kyoto

[Guest]

since its the hot topic of late (and *should* be taking a front seat to same-sex marriage IMHO, but thanks to the religious Right it is in the back seat)...

what (if anything) are all of you planning on doing to help reduce your emissions/energy consumption?

[Guest]

so no one is going to do anything??

i'm going to move back into the city this spring and bike everywhere instead of driving.

[Fred]

I'm gona buy a TDI diesel so it's cheaper to leave it running all day so it stays warm while I'm working.

[The Teth]

Just haven’t figured out yet how to fit a crash pad in a Smart Car.

No, seriously, I have been conscious of the environment for a long time now. The only time I drove to work this year was on official “leave your car at home day”. Just a coincidence, but I found it ironic. I drive a Civic which is not too bad on emissions. I think my next car may be a Smart Car (if I can workout the above problem) or a hybrid.

I used to work for the US Environmental Protection Agency, thankfully well before Bush’s time in office. Man, he has really given the environmental movement a kick in the teeth. I sure hope the Yosemite Valley doesn’t have oil under it...

The Teth

[Guest]

just strap it to the roof, no?

i'm sure many people frequenting this site are 'environmentally aware', myself for example, but do not do all we could to reduce our personal impact.

even the most aware person out there can reduce their impact a some degree. and that's what this is all about.

not preaching here... just trying to get a discussion going and see what ideas people have...

[mathieu]

-I own two vehicules (1990 Jetta gas and 1988 Jeep Cherokee 4.0L)

-I live in ALberta

-I work in the Oil Patch


Now you may conclude that I'm against the Kyoto agreement but its not for reasons of job security or the fact that I love my car. Here's the way I see it.

POLITICAL CONTENT: PLEASE PROCEED WITH CARE.

The only reason politicians and industry agreed to it is to A)look good and B)they realize that the supply of hydrocarbon is getting low so they just agreed on a date, and they'll keep putting it off until the supply is so low that alternative solutions are necessary. Then they'll turn around and say: "see we did make a difference, thanks to the Kyoto protocol, we now have reduced greenhouse emission". Oh also I won't mention that rich country whom the agreement doesn't apply to will make a fortune selling poor countries equipment to clean up their gas emissions.

The well will run dry one day my friends and we will all be patting ourselves on the back for saving the environment.

[Fred]

This may come off as pretty ignorant but it's not that far off.

Humans are animals and like animals we all have a natural instinct to live. In nature, the animal food chain sees peaks with changing environment and food supply etc. When food supplies go low, animals either end up finding a solution like moving around or end up dying untill the food supply rebuilds. If a certain food supply goes extinct, the animals adjust (evolve) and eat another food supply. If all the animals flowers in the same pond, overtime most of them will die off but eventually the pond will clean itself and animals will return.

where am I going with this you ask? nowhere really... Just to say that my theory is this:

Humans, although very much more complex than animals, will fluctuate and adapt for any situation much like all the other beings on this plannet who have evolved over the years.

Yes of course petroleum supplies won't restock in our day and age but other sources of energy are available and science can do anything. In the engineering world, when steel prices are high we build with concrete and when cement prices are high we build with steel. Aluminium is also availble to build with but it's just not feasible right now. When the time comes, we can solve anything. It's all about how bad you need to survive. All that to say I'm not too worried about it and I'm not going to walk to work to avoid using my car but I will turn it off when I park it.

And when the going gets really tough, the vatican will pay to build a space station on the moon and send a shuttle with two lions, two ants, two zebras, two hipos, .......

Untill then, I think things are getting much better as we move into the future. More and more people are more environmentaly conscious everyday and things are improving. Our grandparents used to burn garbage and now we don't... perhaps our kids will only use electric cars and never burn any petroleum. Woooooohhhhh!!!! It's Evolution Baby!!! (Edie Veder).

Fred
I drive a 2001 VW and start it at least 5 minutes before going to work everyday so it's nice and toasty.

[tracstarr]

actually, a crash pad will fit nicely in the back of a smart car. they are small but can hold something like 17 cases of beer in the 'trunk' . it's on their website somewhere. I looked into getting one a while back. http://www.smart.com

[The Teth]

I think Mathieu has a point, which I have to admit is another reason I am thinking my next car will be a Smart Car or a Hybrid. It’s all about supply and demand, and the oil supply is getting low, and gas prices are going up. What happens if there is a revolt in Sodi Arabia, and things continue to go to hell in Iraq? The Sodi royal fammily is not all that popular in their country. It could happen. What would happen to gas prices then? I do not think I would be looking for a gas guzzler right now, even if I was not environmentally conscious.

The one thing Kyoto has going for it is that it might result in more funding for alterative energy sources. ei. The rich countries pay for these projects to buy some pollution credits so they can go ahead an continue burning cool etc. Hopefully this will result in technological development. Technology does not just happen, it needs funding.

Personally, I am more concerned with pollution in the cities (particularly Halifax) since this is the are I am breathing. All those diesel fumes from busses etc do not have a chance to disparate before I breath them, which is not pleasant. It would be nice if they switched to a cleaner and quieter alternative fuel source for busses at least.

As for driving to work, the biggest problem with that is traffic, but I guess that is not as much of an issue in NB. When I was in silicon valley I took the train to work. Here I walk. It is nice to do the right thing for the environment, but really, if I drove I would probably end up bludgeoning someone with a tire iron. Besides, I like the exercise.

Teth

[Guest]

If a certain food supply goes extinct, the animals adjust (evolve) and eat another food supply. If all the animals flowers in the same pond, overtime most of them will die off but eventually the pond will clean itself and animals will return.

Humans, although very much more complex than animals, will fluctuate and adapt for any situation much like all the other beings on this plannet who have evolved over the years.

i'll agree with you on one point. animals WILL return. just that if we don't make major changes and soon, we will not be one of those animals.

<rant>
yes, humans are adaptable... but only when the biosphere supports our own life. a fish can only swim if it has a medium to support it. unless you plan to eat soilent green you are dependent on the rest of the life on this planet to survive. if climate change is not halted, life as we know it will not continue to exist. plants will die. animals will die (us included). yes, *some* will live... but probably only the hardiest of plants, insects, etc.

evolution doesn't just 'happen'... there need to be pressures on the ecosystem, and avenues of development for those organisms to move towards. evolution on the scale you are describing takes longer (1000s to 1000000s) than the time scale we have to work on with climate change. yes, there are cases of organisms evolving into different (**subjective**) organisms within a period of decades, but those 'evolutions' are pretty minor in comparison to what ALL life on the planet would need to achieve to survive what seems more and more inevitable

yes, some things are getting better... our collective conscience is starting to come around. but our emissions continue to rise EVERY DAY. waiting for the supply of oil to run out is not a smart way to plan on cutting back on emissions or to force us to seek other sources of energy. </rant>

[Fred]

I personaly think it would be better for Earth if the humans did not return pending an extinction from our own actions. I personaly think we have evolved too far. That may be the ultimate Kyoto protocol of all.

Our life span on this planet is a fart in the wind in comparisson to the history of this globe. Like insects, although we have a bit longer life span, we are nothing but molecules put together and feeding off this planet to survive untill our inevitable decomposition. All in a complete selfish manner mind you.

I guess I was just saying that over the years (many many) the human body will either:

a) be extinct
b) find solutions to avoid extinction
c) addapt (evolve)

I believe it is possible for the body to evolve to accept things such as radiation and pollution much like we grew fingers and toes. Not in our lifespan no... But what does our lifespan really mean in comparison to a time line of the Earth?

I heard a funny theory from a University professor once:

"It is a well known fact that methane gas is a greenhouse gas. We also know that dinosaurs were very large creatures and were in abundance on this plannet. Perhaps the dinosaurs fartted themselves out of extinction?!"

All this to say that the Kyoto agreement is but a meer political and social creation much like organized religion or McDonalds. It's a system to control society to feed and organize humans. Much like ants have a Queen and we have a Prime Minister. If you are worried about everyday things then yes I guess it does matter. If you can accept that you are nothing but living cells put together using up and recycling energy, then you can understand that the earth will be here tomorrow regardless of what we do. So we should talk about saving the humans not saving the environment.

All that being said, I think the Kyoto protocol is somewhat of a good step forward for 'society' (keyword). There is no bad initiative when it comes to 'trying' to do good.

disclaimer: I know nothing about this and have never proven any of my theories.

[Fred]

another question/comment if I may

what if we do happen to completely wipe everything off the face of the earth? How is a clean rock nicer than a rock with lichen on it and who is looking at it? What is the purpose of living cells as opposed to non living ones? They are nothing but atoms when you think of it. The living organisms are the only ones who care about being extinct. It goes back to the instinct of survival.

ok Enough of this crazy talk. I'm off to soak in some UV from light bulbs. Now that's society for ya.

peace out

[Guest]

So we should talk about saving the humans not saving the environment.

wow. you've got some f*cked up priorities. there's no point in trying to save us if there's nothing for us to live on.

[mitchleblanc]

I think humans are done for. It's a shame about all the animals dying, but it happens, and it pisses me off, but there isn't really anything we can do about it. I don't mean to say I go out and pollute, I do make some effort to be reasonably "sustainable".. but I think it's a little WAY too late. Humans in general are just too self-absorbed. If you were starving, would you care about tigers? I'd eat one. I would love to see humans die off in mass quantities. Feel free to start with me, I'm no hypocrite. Don't worry though... life goes on, just without us. Don't be sad because it's over, be happy because it was.

[Fred]

So we should talk about saving the humans not saving the environment.

wow. you've got some f*cked up priorities. there's no point in trying to save us if there's nothing for us to live on.

I didn't mean we should save the humans. I meant that people who say they want to save the environment should be saying they want to save humans. Because it's not the environment they want to save it's their life. Every human is selfish by nature. Saving the environment is for their own benefit.

[martha]

I think that we are all 'aware' of the environment and would like to start redusing our impact...however, the fact of the matter is, we all still drive cars, some of us guzzlers. We all still shop at stores and wear clothes that were made in big factories polluting the world. We all pay our taxes that fund our government so that life goes on status quo.

There is NO ONE on this board who can say that their practices are better than another etc unless they are living in a grass hut somewhere with a loin cloth covering their naughty bits.

I know that I am aware. I car pool on climbing trips, I use my car as little as possible, I try to buy 'green' items, I recycle and reuse and reduce. I turn off the lights that I'm not using etc.

I won't say that I'm perfect or that I am doing everything that I can to lower my negative contribution to the world...because I know I am not. Just like no one else that I know is.

i know more hypocrates on this subject, that preach and preach, and do things like drive old beaters that guzzle instead of newer fuel efficient cars or who leave their lights on in their house or turn their heat up an extra 3 degrees instead of getting under a blanket, all things that use more energy.

[mitchleblanc]

There is NO ONE on this board who can say that their practices are better than another etc unless they are living in a grass hut somewhere with a loin cloth covering their naughty bits.

Why is that? That doesn't make any sense. You certainly can say your "practices" are better than mine, and you would be right. Just because you're not doing *everything* possible does not preclude you from being better (and saying it) then someone (or even everyone) else.

Careful with those capital letters Cara, makes it sound like you think you're 100% certain about something.

ps: "practices" is in quotes because I hate that word.

pps: by "better" I mean "having less damaging effect on the environment in a scientifically quantifiable way. (Whatever the hell "scientific" means)

ppps: Why do you hate freedom?

[Guest]

I didn't mean we should save the humans. I meant that people who say they want to save the environment should be saying they want to save humans. Because it's not the environment they want to save it's their life. Every human is selfish by nature. Saving the environment is for their own benefit.

although i agree humans are selfish by nature, using that as an excuse is a cop out.

of course saving the environment will benefit us. use whatever reason you need to to give yourself motivation.

[martha]

Why is that? That doesn't make any sense. You certainly can say your "practices" are better than mine, and you would be right. Just because you're not doing *everything* possible does not preclude you from being better (and saying it) then someone (or even everyone) else.



ppps: Why do you hate freedom?

I never said I hated freedom. I love freedom.

you are right....I may have worded what I am trying to say wrong....

anyone can say that their practises are better than anothers etc, but of the people on this board who preach about it, I know that they drive their cars and eat at mcdonalds or whatever else. We all may have great intentions, but non of us are living the 'pure' life.

[Guest]

its not about living a pure life... its about minimizing/reducing your impact and consumption.

[martha]

which I am doing. or trying to do.

I think the worst thing I do is likely driving my car. At least it is fairly fuel efficient.

[Fred]

I think it's time for an old fasioned public execution.

Aside from insider trading, our little Martha is also guilty of repeatedly leaving lights on around the house.

[martha]

Guilty as charged.

I'm getting better at it though!!

Just be glad I'm not driving around in a hummer!!

[The Teth]

Society follows the path of least resistance. Laws and treaties such a Kyoto create resistance on the “wrong” path to make it easier to follow the “right” path. California imposed strict emission controls on cars and it worked. By this I mean that when living in Silicon Valley in the late 1990's I could always see the mountains on both sides of the valley and the air never looked orange. This was not the case when I visited Silicon Valley in the 1980's. Anyway, it was all good until the tier fire started in Oakland and messed up the air quality in the valley. The owner claimed that it was started by lightning (yeah right! It’s rubber!). I wonder if they have put it out yet?

Also, someone said earlier that it is not enough to just wait until the oil runs out. That is a good point. We are almost out of oil, but we have plenty of cool left, and cool is usually dirtier than oil. We could all be driving around in electric cars powered by cool fired power plants and be causing even more pollution that we are today. At least it would be cleaner in the cities, since it would be more dispersed into the atmosphere, but I would not go building anything with limestone.

This debate seems a bit like distinguishing between people who are vegetarian because they think it is a healthier choice, and people who are vegetarian to save the animals. And then there are people like me who will go three moths without eating meat just because they are broke and can’t afford it. I have nothing against killing an animal, but every species lost is the loss of a potential resource. I guess I am from the save humans from themselves camp. If we die I don’t care what happens to the rest of the animals. (On a related topic, they just found microbes which had survived thousands of years in the ice of Antarctica, and NASA scientists say that if microbes could service there that they could just as easily survive in the frozen seas of Mars.)

The Teth

[mathieu]

Alright the debate seems to have cornered itself in the individualistic "what can I do to minimize my impact". I'll throw a wrench in this.

Teth mentioned coal (which I assume he meant by cool ). Now a lot of people in Western Alberta are pretty pissed that they closed something like 3 open pit coal mines in the last 10 years. Before we all jump on the "wow that's super" bandwagon. This region has lived off of coal mining for the last 100 years or so. Now their livelyhood are gone and the towns are dissapearing. They are leaving their house (which are worth nothing) and property behind to move to the larger cities (Edmonton and Calgary). That is one of the reasons Albertans hate such things as the Kyoto protocol. They are concerned for their jobs. Is this a valid argument?

[The Teth]

On the flip side of the environmental consciousness not being compatible with economic prosperity debate, if someone had the balls to ban dragging in the early 1980's there would be a lot less fishermen out of work on the East Coast these days.

Any time there is major change, people suffer. But they will adapt. There is more to do in Alberta then dig cool. There have been a lot of cool mines shut down in Nova Scotia too, although I think they are thinking about opening some new ones now. It has been over ten years since the Westgray mine blew up, so the trauma is starting to ware off.

[Fred]

It's kinda like...

Most of us are probably concerned about diminishing fish populations and would gladly accept if the government set stricter quotas. Yet we have no experience what it is like to live in a fishing community which depends on the industry for income and most outsiders would be unafected by this type of movement.

There are a couple fundamental philosophies in play here (the names slip away from me now) to explain what is going on.

1. We are all selfish in nature. So we all look out for our best interests.
2. The right thing to do is the one that will bring out the most good for the most amount of people.

Obviously they are worded somewhat differently but you catch my drift. Understanding the human process is a mind frig. In the end, we can't all be happy. Someone will inevitably lose out of EVERY good action at ANY level.

Give me one situation where someone doesn't lose on something.
I might regret posing this challenge. hehe

[martha]

It's kinda like...

Most of us are probably concerned about diminishing fish populations and would gladly accept if the government set stricter quotas. Yet we have no experience what it is like to live in a fishing community which depends on the industry for income and most outsiders would be unafected by this type of movement.

There are a couple fundamental philosophies in play here (the names slip away from me now) to explain what is going on.

1. We are all selfish in nature. So we all look out for our best interests.
2. The right thing to do is the one that will bring out the most good for the most amount of people.

Good Example Fred. If Scallop fishing Quotas were cut way back, 99% of the people in Frederiction wouldn't care and wouldn't be affected except by the increased price of scallops at the grocery store.
However, my home town (Digby) would be devestated and likely would become one of these ghost towns that Mat talked about.

Your first point is called 'rational selfishness'. Ms. Ayn Rand introduced us to this term. or 'Psychological egoism' described in Psycology.

Your second point is called Utalitarianism. Mr. John Stuart Mill wrote a book on it, though it was introduced first by Jeremy Bentham in the 19th century.

I can't think of any situation where someone/thing doesn't come out a 'loser' or lesser.

[Fred]

thank you

Those are exactly the two philosphical theories that I was thinking of. Took the course a long time ago so I didn't remember the names. I was thinking Kant though. Did he come up with Utilitarianism?

And I thought Ayn Rand had something to do with compassion??? I duno.

hehe

[martha]

Kant was known for formalistic or transendental idealism.

Rand's political views were radically anti-communist, anti-statist, and pro-capitalist and is most commonly know for her phiosophy of 'objectivism.

I took the same class.