Warning: some of the posts are of the wingnut kind. That site is more insanelibertarian infested than Eurotrib.


"The womb that spawned that thing is fertile yet"

SoI think we could do a list about how we could cut the waste...

My main problem is...
let's forget about eenrgy consumption (which it can be redcued with noa ctual effect int he economy).. what happens if we reduce consumption of the other stuff? Would it mean less jobs? would it mean less grow?

Are we able to get a society where no GDP growth does not mean less jobs?

In other words, is the capitalism system soe asy to ajust? or do we need to get tot he point where we "invent" a cheap source of energy which does no contaminate. so taht we can consume infintely things taht are complete waste but taht are not hurtful tyo the environment? or would the system reamin healthy and in place by cutting the non-sense consumption?

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

We have to send a clear signal that age of the 8mpg Hummer is over.  If that means Detroit goes bankrupt, well, it's their own damned fault for being so incompetent for so long.  Time to innovate, or go the way of the dodo.

We could certainly do ourselves a lot of good with a proper regulatory regime and tax system.  Everything from cap-and-trade to mandating efficient light bulbs should be part of it.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

A Solar Grand Plan
By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions

High prices for gasoline and home heating oil are here to stay. The U.S. is at war in the Middle East at least in part to protect its foreign oil interests. And as China, India and other nations rapidly increase their demand for fossil fuels, future fighting over energy looms large. In the meantime, power plants that burn coal, oil and natural gas, as well as vehicles everywhere, continue to pour millions of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere annually, threatening the planet.

Well-meaning scientists, engineers, economists and politicians have proposed various steps that could slightly reduce fossil-fuel use and emissions. These steps are not enough. The U.S. needs a bold plan to free itself from fossil fuels. Our analysis convinces us that a massive switch to solar power is the logical answer.

Solar energy's potential is off the chart. The energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a year. The U.S. is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation into electricity would match the nation's total energy consumption in 2006.

To convert the country to solar power, huge tracts of land would have to be covered with photovoltaic panels and solar heating troughs. A direct-current (DC) transmission backbone would also have to be erected to send that energy efficiently across the nation.

The technology is ready. On the following pages we present a grand plan that could provide 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy (which includes transportation) with solar power by 2050. We project that this energy could be sold to consumers at rates equivalent to today's rates for conventional power sources, about five cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). If wind, biomass and geothermal sources were also developed, renewable energy could provide 100 percent of the nation's electricity and 90 percent of its energy by 2100.

I don't think the words "efficiency" or "savings" are written once in there.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

Well, when my electricity was suddenly cut off a few weeks later, I was told that 60 RMBs' (about 6 euros) worth of electricity was included in each month's rent, but if you ran out of that, then you had to pay extra on top.

The meters for all the rooms on each floor are prominently displayed in the hallway, right in front of the elevator/stairwell, and you can tell at any time how much electricity credit you have left.

I may just be a really cheap bastard, but I was surprised by how fastidious (and creative) I quickly became about how and how much energy I am using -- and more recently about how much cold I could force myself to endure.

The interesting thing is, it's not a matter of affordability -- as I think with 15 euros, or at most 20 euros, per month, I could use the electric heater in my room quite liberally.  It's just a matter of being aware of how much I am using, and most of all, how much I have left.

(A swedish kind of death, I can relate to you much better now! -- although I guess I still have the more favorable situation, since at least I can control how much cold I want to put up with, while you are at the mercy of your landlord's economic whim.)

Side-note: When a pack of U.S. students moved home early just before Christmas, and I jumped at the chance to move into one of them (as my previous room had unpleasant plumbing issues.)  To my great luck, I got a room facing south -- i.e. bathed in daylight sunshine -- and I was amazed by how much that heat was stored up in the room over the course of the day, in contrast to my previous north-facing room, which was bitter cold throughout the day.  It's one thing to know the sun's power, it's completely different to feel it!

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

Further contrary to Diamond's Op-Ed, I believe living standards are tightly coupled to natural resource consumption in the long run.