matter the economies of scale. It isn't renewable. None of these problems exist with true renewables like wind and solar. mass produced sugar cane ethanol results from intensive monoculture and raises the same kind of sustainability issues (soils, fertilizers, ..). cheap shot. We don't even know if he thinks he changed opinion.

I do too but Friedman has crossed my threshold too many times. The only thing that should matter is for him to lose his pulpit. Debating "his latest ideas" as if he was credible won't help in that respect. Note that I am not trying to prevent anyone from discussing his opinions, but I'll remind folks of his batting average. I didn't say that even though I think it is true but I pointed out some of his previous opinions. You do not give enough credit to people for recognizing that someone who has been wrong on most counts should barely be trusted.

or occasionally appears to be right by parroting the appropriate jargon yet advocates fixes that would mostly translate into business as usual. Example: Friedman says he want to promote "clean" energy but he puts solar and wind on the same footing as coal, nuclear and sugar cane ethanol. In particular, he wants to heavily subsidize nuclear. I first said that he routinely advocated conservative ideas and was spectacularly wrong on most counts in the past, yet he was perceived as a liberal. Batting average matters and cannot be ignored for someone whose ideas get so much exposure. Granted, I later added that he was an opportunist, which can be perceived as an attack on his character, but it is also supported by significant evidence and is totally relevant to his newfound enthusisam for investing in infrastructure and "clean" energy. Anyone can reinvent themselves but doing so requires some kind of explication.

Energy savings through increasing efficiency and substitution is indeed an essential part of the equation toward sustainable energy consumption. I don't really believe in true altruism so most of my attempts aren't really out of the ordinary and were guided by finances and philosophy; most important changes needed modest investments that we are fortunate to be able to afford and are confident will eventually pay off. To tell the truth, it wasn't very hard because I have always despised most conspicuous consumption and non-durable goods. I strongly feel that quality of life is enhanced through sobriety and quality over quantity , which doesn't imply I am always sober. To be more specific yet brief, over the years we have increased the efficiency of our old house (new insulation, new windows, new appliances that I am concerned have little durability due to planned obsolescence, >90% energy efficient furnace coupled with a heat pump, for the big ticket changes). We regulate closely the temp of our home and put on a sweater before we turn up the heat, unplug electronics, etc ... In other areas, we got rid of all but one of our cars. We are left with a 35mpg, 10 years old japanese car that is shared by everyone in the household; we bike, take public transit, walk and have a zipcar membership for the times we need an extra vehicle. We try to buy local product to avoid susbidized long transport of goods, eat little red meat (once every few month perhaps) and pretty much prepare all food from scratch.

I have no specific knowledge about it but it is most probable there is some kind of environmental impact assessment. Perhaps, you should check before you spew your propaganda. And lay off the wingnut conspiracy theory litterature, it'll do you some good.

Here it goes Bill since you had to go Don't choke on it. Out of countless hits on Google, I choose wikipedia for you. You know that super secret site you probably never heard about. I suspect it also needs pointing out that the original sources for wiki are listed at the end of the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman#War_in_Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman#General_Criticisms

Edit for error. My previous posts stand.

Ok Bill, I'll take the time to give you citations and links that are wodely available on the internet but before I do so I want to make sure you won't run away without acknowledging you attacked my person without asking for corroborating evidence of my assertions. Are we clear on that?

I see that you'd rather conduct ad-hominem attacks instead of countering anything I say. Before a moron says it: no, my comments on Friedman aren't ad-hominem but specific about his stance on issues. If anybody would like citations, let me know and I'll be glad to oblige.

I am certainly not going to credibilize Friedman the opportunist by discussing his newest attempt at promoting his new book without mentionning he has been wrong on most counts in the past. If Bill needs to be educated on how to find out what Friedman said about so-called 'free trade', the Iraq war, so-called 'clean coal', etc ... he should let us know and I'll be glad to give him a lesson.

Maybe someone with hard numbers will show me wrong but I was there the summer before last and it did not seem any more crowded than when I first went there 30 years ago. I don't think it is really unreasonably crowded there. Even if the number of visitors hasn't changed, it may be that current and past use isn't sustainable in the long term. As to the kneejerk "government is the problem" crowd, it is telling that you blow your ideological horn without any specific knowledge of the environmental impact assessment. it goes without saying that a via ferrata isn't warranted.

It makes no sense to compare countries with widely differing socio-economic makeup and history. That Lott would do so tells us a lot about his "scholarship".

Serious bummer! Your body will get better but you'll have to watch your psychi while you recover.

There are plenty of alternatives, but the implementation of alternatives needs politcal will and financial investments.

Friedman is a warmonger who hasn't found a war of agression we conducted that he didn't like, a neoliberal who never saw the need for fairness in so-called 'free trade', an "environmentalist" who sings the virtues of oxymoronic "clean coal", etc ... To be succinct, he has no credibility because he has been on the wrong side of every single issue we had to contend with. Yet, Friedman is widely regarded as a progressive whereas he is the epitomization of the corporate media that masquerades as 'librul media'.

[video:youtube]6nyeSGaBcrA

Of course, here comes the red/terrorist-baiting routine from the service goon. But it shouldn't be surprising after all: The GOP's McCarthy gene

The 'innocent' savage is a more accurate description of Rousseau's thinking (he never uses noble) because he recognized that natural man could do immoral things in order to satisfy his 'true' needs. He especially thought of savage man as free and independent, attributes that according to him were lost in the transition to organized society. Although he makes it clear that trading freedom for some form of enlightenment is a bad deal for the majority of us, he didn't argue for statelessness, or a return to hunting and gathering, but he proposed a democratic republic (direct democracy) or more generally redrawing the social contract to make it more equitable. Thinking about this reminded me that many of Rousseau's ideas regarding the transition to agriculture and private property, are in fact consistent with that of some modern thinkers. For example, Jared Diamond states in "The Worst Mistake In The History Of The Human Race": [A]rchaeology is demolishing another sacred belief: that human history over the past million years has been a long tale of progress. In particular, recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered. With agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism,that curse our existence. http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/claessen/agriculture/mistake_jared_diamond.pdf

[video:youtube]brL1AKdhLyQ

Who could have known that unchecked greed leads to fraud?