| Subject: in the beginning was song |
Author:
pa
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 01/16/06 11:53:33am
pjk says: "your and pa and krz projections upon me are misguided."
Pa? huh? What is pa projecting on you? Please tell me so I can address it.
In the beginning was song. Everyone to the windows!
Pjk says: "It's just that biomass is as old as cavemen and women and also what the poorest 15% of the earth use for fuel and not especially profound."
Because it’s a fuel used by the poorest people on earth, because it dates back eons we should negate it’s ability to be used when it can? I do not understand your logic here. It seems a better negation would be that it’s not particularly efficient…e.g. it’s a myth that it releases far less CO2 into the atmosphere than those traditional (current) heating methods. (Although this is not true, so this is not a good negation either, but maybe you get my rhetorical point?)
It seems pretty profound to me (as in far-reaching) that buildings account for 48 percent of U.S. energy consumption and generate far more greenhouse gas emissions than any other sector.
I’m not sure which definition of profound you are using… Do you mean profound like in the dark unfathomed caves of ocean? Maybe you mean far-reaching and thoroughgoing…like the atomic bomb ?
Maybe you mean profound in terms of timeline hierarchies: like fossil fuels are more profound because they’ve been around longer than caveman. Or the reverse,: the new is the most profound….so then that would make solar energy particularly inane?
My opinion is that this is not a sound rubric in determining the efficacy of heating sources. I would use that word more for describing someone’s outlook on life….not to describe an alternative energy source…particularly one that can be used as a grassroots combinatorial effort in reducing waste, heating costs and CO2 emissions (alternative here defined as something different than status quo)
Pjk says: "Perhaps put another way, could schools and teachers and anyone else who receives or provides government services benefit if some of the money that went into the Pentagon were invested in other areas, biomass, for example?"
Are you suggesting that the government invest in biomass… (it does(to the anger of solar proponents). I thought you felt biomass wasn’t a successful alternative. I confused.
Pjk says: "biomass can/could be great for small communities where it fits into some kind of eco-balance. We're not going to be running Ford and GM on it."
I don’t think anyone (me) was suggesting that. If you go back and look at my post, I was foremost addressing concerns about buildings and the construction industry…I wasn’t talking about fuel for cars…In fact this was the essence of my post…So, let me attempt this again:
I have assumed in the past that cars are the real culprit of global warming, but in reality, it may be the minipower plants of buildings that most of the western world works in. Again, once built, buildings have a lifetime (and energy consumption pattern) that lasts 50 to 100 years. And this sector’s consumption of energy is mainly in the form of burning oil, natural gas and coal. When I go up to francis' school I am shocked that no one wears sweaters...the heat is over the top, approaching discomfort for us naked humans.
What would happen if people working in buildings became miniactivists and protested any temp. above 60 degrees in winter and below 90 degrees in summer?
What if people in buildings lobbied for change in heating systems? Whatever suited the localscape…biomass, solar, etc.
What if people working in buildings lobbied for efficiency standards in renovations...the reductions in carbon dioxide emissions would be tremendous.
My only other opinion was that it takes a lot to overcome the status quo of heating/cooling and I was inspired that 2 schools in New Mexico were making an attempt at sustainability and reducing natural gas and electricity costs for heating and by way of addressing the budget are also reducing the amount CO2 previously released from their sites…
Pjk says: "so perhaps there ought to be a Planck institute looking into the old ways before our common knowledge of the old ways of farming or weaving or medecine making disappears forever. Perhaps backwards looking is actually forward looking."
I thought you just said that biomass wasn’t particularly profound because the cavemen were using it…because it was part of ‘common knowledge’. Wouldn’t biomass be part of this renascence of old knowledge you are encouraging here?
Pjk I gotta say, I admire your capriciousness.
Pjksays: "your and pa and krz projections upon me are misguided".
Pa? huh? What is pa projecting on you?
(Except a whole network of grimaces and contortions).
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 