Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming is over.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The over-consumption lifestyle that most americans fell into has resulted in the over-production (and over-pollution) of 'stuff'.

    The economic concepts behind 'not-consumption' or 'people first' type setups are harder to wrap your head around than the simple supply-demand and 'maximize profit' models.

    Harbor freight is an interesting concept because the tools people need to actually produce stuff here in the usa are now mainly produced in china. If I want a lathe, mill, drill press, grinder, tube bender, jack, and socket set to pimp out my shop my options are going to be limited and the lower price and lower quality options are going to be appealing. I enjoy finding good deals on craigslist and I am patient with things like that- so rarely do I buy 'new' things, but when you need a tube bender next week for a job your options get limited fast and they usually come from china.

    There is nothing wrong with producing things- people need to make/buy/sell/produce things. I see nothing wrong with china producing anything. Where the wrong comes in is with the societal damage to people from sweatshops/cheap labor, the environmental damage from no regulation, and the economic damage from producing goods at such discounted prices that it puts american companies and people out of business. I am sure not all chinese companies operate like that but the ones that do are ruining their whole game. I would rather keep my money in my state as much as possible.

    I think the biggest movement so far is the 'local first' thing where people try to find somebody close by that does a product/service 'first' and then move out from there. We have a brewery in town that gets all its grains from a farm about 45 min away, and a restaurant that gets almost all of its food from local farmers. We also have two excellent metal fab shops that can make almost damn anything for cheap as dirt. If I can hire people in my own county that make/grow/maintain everything we need to survive.... the chinese lcd from wal-mart is just a fancy foreign toy at that point. . When our dependence reaches a point where our survival depends on China..... that is what I can't allow to happen.

    Hopefully the UN or EU or AU or whoever will start putting trade tarriffs and things on whatever it is that china is polluting and whatever horrible conditions for the workers etc. Reverse tax breaks for sweatshop free or low-pollution goods works too. They are working on the free market principle and keeping everything cheap as shit at the expense of the people, earth, and our own economy and if people decide to stop that shit and support ourselves before we support other countries economies we can easily.



    tl:dr If we just stop buying shit from china then those big bad pollution factories will have to close down.

    Comment


      Yeah, Q5Quint, the real problem is people who only think in maximizing consumption to maximize the economy, without care for waste. If we throw open all out windows and blast the heat, leave the water running, drive a gas guzzler, or throw out all the inputs/things... we might buy more of those things, but have less money for the rest. I believe I mentioned concern over the lack of economic analysis of waste and poor efficiency, although maybe I found some stuff at one point. The reality is that burning things or junking them is no way to maximize our economy because of the fact that wealth and livelihoods are hard to gather when we throw away so much. Could we buy longer-lasting products or repair rather than replace them and have more money left over for healthcare and education, to keep our population skilled and healthy to accomplish more? Probably. Is the country at a major crisis in some locations with water availability and electricity grid capacity / health? Absolutely. The only reasonable action for economic stability in the future is sustainable development and innovation. Likewise, more companies are moving to service-models instead of simply production-models and enjoying good margins because of it, with a happier customer IIRC - see links below. If anything, the 2000s should have taught us that building an economy on a fossil fuel exposes us to price risk that could slow spending down greatly and put people in food insecurity.

      [http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/u...2f00aRCRD.htm]
      [http://www.apec.org.au/docs/2011-11_...oitte2006.pdf]


      Since some people get all of their news from Forbes, I wonder if said people saw this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawa...arket-grew-76/
      U.S. Solar Market Grew 76% in 2012

      But Forbes just copies headlines and interjects their own spin, this link has better data points with charts too:
      Last year was a record-breaking year for US solar energy, as the PV industry grew by over three-quarters to 76% in 2012.

      Much of the firmness in the U.S. solar market is attributed to continuing falling costs. For example, the blended average price in the fourth quarter of 2012 for PV modules was $0.68/watt, a sharp decline of 41% compared to the fourth quarter of 2011 when it was $1.15/watt.

      Factor retail electricity prices skyrocketing by 35% since the start of 2000, and the average price of solar systems dropping by 70% in the same period, and it’s quite obvious why solar is growing so rapidly in the 21st century.


      Great pricing trend, great news on growth of installed capacity.

      Comment


        They're going to have to revise those pesky climate models

        the ones that can't predict much of anything correctly
        and to think i wanted a career in ocean science as a kid, before economic reality set in..




        oh ^^^^ i wonder what would happen to solar costs if it actually operated in economic reality
        “There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
        Sir Winston Churchill

        Comment


          Originally posted by gwb72tii View Post
          the ones that can't predict much of anything correctly
          and to think i wanted a career in ocean science as a kid, before economic reality set in..




          oh ^^^^ i wonder what would happen to solar costs if it actually operated in economic reality
          If you had a career in ocean science maybe you would have been actually useful to society.
          I also wonder what would happen to your opinions if you operated in economic reality.

          Interesting brief posting - wonder what the significance would be since it doesn't do more than suggest revision, absent of scale. Hopefully someone will pursue research further and figure out more than just a tidbit and have anti-science RWNJ's want to throw the whole thing out even without a hint of implications. But the desire to find out details and impact is apparently beyond some of us.
          Last edited by rwh11385; 03-18-2013, 04:18 PM.

          Comment


            Originally posted by gwb72tii View Post
            the ones that can't predict much of anything correctly
            and to think i wanted a career in ocean science as a kid, before economic reality set in..




            oh ^^^^ i wonder what would happen to solar costs if it actually operated in economic reality
            I'm shocked!! Not with the article but the fact that you cited a science article over a conservative blog. Do you actually read Science Daily like I do or did one of your conservative blogs link you to it?

            While you are on the site feel free to read the other recent articles in the Global Warming section. You may, dare I say it, learn something new.
            sigpic

            Comment


              Originally posted by herbivor View Post
              You may, dare I say it, learn something new.
              Oh god, please don't use the L world with him. It makes him crazy.

              Comment


                Originally posted by herbivor View Post
                I'm shocked!! Not with the article but the fact that you cited a science article over a conservative blog. Do you actually read Science Daily like I do or did one of your conservative blogs link you to it?

                While you are on the site feel free to read the other recent articles in the Global Warming section. You may, dare I say it, learn something new.
                only when dragged to it by a truck :p
                actually it was ref'd from a blog, and i avoided using that link because i knew some would dismiss it outright without reading the article (rwh for example).

                so what say you about the IPCC admitting no warming since 1998?
                “There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
                Sir Winston Churchill

                Comment


                  Originally posted by rwh11385 View Post
                  If you had a career in ocean science maybe you would have been actually useful to society.
                  I also wonder what would happen to your opinions if you operated in economic reality.

                  Interesting brief posting - wonder what the significance would be since it doesn't do more than suggest revision, absent of scale. Hopefully someone will pursue research further and figure out more than just a tidbit and have anti-science RWNJ's want to throw the whole thing out even without a hint of implications. But the desire to find out details and impact is apparently beyond some of us.
                  wow, deluded as ususal

                  so you deny Solar economics is skewed by government?
                  “There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
                  Sir Winston Churchill

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by gwb72tii View Post
                    so what say you about the IPCC admitting no warming since 1998?
                    I didn't see that part in the science article you posted or in any of the others in Science Daily. Perhaps you can show me which science article that was from, so I can read it in its context, or are you back to pulling shit out of your ass again?
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by gwb72tii View Post

                      so what say you about the IPCC admitting no warming since 1998?
                      Same nonsensical arguments recycled by our resident troll I see.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by gwb72tii View Post
                        wow, deluded as ususal

                        so you deny Solar economics is skewed by government?
                        Where did I say that? Or you just interjecting your strawman there?

                        Obviously it is subsidized to improve initial adoption, but the economic trend is in favor of renewables long-term regardless. And tell me a current energy form that wasn't or isn't subsidized.

                        Comment


                          Here's cool news: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...lick=pm_latest



                          According to a recent annual EPA report on carbon dioxide emissions and fuel economy trends, 23.8 mpg is the average fuel economy of all the cars on U.S. roads. It's the highest collective milage figure to date. While the EPA points out that these are preliminary projections, cars on U.S roads are, as a whole, more efficient by 1.4 mpg compared to 2011. If those projections prove to be true, then that margin would mark the biggest year-to-year improvement since the federal agency started tracking fuel economy data in 1975.
                          While cars today aren't as light as the ones found on the roads during the early to mid-80's, according to the EPA, a combination of record-high vehicle power and generally stable vehicle weight signals a shift in automotive engineering. From 1987 to 2004, cars got progressively heavier as they got faster, and since fuel economy wasn't a primary concern for consumers, it suffered. Recently, the industry has tried to strike a balance between performance and vehicle weight—producing faster 0-60 times while maintaing vehicle weight to keep mpg figure in check.
                          Technology = win-win for efficiency and fun.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by herbivor View Post
                            I didn't see that part in the science article you posted or in any of the others in Science Daily. Perhaps you can show me which science article that was from, so I can read it in its context, or are you back to pulling shit out of your ass again?
                            you need to read more than daily kos

                            if you can get beyond the fact it is a link to a website you don't care for, there are plenty of references

                            In 2010, IPCC chief Rachendra Pachauri refused to acknowledge that global temperatures had not risen for over a decade when CFACT interviewed him at the UN's COP 16 in Cancun, Mexico. This week Pachauri caved and conceded 17 years without warming at a speech at Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia. Pachauri is the IPCC's highest climate
                            “There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
                            Sir Winston Churchill

                            Comment


                              Weight reduction is now a technology? That article seems a bit retarded.
                              Most weight reduction today is compromised by a] safety standards and b] new additional accessories. Since CF and aluminium aren't financially viable for "people movers", weight is being taken off of engines by making them smaller and overpowered, which will kill durability in the long run = cars becoming useless in a shorter time span (not environmentally friendly) and also thinner metals and less paint, i.e. Mercedes cars are much more prone to rust than 20 years ago. Then there's plastic body panels, also not environmentally sound.

                              This is technology



                              In the Volt thread a looong time ago, I expressed my doubts of the inability to make current ICEs more efficient. And I was right. You just have to look in the right place, which seems to always be the supercar industry.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Fusion View Post
                                Weight reduction is now a technology? That article seems a bit retarded.
                                Most weight reduction today is compromised by a] safety standards and b] new additional accessories. Since CF and aluminium aren't financially viable for "people movers", weight is being taken off of engines by making them smaller and overpowered, which will kill durability in the long run = cars becoming useless in a shorter time span (not environmentally friendly) and also thinner metals and less paint, i.e. Mercedes cars are much more prone to rust than 20 years ago. Then there's plastic body panels, also not environmentally sound.
                                I'm sure the article would say the same about you. There was great weight growth due to safety in the 90s and early 2000s, but the article noted it has plateau'ed due to concern about mpg's. Our demand has changed a lot since when H2's were popular. Americans have actually changed their outlook on small car segment too.

                                The chart makes it a pretty clear trend that supports what PM said about weight plateauing after 2004:

                                From: http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/fetre.../420r13001.pdf [referenced in the PM article]
                                So "today" might not be compromising the weight reduction effort as much as that being a talking point a decade ago - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/bu.../05weight.html

                                Materials technology has helped improve automotive weight as has better optimized design through stress analysis. Aluminum is used a good amount these days, not just for Z3 blocks. But the technologies mentioned in the article which have helped have been the adoption of variable valve timing by pretty much everyone now, direct injection, cylinder deactivation which don't have as horrid harmonics, hybrids, more transmission gears, and more turbo adoption. Same weight + technology = more power but better mpg.

                                But really, none of those things would be what they are without a great amount of development in control technology - such which some may overlook because it is electrical and programming rather than purely mechanical.

                                And you are complaining about overpowered engines / assume they are less durable? The ability to model and test engines has improved drastically.

                                Originally posted by Fusion View Post
                                This is technology



                                In the Volt thread a looong time ago, I expressed my doubts of the inability to make current ICEs more efficient. And I was right. You just have to look in the right place, which seems to always be the supercar industry.
                                That is technology and why we don't need people poo-pooing on ideas and technology they don't know much about. Last I checked, you assumed that we could magically cut fuel by 50%:
                                Originally posted by Fusion View Post
                                I'm not an engineer, but I can't believe that there's no way to reduce fuel consumption in current engines to 50%.
                                I guess if you want to say that 30% is the same as 50%...
                                As advanced as internal combustion piston engines have become over the past few decades, they’re still hampered by a few basic design limitations. Chief among these is the camshaft, which opens and closes the intake and exhaust valves via a mechanical linkage. In the days before variable valve timing, changing camshafts to gain performance was common...


                                The right place to look is with open-minded people who seek change rather than shun it. And also take it upon themselves to read and learn rather than make dismissive and assumptive statements.

                                Independent control of valves is a great and novel approach, but the automotive realm has a lot of potential to move from its current engine and combustion schemes to something else - not just for fuel efficiency but need to be concerned for emissions as well. There's a lot of research about this, with more information about the science and better testing and study techniques than years ago, but still mysterious too and a black art.

                                I mentioned EcoMotors before and seems they got a new leader last week: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...198459521.html
                                The clean, efficient, and elegantly simple Opposed-Piston-Opposed-Cylinder opoc® architecture comprises 50% fewer components and far less mass than conventional engines. The perfectly balanced design means smooth, quiet and virtually vibration-free operation. The fully modular capability of opoc® enables remarkable efficiency gains -- as much as a 50% reduction in both fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in "Dual-Module" configurations when compared with conventional engines of similar power.
                                Two other interesting pieces:
                                New Atlas keeps you up to date on new cars, concepts, EVs and the latest automotive news including test drives, reviews and coverage of all the major auto shows around the globe.



                                As much as there is great potential in combustion engineering improvements, there is also great potential in hybridization - especially because of the stop-and-go nature of many people's daily commute. I look forward to thermoelectric generators in exhaust systems hopefully as well as more hybrid hypercars.
                                Last edited by rwh11385; 03-19-2013, 08:27 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X