[brillser]

I watched the tail end of a tv program on the matter of global climate change. The last question the narrator posed was, "So what does the future hold?". His answer was, " Well scientists are agreed on two things", (1) "They don't know", and (2) "They hope we never find out".

I thought it was an interesting answer. Just thought I'd share that with you all.

[lotuseclat79]

Scientists Confirm: Polar warming is 'caused by humans'.

The rise in temperatures at Earth's poles has for the first time been attributed directly to human activities, according to a study. The work, by an international team, is published in Nature Geoscience journal. This contradicted ideas that it was not a result of natural processes such as an increase in the Sun's intensity.

-- Tom

[eggplant43]

Please take the 20 minutes it will require to watch this incredible TED video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMTCNOlozTA

[worknfool]

Back in the 60's the teachers were telling us that we'd be out of gas in ten years, the air would be poison and our water undrinkable within the century. Didn't quite go the way they planned.

A couple of years of horrific weather, coupled with Al Gore's invention of the internet, and global warming becomes the tragically overwhelming problem that we're all too stupid and weak to handle. Thankfully we have this sausage grinder that keeps supplying us with one savior after another, able to lead us through these troubling times and take care of all of these big problems, so that we can all go back to sleep. Politicians depend on this stuff to keep them in a position where they can take our money and tell us how to live.

Every significant extinction on this planet has been the result of catastrophic events, not gradual trends. The earth warms, the earth cools. Meanwhile, alarmists like Mr. Gore are getting rich selling carbon credits and people get scared and herded into making drastic changes at a ridiculous cost. Yeah, we need to live on less. No we don't have to do it all today. Consider the impact of some of our most recent knee jerks:

Nancy P. wants to outlaw incandescent lighting and make everyone buy fluorescent. Fluorescents aren't made here in the pollution controlled U.S.A. or Western Europe, too expensive to comply. The vast predominance are manufactured in communist China, 'cuz they don't need no stinkin' air scrubbers on their soft coal fired generators. The chaos of unintended consequences ultimately rules. Google "Asian Dust" to get a feel for what our rush to save kilowatts is putting into the jetstream.

Jimmy's bungling in the 70's helped to empower the terrorist states and fed our first energy crisis. People started jamming fiberglass into their attics to save and conserve. The result was a lot of attics with little or no air exchange, humidity issues and ultimately the latest scourge of real estate, mold.

There have been viable alternative solutions to many of our problems available for decades, but the economic stimulus necessary to create the demand, and subsequent economy of scale for producers, has not presented itself. Computer users know better than anyone, you pay dearly to be an early adopter.

Whether the earth warms or cools, it still just makes sense for us to act more responsibly. But that doesn't just mean buying and building green, it means getting smarter. Maybe we get so smart that we figure out that the same technological and industrial development that causes a lot of our problems is also the potential source of the solutions.

Geological chronology barely recognizes our existance. There will likely be another huge asteroid catasrophe before we could possibly drown ourselves in polar water.

Now that I think of it though...rising oceans means less land. Less supply means higher prices. I know, let's try Lewis Black's sugestion and all run outside with aerosol cans right now. This could be the quick solution to the real estate calamity. More warming is what we need, not less. Just think of the heating bills that we won't have to pay. More importantly, we could take back that 700 zillion that they just gave Wall Street since they blamed it all on falling real estate anyway. This is genius, I should be King.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by worknfool

Back in the 60's the teachers were telling us that we'd be out of gas in ten years, the air would be poison and our water undrinkable within the century. Didn't quite go the way they planned.......

a thoroughly enjoyable read.....

Yeah, we need to live on less. No we don't have to do it all today. Consider the impact of some of our most recent knee jerks:

Nancy P. wants to outlaw incandescent lighting and make everyone buy fluorescent. Fluorescents aren't made here in the pollution controlled U.S.A. or Western Europe, too expensive to comply. The vast predominance are manufactured in communist China, 'cuz they don't need no stinkin' air scrubbers on their soft coal fired generators. The chaos of unintended consequences ultimately rules. Google "Asian Dust" to get a feel for what our rush to save kilowatts is putting into the jetstream.

a good example of why a nation with a global vision is needed, imo.....a position america still has the wherewithall to assume, if our politicians just had the courage to take the risk.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by iltos

a thoroughly enjoyable read.....



a good example of why a nation with a global vision is needed, imo.....a position america still has the wherewithall to assume, if our politicians just had the courage to take the risk.

The problem is that politicians are more motivated by what elects/re-elects rather than what's needed.
And that applies to both extremes of the discussion.....from Gore to Bush.
, from radical action to total inaction.

[brillser]

Politicians tend to feather their own nests, while they pretend to be all things to all people.
They've been getting away with it though...

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Stoner

The problem is that politicians are more motivated by what elects/re-elects rather than what's needed.
And that applies to both extremes of the discussion.....from Gore to Bush.
, from radical action to total inaction.

Originally Posted by brillser

Politicians tend to feather their own nests, while they pretend to be all things to all people.
They've been getting away with it though...

yeah (*sigh*)....i know
but a fella can still hope

[~Candy~]

worknfool, if that is a copy and paste of an article from another site, you need to edit your thread and put a link to the appropriate location.

If they don't allow republication, you need to edit the entire post, and leave only a couple of paragraphs, at most, and STILL place a link to the attributor.

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by worknfool

Back in the 60's the teachers were telling us that we'd be out of gas in ten years, the air would be poison and our water undrinkable within the century. Didn't quite go the way they planned..

What school did you go to back then that told you that? Mine didn't. Are you not being just a little dramatic here? My memory of what we were being taught was how to hide in the cellar for atomic war. The only thing about air poisoning I remember was the fallout stuff...Did I miss something

Originally Posted by worknfool

Whether the earth warms or cools, it still just makes sense for us to act more responsibly. But that doesn't just mean buying and building green, it means getting smarter....

Some examples of how to do this would be appreciated.

Originally Posted by worknfool

Now that I think of it though...rising oceans means less land. Less supply means higher prices. I know, let's try Lewis Black's sugestion and all run outside with aerosol cans right now. This could be the quick solution to the real estate calamity. More warming is what we need, not less. Just think of the heating bills that we won't have to pay. More importantly, we could take back that 700 zillion that they just gave Wall Street since they blamed it all on falling real estate anyway. This is genius, I should be King.

If this is your idea of smarter, I will take green anyday. I do though understand it is sarcasm I think.

[worknfool]

naa, just me...still workin' on the less is more with my posts tho

[~Candy~]

Originally Posted by worknfool

naa, just me...still workin' on the less is more with my posts tho

Did you see my post? Not sure who you are replying to here.

[worknfool]

The rush to reform has created a relativity of sorts that has obfuscated the desired goal. I'll attempt to limit my remarks to building construction for now, but the implications are much wider reaching.

Much of the claptrap suggested as "Green" is often self defeating overall, (see previous comments re: Nancy P. and our light bulbs). My neighbor had an "Energy Consultant" tell him with a straight face that he should replace his 84% efficient oil fired boiler with a new 90% unit, at a mere cost to him of over $10,000.

Since his heating oil for the last year was about $2,400, and he's almost 60 years old, we figure oil needs to go to $10 a gallon and he needs to live at least another 20 years just to break even. When you add niggling little factors like the lost ROI of him paying cash, or the interest costs of financing and he'd probably never live to see even.

Aluminum is considered "Green" 'cuz it can be recycled. Problem is that many people don't, and more importantly Aluminum production and recycling exhausts huge quantities of energy. The ore mining for production from scratch is legend for its earth scarring process.

Vinyl siding is LEED (govt. program) certified as a "Green" exterior building finish even though the product is a petroleum product and the manufacturing process is resource intensive and very earth unfriendly.

Concrete, brick and stone are more viable from a longevity standpoint and they add thermal mass, which helps to attenuate temperature changes, thereby reducing additional energy inputs to maintain comfort. They work like a giant thermal battery. The greater the thermal mass, especially when combined with passive solar design, the less energy required to maintain comfort.

Hydronic (circulating hot water) heat installed in concrete, or even integrated into reflectively coated plywood sub flooring, such as Warmboard et al, provides a super efficient heat distribution method that excells when coupled with solar and or geothermal heat pumps.

Compare the comfort and operating costs of in floor hot water vs. what 90% of the homes built today rely on, forced air. I'm not sure but I can't think of anything right off the top of my head that looses heat faster than moving air.

Icynene spray foam air barrier / insulation is inert, won't support mold, resists thermal drift (wind and radiant forces that render fiberglass all but useless as a real world building insulator), and virtually impermeable to exterior moisture while still allowing water vapor to pass through from the interior.

The fiberglass lobby has prevented real world testing of their products for decades because they realize that their product makes a better filter than an insulator. The manufacturing and installation process is not kind to organic life forms and mold and moisture love it. Recycled newspaper (cellulose) blown in attic insulation is treated with antimicrobial chemicals and is thermally superior to F/G as well as cheaper.

Insulated concrete forms made of recycled wood fiber, Durisol, provide structural superiority and superior sound attenuation along with efficient construction means and exceptional thermal integrity. Will not wick moisture or support mold.

Recycled radiant barrier metal roof finishes can reduce radiant super heating of upper levels and or attic spaces by as much as 80% or more. More resistant to wind damage than traditional asphalt shingles and won't support moss or mold.

Exterior plywood sheathing that is already moisture repellent, and once installed with appropriate seam tape, requires no house wrap, especially if combined with spray foam insulation.

Properly installed low-e windows and exterior doors, and careful attention to construction method details, coupled with the above mentioned and an efficient fresh air exchanging system will provide years of low maintenance, near zero energy input living.

Conundrum #1 : Most of this stuff requires more initial construction and design costs. Construction is almost always funded with other peoples borrowed money and lenders only like to lend for things that they understand.

Appraisers are caught in the middle since they have to rely very heavily on square foot comparable sales to support their valuations. An energy efficient home that costs $250,000 to build and $80 a month in utilities is more affordable to live in than a $200,000 house, built the way the lenders are used to seeing, and requiring $300 a month in utilities with growing maintenance costs as the home ages.

Conundrum #2 : Even with the economic pressures of doubling energy costs the average home buyer more often chooses style and or square footage over substance and overall affordability of ownership.

A home built with disposable short lived materials, 20 year roofing & vinyl siding, and inferior thermal efficiencies can and often is still certifiable as "Energy Smart" or "Energy Wise". Large builders get their products certified based on a sampling of models, not a true test and evaluation of every home's integrity and efficiency.

Either way doesn't matter because the banks will only lend what the appraisers report will support, and that is all based on old technology and reflects nothing regarding the true cost of ownership.

I wish I had a picture of the banker's face 25 years ago when I told him that I wanted to borrow money to build a partially subterranean energy efficient home.

I have met with many very well educated potential home buyers to detail this problem over the last twenty years, and better than 90% of the time they still end up buying a bigger box over the better box.

The largest home builders recognize that the future is smaller and more efficient, but they won't build what people won't buy, and people are still buying big dumb boxes.

Education helps, but the economic bottom line must be addressed in a very significant fashion if any real change is going to occur. Disliking and distrusting big gov as I do I can't stomach the idea of them tryin' to fix it, but some sort of significant financial incentives would work wonders.

Instead of giving people a rebate or tax credit to encourage replacing an old frig w/ an Energy Star (the old frig just gets moved to the basement and still gets used), why not grant some sort of low / no energy use homestead tax credit.

Establish an average energy consumption index and give corresponding usage reductions by percent in the owners property taxes for the twenty years that they should be able to pay their mortgage off in. This would all go away if they decide to refi and spend their equity, thereby encouraging savings over spending.

This would also discourage 30-50 year mortgaging nonsense and limit the rush to constantly refinance, recreating a country of home ownership rather than mortgage payers who are basically tax advantaged renters who will never actually live to see their house paid for.

When retirement comes, bingo - now you've got equity to access, whether you invested with Goldman Sachs or not.

These economic considerations are also an integral part of the "Green" equation. The more we spend on housing and energy, the more we have to work to earn to pay for it. That all requires more resources like transportation, meals eaten out, child care and or the significant social impacts of inadequate time for our children.

And what of health care implications? A modern, comfortable energy efficient home is going to limit your exposure to the impact of future energy hikes. The more healthful living environs, along with the reduced stress of lower ownership costs would also improve quality of life. Being warm in the winter and cool in the summer makes everybody feel better.

Just think, a nationwide halving of the traditional "honey-do-list" thanks to low maintenance building materials integration. Most of the great architecture of Europe took decades to build, but it's still there hundreds of years later. We're still trying to build a house that will last until it's paid for.

As with all things human, there are no simplistic answers, and the effects of unintended consequences are always to be feared, but a new and more intelligent direction must be taken. Elections will not solve any of this, we must.

Any product references made above are intended for illustrative purposes only, not an attempt to endorse or advertise. Should any of these materials interest you any web search will pull up a variety of similar product alternatives.

My feeble preceding attempts at social engineering aside, I do not consider my stream of consciousness ramblings to be truly viable as simply as stated, just food for thought. We've gotta start somewhere.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by worknfool

My feeble preceding attempts at social engineering aside, I do not consider my stream of consciousness ramblings to be truly viable as simply as stated, just food for thought. We've gotta start somewhere.

the truth of green building will only reach the common man when the wealthy make it fashionable, imo....i see the beginnings of this -albeit still on a limited scale, among truely forward thinking businesses, and those wealthy people who've become curious enough to hire a green architect.

until then, it remains a marketing problem, as you point out....a balance between what mass producers are willing to put into new products and how much the consumer is willing to pay for the promise, or the technology.

[LANMaster]

worknfool ..... take heed to ACACandy's last few posts in this thread.