#2: Feb 11th 2017 at 1:18:12 AM
Opening this.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
CenturyEye
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
from I don't know where the Yith sent me this time...
Since: Jan, 2017
Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
#3: Feb 11th 2017 at 8:04:45 PM
I can't recommend the book—haven't read it and according to the article he's badly misinterpreting Jane Jacobs—but he says the relevant points better than I. Though The Geography of Nowhere and Home from Nowhere highlight the social consequences.
Also, here's a counterpoint that doesn't really refute as much as remind that sprawl is only part of it...The Myth of the Sustainable City
A fundamental thing, I'd like to propose: The City is Our Greatest Invention and key to both health of Earth--relative to human comfort--and economy
Even when writing about the developing world, Glaeser is unfazed by threats of overwhelmed sanitation systems, unsafe housing or impossible congestion. These, he suggests, are problems more readily solved than the environmental consequences of sprawling suburban life.
Glaeser is scathing in denouncing local conservationists for their devotion to “leafy suburbs,” which he sees as being at odds with true environmentalism. Reminding us that even Thoreau benefited from association with a circle of urban intellectuals, he insists that suburbanization is producing an ecological disaster. Growth that’s restricted in temperate areas like coastal California is pushed into intemperate ones like Las Vegas, where air-conditioning is leading to a carbon emissions nightmare. What will happen, he asks, if China and India emulate us? Paradoxically, fighting for local green space in the Bay Area undermines our ability to be global environmental activists.
Glaeser is scathing in denouncing local conservationists for their devotion to “leafy suburbs,” which he sees as being at odds with true environmentalism. Reminding us that even Thoreau benefited from association with a circle of urban intellectuals, he insists that suburbanization is producing an ecological disaster. Growth that’s restricted in temperate areas like coastal California is pushed into intemperate ones like Las Vegas, where air-conditioning is leading to a carbon emissions nightmare. What will happen, he asks, if China and India emulate us? Paradoxically, fighting for local green space in the Bay Area undermines our ability to be global environmental activists.
I can't recommend the book—haven't read it and according to the article he's badly misinterpreting Jane Jacobs—but he says the relevant points better than I. Though The Geography of Nowhere and Home from Nowhere highlight the social consequences.
Also, here's a counterpoint that doesn't really refute as much as remind that sprawl is only part of it...The Myth of the Sustainable City
Urban areas are usually celebrated for their energy efficiency and low per capita carbon dioxide emissions, but such accounting ignores how and where they acquire their resources
...there are large indirect energy and material demands that are not often accounted for in calculations of urban energy use. An example is all the energy and materials it takes to get gasoline to an urban consumer, whether for a car or bus, (searching for and drilling wells, pumping the oil to a refinery that converts the oil to gasoline, and transporting the gas to a network of gas stations) and, in fact, almost everything from building materials to artificial lighting to clothing to food that is used in a city is produced elsewhere, often at high energy costs. The same issues are at play on a global scale.
When economists claim that the US economy as a whole has become less energy intense (defined as energy used per unit of gross domestic product or GDP), part of what they are really saying is that energy-intensive and highly polluting industries such as aluminum- and steel-making have been outsourced to regions and countries where labor is cheaper and environmental regulations are less stringent.
...Very little of the energy and industrial products produced in Louisiana, Texas, and North Dakota and similar states are used personally by the citizens of these states...All of these energy-intensive and polluting industries exist to meet demand for their products all over the country, but particularly in urban population centers since this is where most people live. This demand involves both direct and indirect uses, including fertilizers on the farm for high-yield agriculture that is needed to feed these urban populations.
So, to be fair, most of the industrial CO 2 emissions should be removed from the balance sheets of Texas and Louisiana and other “energy” states (where citizens use relatively little of what is produced) and added to the emissions of the states that are end users, directly or indirectly, of the products of energy production and industrial activity.
Look with century eyes...
With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind
We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
...there are large indirect energy and material demands that are not often accounted for in calculations of urban energy use. An example is all the energy and materials it takes to get gasoline to an urban consumer, whether for a car or bus, (searching for and drilling wells, pumping the oil to a refinery that converts the oil to gasoline, and transporting the gas to a network of gas stations) and, in fact, almost everything from building materials to artificial lighting to clothing to food that is used in a city is produced elsewhere, often at high energy costs. The same issues are at play on a global scale.
When economists claim that the US economy as a whole has become less energy intense (defined as energy used per unit of gross domestic product or GDP), part of what they are really saying is that energy-intensive and highly polluting industries such as aluminum- and steel-making have been outsourced to regions and countries where labor is cheaper and environmental regulations are less stringent.
...Very little of the energy and industrial products produced in Louisiana, Texas, and North Dakota and similar states are used personally by the citizens of these states...All of these energy-intensive and polluting industries exist to meet demand for their products all over the country, but particularly in urban population centers since this is where most people live. This demand involves both direct and indirect uses, including fertilizers on the farm for high-yield agriculture that is needed to feed these urban populations.
So, to be fair, most of the industrial CO 2 emissions should be removed from the balance sheets of Texas and Louisiana and other “energy” states (where citizens use relatively little of what is produced) and added to the emissions of the states that are end users, directly or indirectly, of the products of energy production and industrial activity.
Total posts: 3
"We have more sun than you have oil!"
This is a thread for discussing and sharing information on green (also known as clean, sustainable, or alternative) technology, living and related economic/political news.
Our world is in peril, and in current political climate of the United States, it sometimes seems that sans a real life Captain Planet the world really is going to be smothered in a haze of humanity's fossil fueled hubris. While undoubtedly a cause for concern and one which we should all fight against, let us not lose faith in progress. Trump or no Trump, the rest of civilization recognizes the need to wean itself off of fossil fuels and invest in environmentally friendly sources of energy for the sake of tomorrow and tomorrow's children.
"A total of 194 nations
have signed the landmark deal to curb carbon emissions, with 127 ratifying it so far. The agreement entered into force on November 4, 2016. As the US goes rogue on climate action, don’t expect the rest of the world to follow. Even countries already ruled by right-wing populists such as Russia, Hungary and Poland signed the Paris accord." France recently installed its first solar road
to power a village's street light system. The UK is looking into making its trains solar powered.
Even in the Unites States clean energy goes marching on. Bigger and larger solar and wind farms are being built from sea to shining sea, from California to Virginia to Iowa to Texas. And despite oil oligarchs and coal cronies at the helm, individual states have or are beginning to impose their own standards on fossil fuels, making alternative clean technology a more attractive investment to fuel companies. In the private sector, companies like Apple and Google are planning to run entirely on renewables in the near future. Government reports indicate that solar now employs twice as many people as coal does.
On the more personal level, one can power their own personal devices with small solar chargers
. I personally went camping for a week and used one of these to keep my phone and tablet powered the whole time. If you really want to go green NASA's Clean Air Study
composed a list of the best houseplants to fight harmful toxic agents in your air.
Earth, Water, Wind, Fire, Heart! Just because Captain Planet villains have the edge right now doesn't mean we can't keep up the good work into learning and implementing clean energy and living green. The power is yours!
Related topics: Environmentalism and Conservation
, Climate Change
, Nuclear Power
.