The Energy Thread

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (616 of them)

like for real i would happily distribute these all over the place

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:22 (4 years ago) Permalink

I'm thinking of cramming a bunch of pseudonyms for enviros and climate change on the cover, too: Green Weenies, Global Warmingism, Gang Green Agenda, Warmists, Al Bore, Owlgore, Algore, Envirofascists, etc

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:22 (4 years ago) Permalink

Owlgore

wait isn't this a noise band

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:24 (4 years ago) Permalink

ha, thanks for the early support! I've never distributed a zine before, although I have made one just for me and my friends (the "1610 Anthony Beat", which provided the daily news for where I was living, complete with exhaustive coverage of what I thought the cats were thinking about). I'm going to try to make this one decent, lightly footnote the comments so that I can provide some actual information on the last page, and throw in some appropriate artwork.

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:25 (4 years ago) Permalink

I like this pair:

I think that this type of indoctrination is pathetic. I have given my kids the information they need to shoot down most of the drivel that they are exposed to. One good letter to the teacher a couple of years ago and Bill Nye (Global Warming Moron Guy) was banished from the school. The kids have current events homework once a week and they always take debunking material in for that. We figure that way we are counter-acting the programing for the other kids as well. The down side is that some of the kids (including mine) have started to poke fun at teachers who insist on spouting the "end of the world" stuff. They get in trouble at school for it, but I buy em an ice cream on the way home from school.

and

"Growing up, my parents did a great job of letting me be a kid. I didn't know what was happening in Vietnam, the recession in the 70s, Watergate or the gas rationing. We were kids and our biggest decision was where to play today.

Today, adults think children need to know this crap. They change the school curriculum to address social problems in America, instead of teaching math, English, reading, history, etc. I would imagine these areas had to be cut, in terms of time spent on learning this, to include such wasteful topics as global warming, sex education, etc.

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:31 (4 years ago) Permalink

"warmist"?

cant go with u too many alfbrees (Abbott), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:37 (4 years ago) Permalink

I'm thinking of cramming a bunch of pseudonyms for enviros and climate change on the cover, too: Green Weenies, Global Warmingism, Gang Green Agenda, Warmists, Al Bore, Owlgore, Algore, Envirofascists, etc

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 10:22 (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I spend a lot of time calling some very good friends who don't believe in technological solutions to climate change or that an attempt to maintain living standards in the west whilst mitigating climate change 'lentil eaters' after an outburst accusing them of wanting us all to eat lentils in the dark, but this is friendly jibe. (If i am feeling uncharitable I will tell my activist friends to go back to school and get an engineering degree if they want to change the world, I imagine wanting to change the world with an English Literature BA must be pretty frustrating, sometimes I a nasty cynical person.).

Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:38 (4 years ago) Permalink

You have to admit it IS kind of disconcerting that Bill Nye was apparently lurking around at the school like some creep all the time.

cant go with u too many alfbrees (Abbott), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:40 (4 years ago) Permalink

My only worry is with copyright issues. Is there a copyright on comments published on a blog? I mean, I know that skirting around copyright has been central to zine culture from the very beginning, but I'd rather not have to deal with cease and desist letters either.

On the other hand, I do not expect (or even want) to make ANY money with this, only to recoup part of the printing/shipping costs.

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:46 (4 years ago) Permalink

OMG you guys we might be running out of wind!

Chubby Checker Psycho (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:48 (4 years ago) Permalink

I am a sort of energy guy as well - I work for a renewable energy company in a trading / marketing capacity, managing scheduling and contracts in the deregulated North-Eastern power markets. I have a business administration background and I'm working on an economics degree so I am extremely unlikely to solve any of the world's problems.

Matt D, Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:57 (4 years ago) Permalink

Don't knock yourself, you are the guys who are going to make my stuff a success.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:59 (4 years ago) Permalink

yeah I don't have an engineering degree either - I kinda fell into this work after endless temp gigs at the local utility (PG&E)

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:22 (4 years ago) Permalink

(altho that was a long time ago - I've been working for my current company for almost 10 years now)

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:22 (4 years ago) Permalink

I imagine wanting to change the world with an English Literature BA must be pretty frustrating

dude for real

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:28 (4 years ago) Permalink

I'm not ragging on those without technical qualifications and realise the importance of advocacy, we wouldn't be this far along the road without it, I just favour a more directly practical approach.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:40 (4 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, good point: literature has never changed people's lives.

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:41 (4 years ago) Permalink

^^^^butthurt

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:42 (4 years ago) Permalink

:D

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:42 (4 years ago) Permalink

;)

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:42 (4 years ago) Permalink

(i totally get yr point, by the way Ed, I just had to stick up for my peoples.)

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:44 (4 years ago) Permalink

Like I say the importance of everything from Thoreau through Rachel Carson right up to the day after tomorrow but I was thinking of a particular unemployed semi-professional activist I know.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:46 (4 years ago) Permalink

Trust me when I say I don't think he is going to bust out the next Silent Spring.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:47 (4 years ago) Permalink

LOL. I know who you are ragging on but until you learn to spell, engineer boy, don't even go there! World will be unsaved due to some typo-related glitch in yr masterplan.

502 Bad Gateway (suzy), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 17:13 (4 years ago) Permalink

discovering that mil was means 1/1000th of an inch in american and not a handy abbreviation for millimetres yesterday was a more likely cause of failure. (I am working with someone who was involved with the "whoops those were metric dimensions mars mission", we are hopefully quite alive to this). ;-P

Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 17:18 (4 years ago) Permalink

Besides they are getting me a harvard MBA to take care of things like spelling for me.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 17:19 (4 years ago) Permalink

Harvard MBA probably cannot spell either, claims to have minion for such things as well. I am beginning to think bad spelling in whatever language will be the downfall of everyone as it highlights lack of observational skills (you're surrounded by correct examples to look at and still FAIL).

Your clue about 'mil' is that it ain't 'mm'. DUHHHHHH.

502 Bad Gateway (suzy), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 17:35 (4 years ago) Permalink

This was a verbal, rather than written things. NB I don't write professionally in ILX style.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 17:37 (4 years ago) Permalink

I am working with someone who was involved with the "whoops those were metric dimensions mars mission"

lolz I remember that - that was some funny (and very expensive) shit

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 17:39 (4 years ago) Permalink

OK then you have an out, but whenever I've seen yr pro writing you have to be led gently through 'corrections' before you can get that sucker out there. BTW the best and worst thing that could have ever happened to crown me Spelling Bitch was acing MENSA spelling test given by bored English teacher when I was 15/16ish, which is prob not unique on ILX.

Be sure and drop N a line, letting her know how you're getting on. She'll be tickled about factory news.

502 Bad Gateway (suzy), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 17:48 (4 years ago) Permalink

Anyway, groping back towards topic:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/10/oil-price-increase

Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 17:58 (4 years ago) Permalink

"Nobody has solved the issue of the '2012 supply gap' which may emerge later than thought but which will be deeper. It means prices may even jump over the $250 hurdle we have forecast a year ago," said Miller.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 18:03 (4 years ago) Permalink

2012 comes from the IEA report from a few years back, but I'd say the "supply gap" will most likely occur when the economy "recovers" from the recession. Global oil production peaked in the 1st quarter of 2008 (declining slightly in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2008, before the recession), indicating that there was already the beginning of a supply crunch in 2008, because prices during 2nd and 3rd quarters were at record highs yet production declined.

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 18:49 (4 years ago) Permalink

WRT peak resources this work is really interesting:

http://rutledge.caltech.edu/

Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 19:01 (4 years ago) Permalink

Joe Romm has a good post discussing Waxman-Markey, and in particular, the idea that if it fails to gain passage the EPA would easily take up the slack. The key part is here:

Many people, including some commenters here, are under the misimpression that absent passage of this bill, the EPA can and will use the endangerment finding to achieve comparable regulation of CO2 under the Clean Air Act. That view has several flaws.

First, whatever Obama might do with the EPA — and it would take many, many years to put in place a program that could substantially reduce existing emissions (see below) — could be undone by a subsequent administration, which is not true of climate legislation. Politically, it would be quite easy for a future President to simply stop the EPA process in its tracks or allow the myriad lawsuits against it that will inevitably occur to delay the process to death. What political cost could their be if the forces of denial and delay had already triumphed and stopped the US political system from embracing comparable legislative action? Undoing a law that was passed by Congress, however, and then used as the basis for international negotiations, would be hard even for a President Palin to do.

Second, whatever Obama might do with the EPA, the rest of the world would know that the United States political system is incapable of agreeing to binding targets, so that would certainly be all-but fatal to the international negotiation process or a bilateral deal with China.

Third, if Congress rejects this bill, then, domestically, legislative action on greenhouse gas emissions will be dead for a long time. How long did it take before we got a chance to take up serious health care legislation after it died? How long since we reconsidered an energy tax after the BTU tax died? How long since we have passed major legislation to strengthen the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act to deal with obvious dangers to public health? Still waiting!

Fourth, the EPA authority is most easily translated into regulating emissions from new sources. Obama has already announced the strongest regulations ever for tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions. That mostly leaves new coal, which was already starting to collapse, thanks in part to the renewables and efficiency in the stimulus package

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Tuesday, 23 June 2009 21:35 (4 years ago) Permalink

Is there a handy guide to what is actually in Waxman-Markey, I am assuming it is substantially different from what was originally presented and pretty watered down.

Mornington Crescent (Ed), Wednesday, 24 June 2009 16:11 (4 years ago) Permalink

seems like its changing daily

Suckanoosik Chamber of Commerce (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 24 June 2009 16:12 (4 years ago) Permalink

What's sad about the GOP talking point about Waxman-Markey being too complicated and long to understand is that its complexity is at least partly a consequence of near-total incompetence and inaction on climate and energy over the past (GOP dominated) decade.

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Friday, 26 June 2009 16:47 (4 years ago) Permalink

this also seems to be getting rushed because the Dems fear 1994 all over again and want to cram as much in before the summer in Obama's first year in office. I'm sure something will come out of this but I am sure it will be a mess riddled with loopholes, exemptions and boondoggles.

Mornington Crescent (Ed), Friday, 26 June 2009 16:52 (4 years ago) Permalink

that GOP thing is hilarious (I like how energy companies, utilities, and oil companies aren't even on there lolz)

And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 26 June 2009 16:56 (4 years ago) Permalink

but also what Ed said.

nonetheless I'm absolutely convinced its better than the alternative, which is nothing

And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 26 June 2009 16:56 (4 years ago) Permalink

What's also frustrating is that several of the points highlighted at the top of that chart can be so easily refuted.

FAMILIES > Higher Prices > Power Bills & Heating and Cooling Bills
- An analysis of Waxman-Markey recently released by the EPA found that by 2020 electricity bills would be LOWER (7%, to be exact), even if electricity prices were higher. Why? The energy efficiency provisions in the bill would help to lower household demand enough to more than offset the rise in rates, resulting in a lower overall monthly bill for the average American.

FARMERS > Higher Prices > Food Prices
- Unless GMO crops miraculously save the day (and I don't think they will), we've got an impending global food crisis, which is bound to drive up food prices even without climate legislation. The combination of rapidly growing populations, rising affluence, a lack of additional suitable cropland, water scarcity and erosion have already made the prospects of feeding 3 billion more people by 2050 bleak. Climate change, while possibly marginally increasing crop yields for the part of the world that shifts into more favorable temperature range, will almost certainly be a huge net loss for farmers because of increased drought, severe weather events, disruption of summer mountain meltwater than many farmers depend on, desertification, and on and on and on. Attempting to halt climate legislation to "help" the farmers if fucking absurd.

DRIVERS > Higher Prices > Gasoline Prices

Again, the writing on the wall about gasoline prices has been evident for many years. We are likely at peak oil already, with only a global economic crisis to temporarily dampen gas prices. Options: Vastly revamp public transportation systems so that owning a car isn't mandatory in most of the United States at it is now, improve fuel economies of vehicles to match those of Europe and Japan, invest heavily in electric powered vehicles and electric battery storage capabilities. Or...be like the GOP and pretend that the Earth's resources aren't finite.

WORKERS > Lost Jobs
- uuuuugh. Can anyone point me to a credible source that DOESN'T think that clean energy jobs will one of the most important industries of this century? If this was 1902, the GOP would be attacking the idea that automobiles would ever gain traction and pushing for more investment in stagecoaches instead.

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Friday, 26 June 2009 17:22 (4 years ago) Permalink

Also, this from the ACEEE:

June 24, 2009

Washington, D.C.—The federal energy efficiency provisions included in H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (aka Waxman-Markey), could save approximately $1,050 per household by 2020 and $4,400 per household by 2030, according to an updated analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Changes to ACEEE’s analysis come from an updated assessment of savings from a number of provisions, as well as changes to the bill made in a Rule’s Committee version of the bill released yesterday.

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Friday, 26 June 2009 17:25 (4 years ago) Permalink

If this was 1902, the GOP would be attacking the idea that automobiles would ever gain traction and pushing for more investment in stagecoaches instead.

this newfangled contraption is going to completely decimate the horseshoe industry!

And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 26 June 2009 17:26 (4 years ago) Permalink

Watching this House debate on C-SPAN is absolutely tearing my stomach up. Take me to the hospital, fuck.

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Friday, 26 June 2009 19:20 (4 years ago) Permalink

Livebloggin' the appearance of Boehner's awesome chart at the ACES debate

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Friday, 26 June 2009 21:41 (4 years ago) Permalink

he is a complete douchebag.

Mornington Crescent (Ed), Friday, 26 June 2009 22:07 (4 years ago) Permalink

so irritated at the Republicans' refusing to satisfy my twisted, radical environmentalist desires

And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 26 June 2009 22:30 (4 years ago) Permalink

I mean if they weren't potentially viable, there'd be nothing to lobby against.

charlie 4chan, internet detective (Hurting 2), Thursday, 18 April 2013 20:36 (1 year ago) Permalink

efficiency is more ... well efficient in reducing reliance on fossil fuels. unfortunately it's not as simple to sell as a solar panel.

four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 18 April 2013 20:36 (1 year ago) Permalink

Germany was getting 70% of it's electricity from solar power during periods of Summer 2012. And Germany isn't exactly the sunniest region! and like sleeve mentioned, renewables are at or approaching price parity with coal in many places. with even a small price on carbon (one not even approaching the true costs of using fossil fuels), the whole process would accelerate dramatically. it totally is possible. but if the u.s. congress can't even stand up to the NRA in the wake of a series of tragedies that are immediate, tangible, and provoking of widespread public mourning, they're going to have an even tougher time standing up to fossil fuel interests with even more money/influence, and with consequences of climate change that aren't as tangible and immediate as school massacres.

your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Thursday, 18 April 2013 20:45 (1 year ago) Permalink

also, Shakey otm about efficiency. I do solar quotes as part of my day job, and I am continually amazed/horrified at Americans and their excessive energy usage. single family homes using 3,000 kWh a month - almost triple what we use with five people in our house. and almost all of them are weirdly fixated on covering 100% of their usage with solar, as opposed to trying to reduce their usage first. then, when you give them the inevitable answer - that there isn't enough room on their roof to cover more than 20% - the response is usually "well, can't you make better panels?" fucking America, RIP.

my mental killfile seems to be working (sleeve), Thursday, 18 April 2013 20:58 (1 year ago) Permalink

yeah everyone is like, DON'T TELL ME HOW MUCH ENERGY TO USE I NEED IT ALL

four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 18 April 2013 21:04 (1 year ago) Permalink

I left that light on in an empty room FOR A REASON

four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 18 April 2013 21:05 (1 year ago) Permalink

in ALEC news, the North Carolina bill to repeal their state's RPS has died in committee, with six Republicans voting AGAINST it. This is good news!

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nc-renewable-energy-standard-scores-surprise-win

Flat Of NAGLs (sleeve), Monday, 29 April 2013 16:36 (11 months ago) Permalink

!!

four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 29 April 2013 16:40 (11 months ago) Permalink

the republicans must have been confused or something?? i don't understand! still, great news, hopefully a harbinger for similar efforts!

your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Monday, 29 April 2013 16:53 (11 months ago) Permalink

A study out in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined attitudes about energy efficiency in liberals and conservatives, and found that promoting energy-efficient products and services on the basis of their environmental benefits actually turned conservatives off from picking them.

...The study then presented participants with a real-world choice: With a fixed amount of money in their wallet, respondents had to "buy" either an old-school light bulb or an efficient compact florescent bulb, the same kind Bachmann railed against. Both bulbs were labeled with basic hard data on their energy use, but without a translation of that into climate pros and cons. When the bulbs cost the same, and even when the CFL cost more, conservatives and liberals were equally likely to buy the efficient bulb. But slap a message on the CFL’s packaging that says "Protect the Environment," and "we saw a significant drop-off in more politically moderates and conservatives choosing that option," said study author Dena Gromet, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/04/how-do-you-get-conservatives-buy-energy-efficient-products/5435/

your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:08 (11 months ago) Permalink

god i fucking hate people

your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:09 (11 months ago) Permalink

isn't that reaction the opposite of being conservative

four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:11 (11 months ago) Permalink

literally speaking

four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:11 (11 months ago) Permalink

wow that is amazingly stupid. i'm wondering if this is a case of hating the band because of its fans. and by "band" i mean the planet we need to exist.

Spectrum, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:13 (11 months ago) Permalink

conservative pours cyanide into drinking water. "ha! take that you sissy planet loving liberals." drinks it, dies. ghost of conservative doomed to roam a dead planet for eternity: it was worth it!

Spectrum, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:15 (11 months ago) Permalink

or could be that environmentalism has become a partisan political stance that makes some people squeamish. wanting human civilization to continue as radical, controversial politics. still fucking stupid and unfortunate.

Spectrum, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:17 (11 months ago) Permalink

well, then there's this, from the last few paragraphs of the article:

That doesn’t necessarily mean green advocates need to somehow cover up the environmental benefits of a policy or product: A study from Stanford psychologists released last December found that re-framing environmental messaging in terms of preserving the "purity" of the natural world resonated morally with conservatives.

so...don't talk about protecting the environment...but do talk about preserving the purity of the natural world?

brb i have to go have outside and try to convince an inanimate object to do something

your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:18 (11 months ago) Permalink

must increase amount of virginity in the air

four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:20 (11 months ago) Permalink

hmmm ... protect the environment could imply people are doing bad things to the environment ("protecting" here meaning from people), whereas preseving the purity of the environment eliminates that baggage and just focuses on the good.

Spectrum, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:23 (11 months ago) Permalink

3 months pass...

Surprisingly quiet here about fracking. Been big protests in Balcombe about this (see here, for example), two boys in America are banned for life to even speak about (this), but ths new fracking frenzy seems unstoppable. Injecting chemicals into the earth to get gas, yeah, great idea...

In the airplane over the .CSS (Le Bateau Ivre), Sunday, 11 August 2013 19:44 (8 months ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.