What can we do to solve environmental problems?

[lynnvinc]

An article of the earlier week, of JUN, before the 22nd had a special report about The Arctic: the last sentence concluded one article by saying, The Arctic has become the symbol of The Age of Man. What started me thinking is the contention between countries on the issue, that the two countries, which will not go to war, but among whom the greatest geo-strategic stakes exist, Canada, and The U.S., recognizing superficially this abrupt conflict; I started wondering: how might opinions change on this issue? Of course, the key to this issue in my opinion, that became clear through the article is this: the ordinary course of nature, throughout The Arctic, hasn’t really changed, but sea ice, and glaciers, have melted more rapidly than even the most extreme predictions: were this a natural occurrence, then where is the natural phenomenon to explain such a dramatic melting of The Polar Ice Cap? The explanation of course, gases from man’s activities, which blow with the wind, and drive in part, the ocean’s currents, end up at one time or another at The North Pole, they become trapped, and warm The Polar Ice Cap. As The Polar Ice Cap melts, and glaciers melt, land becomes available to soak in the heat, and the darkness of water, increased without the reflectivity of ice, stores more, and more, and still, more heat. The key to the contention; seems to be, that irregardless of what good, all our efforts to conserve, and mitigate our damage to The Polar Ice Cap, at some point there is no return: decreasing greenhouse gases at some point, may not restore The Polar Ice Cap to previously observed norms., but this leaves us with the economic stakes, like oil, and gas, and gold, silver, and nickel. Not all of this belongs to The U.S., but what little I recall of it, belongs to Canada, and still there is Greenland, and Denmark. The thing is this as well: The Polar Ice Cap may be close to the point of no return, but to further the mechanisms of The Age of Man, to bring the same effect on Antarctica, … well, I leave you to your own conclusions. As a Californian, limiting fossil fuels burned is one thing I can do to mitigate the change. (The article was in the periodical, “The Economist” around page 52.)

I actually heard about the great oil dome under the Arctic Ocean some 10 years ago from an Alaskan oilman (now retired in S. Texas) – he said it was there, but too dangerous to extract with all the ice. He didn’t believe in GW, so he thought it would just remain there untouched, but I was thinking, as soon as the ice melts (maybe in 30 or 50 years) there will be a mad scramble for it (I think it is in international water there).

It’s like we are dope addicts addicted to things that are really bad for us and our families and future generations, and even tho there are programs & alternatives & solutions that can help us greatly reduce if not end the addiction, we just want more and more for our bigger and more gas-guzzling vehicles. Hummers aren’t enough – we’ll be wanting 5 mpg army tanks next, as others arm themselves on the roads with more dangerous vehicles, sort of in a personal vehicle arms race. We just can’t get enough, no matter what the financial or environmental or life costs…

It’s getting to the point that if you suggest solutions – like going on wind-powered electricity (which is cheaper in our area) and buying a Volt (with the $1000s a family would have saved had they been doing the EC things for 30 years), and even saving money on the Volt (once it paid for the difference thru savings in about 6 or 7 years).

Well, even if you suggest those as possible solutions to financial, if not environmental problems, you are suddenly labeled a communist trying to take over the world and put everyone in chains. It’s like the anti-environmentalists have gone berzerk. I’ve read they are disrupting city meetings around the nation, where residents and councilmen are looking into having bike lanes, or beefing up public transportion, or various ways to help their city become more energy and resource efficient, etc.

 

[Zosimus41]

Reduce, reuse, recycle. And plant a tree.

I learned today that ethynol actual decreases gas mileage and is hard on the engine.

Theres boat ramps that offer no ethynol contained in gas so boaters can have better gas mileage.

 

[kbf1970060]

I actually heard about the great oil dome under the Arctic Ocean some 10 years ago from an Alaskan oilman …

The graphics in “The Economist”, show natural resources closer to land, rather than the depths of The Arctic. So far as addicted to oil concerns go: it is believable; although, the pragmatic side to it is – as a nation – our Armed Forces must run on fossil fuels. We do work – as a nation – with Russia, extracting fossil fuels, etc… I don’t believe environmentally friendly solutions, typically, are labelled socialist / communist / fascist. The bailouts concerning General Motors, and Chrysler, certainly appear along the vein of socialistic, communistic, means. As do policies regarding the environment. I favor private enterprise. Typically, I support the likes of The John Birch Society.

 

[lynnvinc]

The graphics in “The Economist”, show natural resources closer to land, rather than the depths of The Arctic. So far as addicted to oil concerns go: it is believable; although, the pragmatic side to it is – as a nation – our Armed Forces must run on fossil fuels. We do work – as a nation – with Russia, extracting fossil fuels, etc… I don’t believe environmentally friendly solutions, typically, are labelled socialist / communist / fascist. The bailouts concerning General Motors, and Chrysler, certainly appear along the vein of socialistic, communistic, means. As do policies regarding the environment. I favor private enterprise. Typically, I support the likes of The John Birch Society.

Yes, the military and their oil inefficiency addiction. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute (an energy efficiency org) has long suggested the military could cut its oil use by at least half cost-effectively, without hampering military capability or operations. But since it is all taxpayer funded, there is really no incentive to do so…

There are a variety of environmentalist philosophies/visions, just as there are many types of political philosophies/visions. The one that comes closer to your “get big gov off our backs” idea is eco-anarchism or green anarchism – with the idea that big gov and big biz can’t solve enviro problems, since they are the problem, not the solution. So they propose living in small face-to-face communities with participatory or deliberative democracy, using micro-technologies, etc. & get big gov off their backs… See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_anarchism

I personally think that is okay if people want to go live in such communities, but it doesn’t seem to be a solution for the bulk of us, so I take a more mainstream environmentalist approach of working within the system as it exists.

You don’t like gov interference – then you’d also be in favor of taking away the subsidies and tax-breaks from fossil fuels…

 

[lynnvinc]

Yes, the military and their oil inefficiency addiction. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute (an energy efficiency org) has long suggested the military could cut its oil use by at least half cost-effectively, without hampering military capability or operations.

Here’s something by Lovins, re the military & its dangerous addiction to oil & how it can greatly reduce that:
ndu.edu/press/lib/images/jfq-57/lovins.pdf
rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2012-03_CurrentsInterview

 

[lynnvinc]

…I favor private enterprise…

So does the Rocky Mountain Institute, which calculates we could reduce our fossil fuel dependency by 75% or more cost-effectively without lowering productivity or living standards – check out rmi.org

However, to be fair, if we are to go to a much-less-gov society based on market principles, we need to internalize the externalities (harms not born by biz or consumers, but by others).

So instead of the sick, dying, and property-destroyed people from environmental harms and hazards getting aid from the gov, they could get the compensation thru the market from biz and consumers. That means we would at the least have to have an Internalization Office (if not an IRS), which would collect money from biz and consumers (maybe by way of some “internalization fee” on resources and products), that would then be dispersed as just compensation to those who are harmed. That would be the only fair thing – you break it, you buy it. Or you buy it, you break it.

There are problems with the market approach, such as some harms being difficult to calculate. What is the cost of birds (which would be harmed by my wind-powered electricity), and what is the cost of people harmed by oil, gas, and coal extraction and use? What is the cost of polluting an huge aquifer, like the Ogalla, for the next 1,000 years, making people haul in water from some far away states for family and agricultural usage? Or the cost of contributing to the annihilation of a large chunk (if not all) of life on earth through the 9+ serious problems scientists have identified (see stockholmresilience.org/research/researchnews/tippingtowardstheunknown/thenineplanetaryboundaries.4.1fe8f33123572b59ab80007039.html ). What is the cost of bees and the need to pollinate all our plants by hand?

What is the worth of an unborn child; would it be less than the birds the anti-environmentalists against wind power are so concerned about?

There would have to be some way of setting aside a huge fund for future generations that will be harmed by enviornmental harms from our consumption of products today, harms that go on harming well into the future. Economists speak of discounting the future, that children aren’t worth a plug nickel and fetuses even less (maybe even some negative amount, like a liability) – but we don’t have to have economists figure these things for us. We as fair people can come up with some fair amounts.

Not sure, but I’m thinking maybe an extra $20 or so per gallon of gas (figuring low), and maybe an extra 50 cents per KWH of coal or gas powered electricity and maybe 2 cents more per KWH for wind-generated electricity to cover the bird kills (if the anti-environmentalists get their way and price them above human fetuses) and also the harms involved in making and maintaining the equipment – from resource extraction & manufacturing to harmful wastes.

That ought to do it. We wouldn’t need much gov then and hardly any taxes, beyond a military (which we really don’t need if all other countries disband their militaries in a similar pursuit of no government), perhaps some roads and public works depts, and definitely an Internalization Office to collect and distribute fees for the harms from our purchases and consumption of products and hazardous waste generation to compensate the victims.

Of course, one might say that money can’t bring back a dead bird or dead child, but aside from compensating for burial and funeral costs maybe a part of the funds could be used to help prevent bird and child kills in the future.

 

[Bill_Martin]

I am not against green technologies, alternative sources of energy, or electric cars. I am completely against the ramming of this stuff down our throats, the government refusing to let the free market decide if these technologies are viable, the stifling of businesses through myriads of regulations in the Holy Name of the Environment, and the constant suppression of debate about the issue.

If the technologies work and people want to buy them, great. That’s the way it should be. But if they don’t work, I don’t want the government propping the companies up with tax dollars, trying to coerce Americans into using them anyway, and basically stuffing their sticky, meddling fingers into the free market because of political interests. Leave us alone. Crony capitalism is a big problem.

I also have serious concerns about the validity of the claims of many of the environmental activists. Their constant attempts to label their opposition as simply “deniers” and pass them off as uneducated hobos is not very scientific. This fear of honest debate and opposing viewpoints makes me wonder what they are so worried about. I sincerely dislike it when people treat environmentalism as a religion and pass judgement upon the unbelievers who fail to adhere to it. I am worried about businesses being shut down or severely hampered by EPA restrictions made to placate the environmentalists whose arguments are never debated. I think it is stupid to not use coal for energy because we have so much of it stateside. Same with oil.

 

[kbf1970060]

Yes, the military and their oil inefficiency addiction. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute (an energy efficiency org) has long suggested the military could cut its oil use by at least half cost-effectively, without hampering military capability or operations. … I take a more mainstream environmentalist approach of working within the system as it exists.

You don’t like gov interference – then you’d also be in favor of taking away the subsidies and tax-breaks from fossil fuels…

Government at a federal level, military and other, implement those philosophies: not so much in the way of what clearly has to be fossil fueled, but other means reducing fossil fuels: solar panels, and the like, and passive solar as well. I do not find terribly much opposition against less fossil fuel usage, federally, across the spectrum, but the trend is … something to take time. I’m not so much of a “Get big government off my back!” person, but I like understanding governments both federal, state, county, and city, within a U.S. Consitution scope. These governments function to the favor of business, in addition to God-given rights: I do, still, see America as good. Tax breaks exist, or have existed, for active solar implementation since the 1970’s. Government interference exists in the way, of white-collar crime being impeded as well. It isn’t so much of a “Get big government off my back!” as it is: let me handle my freedom responsibly, then there is no need for government to interfere. When government interferes with what I am doing, in a responsible manner, then I think, that there is a transgression against my freedom.

 

[lynnvinc]

…These governments function to the favor of business, in addition to God-given rights…

These are anti-Church, Enlightenment-given rights. God gave us duties, responsibilities, Commandments…

Of course, with our duties come some rights…like a right to get food from the abundance God gave the creatures of the earth, but not a right to take away and/or destroy food from the lessers of our brothers.

He also gave us free will. That’s not a right, but a way we can serious mess up with his commandments…or do the right things.

 

[mackbrislawn]

To use less water and put less stress on the sewage system, keep the plug in the bathtub and use bath water to fllush the toilet. Also you can direct the drain from the washer into the toilet to flush it.

 

[lynnvinc]

…Tax breaks exist, or have existed, for active solar implementation since the 1970’s…

I may be wrong, but I don’t think subsidies and tax breaks for solar or wind come anywhere near the gov spending on fossil fuels, including military and war costs to ensure our supply.

So if people would rather breathe poisonous air and drink poisonous water, then let’s surely not give any subsidies to wind or solar, bec that might mean a transition to cleaner air and water and less “cancer alleys” surrounding oil refinery industries, or elementary school & neighborhood contamination from mountain-top removal and coal ash spill pollution.

I’ve heard that wind is just about competitive with fossil fuels (even if one does not factor in military expenses), and solar is coming down rapidly with newer innovations, and perhaps will be competitive in 5 to 10 years – I sort of think it is competitive now, but it just takes some 15 to 20 or so years to pay off the difference between conventional and solar energy (it’s a huge up-front investment, like my Chevy Volt, which eventually does pay off the difference in 6.5 years).

I personally see nothing wrong in the gov encouraging such tech innovations and creating “economies of scale” by boosting alt energy sales and usage, or taking away the sting of upfront costs. I like the Calif plan of the gov installing solar panels on poor people’s roofs, then collecting a small fee each month (one which in conjunction with their much smaller electric bill that does not amount to their previous electric bill) until the panels are paid off.

But if people want no gov interference and want to risk harms from pollution (tho that would be unfair to make those opposed to the pollution suffer harms, and even unfair to their own children, who have no say on the matter), then at the least take away all the subsidies (including military costs & roads/infrastructure for coal & fracking) from fossil fuels when gov help is taken away from wind & solar. And internalize at least one-hundredth of the harms from these, esp to be used as compensation for those who opt out of agreeing to the pollution & the children of pro-pollution people. Maybe just the harms most easy to calculate and get compensation to the victims – that includes among many other things medical expenses and lost work wages from lung harm (asthma, emphysema, etc) from acid rain, or burial expenses for those who die from it. Then we shall see which is cheaper, alt energy or dirty energy.

 

[lynnvinc]

To use less water and put less stress on the sewage system, keep the plug in the bathtub and use bath water to fllush the toilet. Also you can direct the drain from the washer into the toilet to flush it.

These are excellent idea, esp with water shortages in many places. Also water involves energy to pump and heat it.

I just read something about smart water meters, which are being installed in some place. (I know I heard that some people are against smart electric meters, as they are harmed by cell phones, wireless computers, and other electronic signal devices; but I think the electronic water meters may not be so bad since the meters are usually away from the buildings & the harmful waves decrease exponentially with distance.)

Anyway there is the potential to be able to monitor water usage, which may help detect leaks, etc.

We were driving in our Ford Windstar today – which we use when we need to haul things – with the AC blasting, bec it is the dead of summer here, which means temps above 100F. Anyway I pointed out that we tend to reduce our AC usage in the Volt, since there is feedback about how much energy we are using and how fast the charge discharges with the AC. It’s not that we sweat like stuck pigs in the Volt (and, afterall, our electricity is 100% wind-generated, tho our electric co has asked customers to reduce usage if possible due to overall very high power demands in Texas during these heat waves – but our Volt charges during the nights, during off-peak times, so it’s not so bad). We do use the AC heavily in our Volt these summer month and ride in comfort, but just enough bearly comfort so that we don’t feel uncomfortable. With the Windstar we just tend to blast the AC without thinking about it much – until today.

I’m thinking if people could see how much extra gasoline they are using by blasting their car ACs, they might also reduce just a bit and be satisfied with the borderline comfort zone, instead of an arctic AC chill. I also thought of this – what if every appliance, light fixture, etc has a little monitor that told us how many watt hours we were using, maybe people would find ways to reduce so as to reduce their electric bill, if not “save the earth” – if such monitors were cheap and doable.

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

I live in a country that has regular droughts. A few years back after several years of very low rainfall, the water storage for the city I was living in was extremely low and getting lower by the day. Increasingly severe water restrictions were put in place.

During the most severe level of water restrictions, and this lasted for a long time (from memory it was more than a year), there was no watering at all of gardens or plants with tap water except for a few hours a week using a bucket filled under the tap, no washing of cars, no washing of windows or the outside of buildings, no use of garden hoses whatsoever, no topping up of swimming pools, etc and households had to reduce their indoor water usage to 140 litres/day per person. People really did use grey water on their favourite garden plants or used it to try and keep even some of their lawn alive, people really did turn off the taps when brushing their teeth and people really did have shorter showers (each household was even sent a small three minute hourglass with a suction cap that we were supposed to stick to our shower walls).

The population as a whole really did reduce average water consumption to below the required level and although I’m sure there were some individuals who didn’t take a scrap of notice of the requirements, it was actually fairly painless once we got used to it although not being able to water the garden was very tough for some. The water authorities ran a very successful campaign called ‘Target 140’ and average (per person) water consumption dropped to 129 litres/day (for a year!) compared to 300 litres/day before the drought. Eventually it rained enough to fill the water storage dams again and most of the restrictions were lifted. Most people had become used to using less water without really suffering and as far as I know, water consumption has not reached the previous levels even a few years later.

Many people didn’t replant their gardens with the types of plants that require a great deal of water instead choosing to put in more of what had survived (even if it hadn’t flourished) with the greatly reduced water.

Just goes to show it can be done but unfortunately I think a lot of it has to be either legislated (there were fines if you were caught using the garden hose for example) or there has to be enough of a change in society or an effective enough public campaign that excessive water use (or whatever it is) is considered unacceptable by most and there’s peer pressure to ‘do the right thing’.

Sadly for most people (and I include myself), we tend not to do anything until we’re forced to by something as serious as the very real possibility of a city running out of water.

 

[lynnvinc]

I live in a country that has regular droughts. A few years back after several years of very low rainfall, the water storage for the city I was living in was extremely low and getting lower by the day. Increasingly severe water restrictions were put in place.

During the most severe level of water restrictions, and this lasted for a long time (from memory it was more than a year), there was no watering at all of gardens or plants with tap water except for a few hours a week using a bucket filled under the tap, no washing of cars, no washing of windows or the outside of buildings, no use of garden hoses whatsoever, no topping up of swimming pools, etc and households had to reduce their indoor water usage to 140 litres/day per person. People really did use grey water on their favourite garden plants or used it to try and keep even some of their lawn alive, people really did turn off the taps when brushing their teeth and people really did have shorter showers (each household was even sent a small three minute hourglass with a suction cap that we were supposed to stick to our shower walls).

The population as a whole really did reduce average water consumption to below the required level and although I’m sure there were some individuals who didn’t take a scrap of notice of the requirements, it was actually fairly painless once we got used to it although not being able to water the garden was very tough for some. The water authorities ran a very successful campaign called ‘Target 140’ and average (per person) water consumption dropped to 129 litres/day (for a year!) compared to 300 litres/day before the drought. Eventually it rained enough to fill the water storage dams again and most of the restrictions were lifted. Most people had become used to using less water without really suffering and as far as I know, water consumption has not reached the previous levels even a few years later.

Many people didn’t replant their gardens with the types of plants that require a great deal of water instead choosing to put in more of what had survived (even if it hadn’t flourished) with the greatly reduced water.

Just goes to show it can be done but unfortunately I think a lot of it has to be either legislated (there were fines if you were caught using the garden hose for example) or there has to be enough of a change in society or an effective enough public campaign that excessive water use (or whatever it is) is considered unacceptable by most and there’s peer pressure to ‘do the right thing’.

Sadly for most people (and I include myself), we tend not to do anything until we’re forced to by something as serious as the very real possibility of a city running out of water.

We started a “conservation campaign” in our town & decided to start with water, then went to the Water Dept and found out our city (Aurora, IL, pop 120,000) wells had gone down 800 feet since they were started 100 yrs ago, and there was a potentially severe water shortage in the future (who knew, we wouldn’t have if we had not investigated). We got some seed money from a foundation, and bought a lot of water-saving devices at whole-sale price, developed an attached pamphlet giving water-saving tips, and then gave them away (at the water bill place and elsewhere), asking for a $10 donation (the cost) to keep the campaign going. We had talked about developing an award for the brownist lawns in August. We moved away shortly after that, so I don’t know if the campaign was a success or not.

Grass is a drought-resistent plant and comes back with fall rains. We never watered in the summer, and only once there were some patches that did not come back, so we reseeded them and reestablished our lawn in fall.

I also remember in the 1970s Sausalito, CA had a severe drought and their reservoir went nearly dry. I sent the Water Dept there a tip on taking an Indian-style bath. You put a bucket in the tub and something to pour the water, pour some water over the body, then soap up, then rinse off. In a pinch a person can bathe fairly well using only 1.5 gallons of water. The head of the Water Dept sent back a thank you note.

Water-saving is the most cost-effective way of reducing environmental harm (since it also involves energy to pump and heat it). Our $6 low-flow showerhead with off-on switch cut our shower water in half without us noticing it (we did a pre & post buck/stopwatch test to see how much we were saving), and we figure has saved us $2200 (in water and water heating bills) over the past 22 years. Our low-flow toilet (1.5 gallons per flush) greatly reduced our water usage from the 5 gallon clonker we had AND it flushed a lot better. We installed it ourselves (took us all day, so I’d suggest getting a plumber), cost $95, and we figure it paid for itself within a year and went on to save.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here it is at last – a “fee & dividend” bill that would put a small fee on gasoline and coal, then give back 75% of the revenues to the people as monthly dividends, and use 25% to pay down the deficit.

See: businessgreen.com/bg/news/2196712/democrat-tables-carbon-tax-bill?WT.rss_f=Home&WT.rss_a=Democrat+tables+carbon+tax+bill

They are saying that Republican congressmen and senators will not go for it, but if the people here at CAF were to pressure their congress people, maybe that would do the trick. We have to let them know that we are pro-life all the way, not just part of the way. We neither want babies aborted nor miscarried due to environmental harms, and we don’t want them born just to be harmed or die from environmental harms, and we don’t want our children’s children living in a dying world of diminishing life-sustaining resources and ugly conflicts over those resources.

I’ll write my congressman (who likely will be for it) and senators, who are the most heavily funded by the oil industry of all politicians in America they have oil pouring out of their ears. But I’ll give it a try.

The issue is not just global warming (if perchance there are a few people in the public who still don’t accept what the climate scientists are saying about it), but also a host of other environmental problems that fossil fuels cause, which are deadly serious problems. When we work to solve GW, we help solve 100s of other problems, and thru this bill we do so in a “cost-neutral” way that can even save us money if we plow those dividends into efficiency measures, or simply conserve in ways that do no harm to us, and just pocket those dividends – pay off our own personal deficits as the national deficit gets paid down

 

[lynnvinc]

Here’s more on the McDermott bill - mcdermott.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=624:mcdermott-bill-addresses-climate-change-protects-consumers-a-reduces-deficit&catid=25ress-releases&Itemid=20 :

…Today, Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) introduced “The Managed Carbon Price Act of 2012,” which proposes a rational and reasonable approach to both emissions reductions and a way to help address America’s fiscal issues without hurting the economic recovery. McDermott’s bill, an updated version of legislation he introduced in 2009, incorporates suggestions from the energy industry, environmental advocates, policy experts and economists.

“The American people care about the deficit and they’re worried about climate change–and we can fix both without hurting the economy…”…

McDermott added, "Mitt Romney’s Economic Advisor Greg Mankiw, Exxon-Mobil, the American Enterprise Institute and other conservatives have backed this concept because they know we have to wean ourselves off of carbon emitting energy sources, and do it in a way that doesn’t hurt our economy and makes sense for businesses."

MCP is unlike a traditional carbon tax because it creates a flexible price system that provides emissions price certainty by accounting for volatility in the energy markets, requires specific emissions reductions, and addresses any increase in energy costs with dividend payments to the public…
See info on it:

• Factsheet: mcdermott.house.gov/images/pdf/MCP%20-%20Fact%20Sheet%20final.pdf
• Proposal: mcdermott.house.gov/images/pdf/MPC%20-%20Section-by-Section%20Final.pdf

 

[tomarin]

So, there’s a poison seed in the center of the environmental apple, and if environmentalists want a wider acceptance of their views, this needs to be recognized and people need to be assured that they’re not willing to bite all the way down to the seed.

(shortened by Tomarin)

Good post. I do think a strong case can be made against coal because burning it releases poisonous gases that sicken our population and reduces air visibility; so-called “clean” coal is an amazing PR victory for the coal industry, one of the greatest ever. I don’t know if this is Obama’s reason for being against coal but I find it a compelling one. It’s ultimately a trade-off: what coal has going for it is it’s cheap and plentiful, but it is hard on the environment and on the public’s lungs. Is having cheap energy worth the health problems it causes?

I really enjoy going out West because of the incredible air visibility; you can see crinkles on mountains that are miles and miles away. Then I come back home and can’t see anything. Apparently that’s due to less reliance on coal in the western states, or at least that’s my hypothesis. Apparently we don’t even rely on the coal all that much here on the East Coast; rather it’s the dirty plants in the Midwest that burn the coal then the pollution blows over state lines to us.

 

[Ridgerunner]

(shortened by Tomarin)

Good post. I do think a strong case can be made against coal because burning it releases poisonous gases that sicken our population and reduces air visibility; so-called “clean” coal is an amazing PR victory for the coal industry, one of the greatest ever. I don’t know if this is Obama’s reason for being against coal but I find it a compelling one. It’s ultimately a trade-off: what coal has going for it is it’s cheap and plentiful, but it is hard on the environment and on the public’s lungs. Is having cheap energy worth the health problems it causes?

I really enjoy going out West because of the incredible air visibility; you can see crinkles on mountains that are miles and miles away. Then I come back home and can’t see anything. Apparently that’s due to less reliance on coal in the western states, or at least that’s my hypothesis. Apparently we don’t even rely on the coal all that much here on the East Coast; rather it’s the dirty plants in the Midwest that burn the coal then the pollution blows over state lines to us.

Maybe.

Years ago, when I lived in a large midwestern city, the air could be visibly orange at times. At times, when (I suppose) an inversion layer lay over it, it would be strangely overcast at mid day. Of course, at that time and in that place, even individuals burned coal, seemingly without any attempt to clean it up whatever. I have revisited that city numerous times since, and it seems greatly improved. I don’t know why.

I now live in a different place. There is a very large coal-burning electrical plant not far from here. Powers a whole city of moderate size. A great deal of steam is expelled from it, but nothing else that one can see. As i understand it, they have very good scrubbers and such that clean particulates out of emissions. Right next to it, there is no odor, no decrease in visibility, nothing.

Undoubtedly there are differences in technology used in different areas. It’s possible that converting to natural gas, which it will ultimately be forced to do by the government, will be somehow cleaner. But I have my doubts.

 

[Ridgerunner]

We started a “conservation campaign” in our town & decided to start with water, then went to the Water Dept and found out our city (Aurora, IL, pop 120,000) wells had gone down 800 feet since they were started 100 yrs ago, and there was a potentially severe water shortage in the future (who knew, we wouldn’t have if we had not investigated). We got some seed money from a foundation, and bought a lot of water-saving devices at whole-sale price, developed an attached pamphlet giving water-saving tips, and then gave them away (at the water bill place and elsewhere), asking for a $10 donation (the cost) to keep the campaign going. We had talked about developing an award for the brownist lawns in August. We moved away shortly after that, so I don’t know if the campaign was a success or not.

Grass is a drought-resistent plant and comes back with fall rains. We never watered in the summer, and only once there were some patches that did not come back, so we reseeded them and reestablished our lawn in fall.

I also remember in the 1970s Sausalito, CA had a severe drought and their reservoir went nearly dry. I sent the Water Dept there a tip on taking an Indian-style bath. You put a bucket in the tub and something to pour the water, pour some water over the body, then soap up, then rinse off. In a pinch a person can bathe fairly well using only 1.5 gallons of water. The head of the Water Dept sent back a thank you note.

Water-saving is the most cost-effective way of reducing environmental harm (since it also involves energy to pump and heat it). Our $6 low-flow showerhead with off-on switch cut our shower water in half without us noticing it (we did a pre & post buck/stopwatch test to see how much we were saving), and we figure has saved us $2200 (in water and water heating bills) over the past 22 years. Our low-flow toilet (1.5 gallons per flush) greatly reduced our water usage from the 5 gallon clonker we had AND it flushed a lot better. We installed it ourselves (took us all day, so I’d suggest getting a plumber), cost $95, and we figure it paid for itself within a year and went on to save.

It’s always nice to save money.

But I think there comes a point where the utility of saving water is overcome by the inconvenience, or even hazard, in underutilizing it. I consider the “Indian bath” in the latter category except in extreme circumstances.

It isn’t good to let water sit in service pipes. It can be hazardous to health because water that just sits, even in pipes, is an encouragement to biological growth. That’s why they “loop” water systems and occasionally drain them even so.

But do we need to save that water anyway? Well, if I step outside my house when it’s raining and hold my hands out to wash them, am I wasting water? Hard to argue that I am. Where I live, it rains about four feet/year. Some gets consumed by humans; some of that is recycled. Most of it flows down into the limestone formations, into creeks and springs, thence into a river that flows into the Mississippi, thence into the Gulf of Mexico.

What is the good reason why I should not be able to take a shower when most of the water in this area goes into the Gulf of Mexico anyway? I can hear my pump go on and off, and it rarely goes on. It pumps water into the pressure tank and the pressure tank holds it until I use the water. No energy is used when it is not pumping.And the water in the well is there whether I use it or not. If I don’t use it, it eventually flows into some creek somewhere, then into some river, then into the Mississippi, etc. If I do use it, it dissipates into the air via laterals, adding to rainfall somewhere or other, thence into the ground, the underground reservoirs, creeks, rivers, etc.

I’m not saying people should do nothing to conserve energy or water. But I think there are reasonable limits, and regional limits, to just how heroic we ought to expect ourselves or others to be, particularly when there may be health risks to simply letting water sit in water lines.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Here it is at last – a “fee & dividend” bill that would put a small fee on gasoline and coal, then give back 75% of the revenues to the people as monthly dividends, and use 25% to pay down the deficit.

See: businessgreen.com/bg/news/2196712/democrat-tables-carbon-tax-bill?WT.rss_f=Home&WT.rss_a=Democrat+tables+carbon+tax+bill

They are saying that Republican congressmen and senators will not go for it, but if the people here at CAF were to pressure their congress people, maybe that would do the trick. We have to let them know that we are pro-life all the way, not just part of the way. We neither want babies aborted nor miscarried due to environmental harms, and we don’t want them born just to be harmed or die from environmental harms, and we don’t want our children’s children living in a dying world of diminishing life-sustaining resources and ugly conflicts over those resources.

I’ll write my congressman (who likely will be for it) and senators, who are the most heavily funded by the oil industry of all politicians in America they have oil pouring out of their ears. But I’ll give it a try.

The issue is not just global warming (if perchance there are a few people in the public who still don’t accept what the climate scientists are saying about it), but also a host of other environmental problems that fossil fuels cause, which are deadly serious problems. When we work to solve GW, we help solve 100s of other problems, and thru this bill we do so in a “cost-neutral” way that can even save us money if we plow those dividends into efficiency measures, or simply conserve in ways that do no harm to us, and just pocket those dividends – pay off our own personal deficits as the national deficit gets paid down

But why should we charge a fee for energy use, then give back some of it and dedicate some to reduction of the deficit? Why not just charge no fee, give back no dividend and institute a tax of that or some other kind to reduce the deficit? Or perhaps simply stop spending as much and institute no new tax at all?

Giving people a “dividend” out of their own money that has been taken from them is commonly referred to as a “Ponzi scheme”.

I would be totally skeptical, by the way, of the government getting its hands on any more money without spending it. Personally, and without in any way being critical of you, this whole thing sounds like one more government scam to squeeze yet more money out of an already burdened populace.