Bob wrote:Rod Gervais
which is exactly the way it should be
That's debateable. Capitalism at its core is amoral and sociopathic. Capitalism is a good thing. Amoral and Sociopathic are bad. Privately held companies can be ethical, but some have said that due to their responsibility to shareholders to make the largest proffit possible that publicly held companies must, by law, be unethical. Up to an Enron point of course.
Then of course there's the definition of 'green' -- a whole other debate of which you've volunteered but one point.
Bob,
I don't want to start a flame war here - so let's keep this friendly........
I am a conservationalist - but view some other segments of the "green movement" as eco-freaks..........
I would have no problem throwing some jerk in jai for the rest of his life who dumped chemicals on his property that then contaminaated mine -
BUT - I don't have a problem with "Killing trees" in order to build buildings - or to use to furninsh the inside of studios designed like Power Station.
I think that the green movent goes way overboard iia lot of cases - for example - back in the day when I was first learning construction - we would deliberately design and consruct buildings so that the air infiltration rate was one complete air exchange per hour - this through the subtle use of cracks along the joints between the foundation and base plate of the building - through the use of cracks along doors and windows - the cracks around electrical boxes, etc.
And then the eco-freaks began screaming about all of the wasted energy that was escaping from houses because of this "sloppy workmanship" (note that I said this was by design - not by mistake) and the energy cops began requiring us to tighten things up.
SO now - in the states - you have LEEDS standards (U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) which you have to meet in order to even bid on certain projects -
Their standards for air infiltration require a maximum air exchange of .3 air changes per hour.
And then what do they have to do ? They have to pump in ((via fans (extra electrical costs)) and treat (same costs as before) fresh air into these buildings (including the high end residential units being built to their standards) fresh air because the building are getting sick air syndrome.
SO where we were doing it as a part of the building design - they now have to add duct and fans (additional electrical costs long term - never mind the costs related for upkeep) to acheive the same tings were were dong for free....... (remember that the heating/cooling costs remain the same regardless of where the fresh air comes from).
To me this is insane.
IN the US we had (back in the good old days) Nuclear Breeder plants - to which we would send spent power rods so that they could be regenerated - after which they could be sent back to the reactor plants to be reused - and this (of course0 could be repeated to the point that nearly 100% of radioactive materials were spent in the life of their power fgeneration.
The product remaining after the final use was (for all intent and purpose) inert - and could be dumped just about anywhere without creating problems.
BUt - after scraming about the dangers of nuclear power by the eco-freaks the federal govt outlawed breeder facilities - so not we have a stockpile of spent energy rods that have to be dealt withi in some manner - and these do have concentrated radioactive loads that can create leathal situations if a problem arises.
I do have a problem with the fact that (in the states) a bever can put up a dam on the brook that runs through my property - but I can't take it down because it would disrupt the ecology _ BUT - I can't get a permit to put up the same dam because it would disrupt the ecology....... I do know a farmer in Connecticut who lodst his strawberry fields in hisorchards because of a bevears dam - and they could not care less that his property was made useless - it was a bever after all - and they had rights too.........
I am aware of the fact (note I said fact) that there doesn't exist ANY natural renewable energy sources which (if taken in large enough amounts to provide anything other than miniscule amounts of energy) ) we won't pay some ecological penalty for (that includes sun - air and water energies).
As far as global warming and the ozone layer goes - we only discovered the ozone in the early fifties - and could only begin measuring it in the 70's - and yet - with only gathering 30+ years of data on something that has existed for hundreds of millions of years 9we have convinced ourselves) that this small amount of data is conclusive enough for us to develope real computer models that represent reality?
That's akin to taking one reading with a microphone in a room and developing all of our room treatments from it. And then never testing again - because after all - we had that one reading.
There is no way that 30+ years of data can prove conclusively that anything out of the ordinary exists......... hell - for all we know - the ozone could naturally open up for thousand year cycles - and then close up for another thousand year cycle......
Beside which - even supposing that global warming was real - and assuming that the polar caps melted - the cries of flooding out the world are over stated to say the least -
Seeing as the only addition to the water levels would be that which sits above sea level - the most increase you would see would be somewhere in the range of a 6" rise in sea level world wide........ nothing suggesting that suddenly we loose all of our existing sea front......... or any of it for that matter.........
And predictions (once again) of what would happen from the perspective of changing weather patterns is questionable - again because we don't have enough statistical data gathered to really program computer models which come to meaningful data -
remember - you can set up a computer mdel to conclude whatever you want it to - that doesn't men the conclusion is meaningful.
With all sincerity..........
Rod
Rockwool has even something useful from an historical point of view
Please I want to talk about and question this stuff I'm against (covers about anyone and anything), but give me the handle to hide behind.