There is another animal that does that - consume all of the available resources then die in a pool of its own shit.
This animal is called yeast, and its shit is delicious drink we know as alcohol!
I agree with you competely, the market will stop that process, so whatever you do don't go breaking up the socialist yeast governments, for if you introduce the wonders fo the market to them, we'll all be out of booze!!!
This is why those communists made such great vodka.
I don't think you can make generalisations about environmentalists - well except that they have dirty hippy hair and smell...
I've done all 3 (just waiting for the last few normal bulbs to blow), but unlike the tree hugging stereotype I support nuclear power and eat meat (not every meal - and I eat kangaroo over cow)
If someone else was an anti-nuclear vegan hippy who didn't do the 3 things you listed above, who's the environmentalist? Both? None of us?
I think being an environmentalist means you consider biodiversity and nature to have intrinsic value worth keeping - nature is not just for there to be exploited by humans. Some people may value nature, but value having a big back yard more. Maybe they can make it up by riding their bike to work, or planting trees or buying green energy. There are different ways of being an environmentalist, just like their are different ways of being a programmer, or a conservative, or socialist or whatever.
The developing world produces things and saves their money. The rich people of the west work as paper shufflers, feng-shui consultants and canine fashion designers, then borrow money from some of the poorest people on earth to maintain their lifestyles.
I currently pay $11k/year for a 2 bedroom workers cottage with backyard in the city. This is less than I used to pay once you add in bus tickets for myself and my fiance when we lived 1/2 an hour out. However:
1. This is Adelaide 2. I rent (and put the extra cash into investments)
Morgage repayments should be cheaper than renting (so that landlords make a profit) but speculation on housing has pushed prices so far out of whack with reality (ie peoples wages) that buying in ANY capital city ANYWHERE close to the CBD now costs a fortune.
If you can move your home equity into other investments and instead rent in the CBD, you will probably be able to manage. You'll probably be able to buy a better house too, once prices revert to long term trends.
Yep, so it seems that the solution is to have government make pollution no longer an economic externality. However, this does not seem likely in the near future.
The state government here (Australia) makes it mandatory to display how many kg of carbon was generated by the power you buy. I bought wind energy for ~20% more, and had 0kg carbon emissions (I guess they don't count startup costs, maintenance and human labor). Meanwhile my parents were quoted something like $15k to get an electrical wind generator on their roof.
They live on a farm and one of their largest costs is pumping. I suggested a water pumping windmill (century old proven, cheap technology) and possibly a hydro generator that runs on water that flows from water pumped to the top of one hill to a bottom of the hill tank (~50m below). This would also gravitational potential energy storage of power rather than batteries, however this kind of stuff is not tax-deductable like the battery/windmill is, so is more expensive, and of course, is only applicable to very special circumstances like my parents.
I don't know why you're so down on wood power, it makes smoke pollution, but so long as you replace the trees, the carbon is taken out of the air and then released. It's basically solar locking up chemical energy in the wood. I guess it is ok in the country, but bad in the cities.
The point is that generally, the urban poor in the US live in the city, while in and Europe and Australia the urban poor and disenfranchised (ie the ones who riot) live in the outer suburbs.
You don't have to convince me, I moved to the city, ride my bike to work, walk to the shops and use my fiance's car probably once every 2-3 weeks.
There are economic, aesthetic, social and health benefits to using your own power rather than cars. For instance, many people drive around all the time, then go to gyms and do exercise. Why not combine exercise and transport and get places with your own power? It just makes a lot more sense.
So if economies of scale * 0.928 > small scale then yes, centralised is better.
Other factors:
-How much do powerlines cost in copper, maintenance and intangibles (ie ugliness)?
-Most centrally generated power is fossil fuels, while most home generated power is green (wind, water, solar) and not everyone can buy centrally generated green power. If they want green power, many have to go it alone.
I wouldn't be betting on the market working out the best solutions, as the market doesn't take into account intangibles, and for energy there are many: wars, pollution, political subsidies, long term sustainable habitation of earth, etc.
Re:Being fat versus getting jacked at gunpoint...
on
Does Sprawl Make Us Fat?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Strangely enough, it is only in America that inner-cities are more dangerous than suburbs. In Australia and Europe, inner cities are seen as desirable places to live compared to the suburbs.
Maybe the original idea was to escape factories, but now the US has far less manufacturing capacity, so that isn't it anymore... what is it? Low gas prices (compared to the rest of the world) keep suburbs cheap, and black people tend to live in cities so it's undesirable to whites?
We have made our choice: destroy the only planet known to bear life in the universe in exchange for a few generations living in the suburbs that don't have to get out of their cars to eat hamburgers.
Just because things are the way they are doesn't mean that it is the best way, there are economies of scale, but also a loss via transmission and the balance could shift depending on technology, and whether or not pollution is factored in as a cost.
No they're not - they're portions of a company, which has staff, IP, assets, cash etc.
There are other financial instruments which are purely paper, eg derivatives - which have immense, highly leveraged trading volumes as the margins are very thin.
The sums only work out like that because all of the costs of burning fossil fuels are passed onto society, other peoples lungs and unborn future generations.
The solution, of course, is to make pollution no longer an economic externality.
money is nothing but a proxy for real resources, so any waste of money is -- in principle -- bad for the environment.
Money can be printed, the environment existed before humans did, and there's a finite amount of it. The relationship is not anything like fixed or representative, only as a means of humans to perform transactions in a market for those resources
It costs $5 to chop down a tree, and $10 to buy and plant one.
So chopping down the tree saves the environmetn $5? You idiot.
"In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends
Sweet, only 6 months after the military tactic of "terror" by guerilla/insurgent groups stops, everyone can go home!
Energy resources are secured, no more religious extremism, the whole word is happy and doesn't need to be invaded and told the right way to live... go home go home go home!
The most important thing about auctions is competition. Thus:
for buyers - number of listings for sellers - number of buyers
There are many other eBay knockoffs, some that have had enormous media advertising blitzes and some charge no fees at all, but eBay has continued to be by far the most popular, simply because it is the most popular.
I guess this breaks down to, eBay is will continue to be the most popular because it is the most popular. I don't see how that cycle will be broken, and I don't think eBay's problems and fees are sufficently bad to cause people to switch while they are still making money or buying good stuff of eBay.
Slashdot Mirror
There is another animal that does that - consume all of the available resources then die in a pool of its own shit.
This animal is called yeast, and its shit is delicious drink we know as alcohol!
I agree with you competely, the market will stop that process, so whatever you do don't go breaking up the socialist yeast governments, for if you introduce the wonders fo the market to them, we'll all be out of booze!!!
This is why those communists made such great vodka.
So people should have to pay for air, and if they can't, they suffocate?
I don't think you can make generalisations about environmentalists - well except that they have dirty hippy hair and smell...
I've done all 3 (just waiting for the last few normal bulbs to blow), but unlike the tree hugging stereotype I support nuclear power and eat meat (not every meal - and I eat kangaroo over cow)
If someone else was an anti-nuclear vegan hippy who didn't do the 3 things you listed above, who's the environmentalist? Both? None of us?
I think being an environmentalist means you consider biodiversity and nature to have intrinsic value worth keeping - nature is not just for there to be exploited by humans. Some people may value nature, but value having a big back yard more. Maybe they can make it up by riding their bike to work, or planting trees or buying green energy. There are different ways of being an environmentalist, just like their are different ways of being a programmer, or a conservative, or socialist or whatever.
The developing world produces things and saves their money. The rich people of the west work as paper shufflers, feng-shui consultants and canine fashion designers, then borrow money from some of the poorest people on earth to maintain their lifestyles.
I think we need them more than they need us.
I think they meant to play online.
The most popular - WoW - has subscription fees.
I currently pay $11k/year for a 2 bedroom workers cottage with backyard in the city. This is less than I used to pay once you add in bus tickets for myself and my fiance when we lived 1/2 an hour out. However:
1. This is Adelaide
2. I rent (and put the extra cash into investments)
Morgage repayments should be cheaper than renting (so that landlords make a profit) but speculation on housing has pushed prices so far out of whack with reality (ie peoples wages) that buying in ANY capital city ANYWHERE close to the CBD now costs a fortune.
If you can move your home equity into other investments and instead rent in the CBD, you will probably be able to manage. You'll probably be able to buy a better house too, once prices revert to long term trends.
I'm sure he'll be right - just wait 5 years and TV will be dead, spam eliminated and 640k enough for everyone!
Yep, so it seems that the solution is to have government make pollution no longer an economic externality. However, this does not seem likely in the near future.
The state government here (Australia) makes it mandatory to display how many kg of carbon was generated by the power you buy. I bought wind energy for ~20% more, and had 0kg carbon emissions (I guess they don't count startup costs, maintenance and human labor). Meanwhile my parents were quoted something like $15k to get an electrical wind generator on their roof.
They live on a farm and one of their largest costs is pumping. I suggested a water pumping windmill (century old proven, cheap technology) and possibly a hydro generator that runs on water that flows from water pumped to the top of one hill to a bottom of the hill tank (~50m below). This would also gravitational potential energy storage of power rather than batteries, however this kind of stuff is not tax-deductable like the battery/windmill is, so is more expensive, and of course, is only applicable to very special circumstances like my parents.
I don't know why you're so down on wood power, it makes smoke pollution, but so long as you replace the trees, the carbon is taken out of the air and then released. It's basically solar locking up chemical energy in the wood. I guess it is ok in the country, but bad in the cities.
The point is that generally, the urban poor in the US live in the city, while in and Europe and Australia the urban poor and disenfranchised (ie the ones who riot) live in the outer suburbs.
And don't call me shirley!
Where were the Paris riots last year? In the city or in the outer suburbs?
You don't have to convince me, I moved to the city, ride my bike to work, walk to the shops and use my fiance's car probably once every 2-3 weeks.
There are economic, aesthetic, social and health benefits to using your own power rather than cars. For instance, many people drive around all the time, then go to gyms and do exercise. Why not combine exercise and transport and get places with your own power? It just makes a lot more sense.
Again with the shades of grey.... geez, just because the sky isn't black doesn't mean it is clear - it is likely grey.
According to the WHO, car pollution kills more than car accidents.
Would you drink from a river running through your town? Do you think asthma was as common in the past as it is today?
People make decisions that are good for them and rational at the time, but may be bad for long term, and everyone else. This is why we have laws.
Stealing - good for you, bad for society.
Pollution - good for you, bad for society.
Pointing this out does not mean all choices should be removed. There is a grey area between free market anarchy and totalitarian control.
If you want a market solution, a start would be to make pollution no longer an economic externality. It costs everyone, but nobody pays!
Working out correlation and causation between an environment and human forms is hard.
For all we know, maybe it is sunny in Africa because people are black!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transm ission#Losses says "transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995"
So if economies of scale * 0.928 > small scale then yes, centralised is better.
Other factors:
-How much do powerlines cost in copper, maintenance and intangibles (ie ugliness)?
-Most centrally generated power is fossil fuels, while most home generated power is green (wind, water, solar) and not everyone can buy centrally generated green power. If they want green power, many have to go it alone.
I wouldn't be betting on the market working out the best solutions, as the market doesn't take into account intangibles, and for energy there are many: wars, pollution, political subsidies, long term sustainable habitation of earth, etc.
Strangely enough, it is only in America that inner-cities are more dangerous than suburbs. In Australia and Europe, inner cities are seen as desirable places to live compared to the suburbs.
Maybe the original idea was to escape factories, but now the US has far less manufacturing capacity, so that isn't it anymore... what is it? Low gas prices (compared to the rest of the world) keep suburbs cheap, and black people tend to live in cities so it's undesirable to whites?
We have made our choice: destroy the only planet known to bear life in the universe in exchange for a few generations living in the suburbs that don't have to get out of their cars to eat hamburgers.
Just because things are the way they are doesn't mean that it is the best way, there are economies of scale, but also a loss via transmission and the balance could shift depending on technology, and whether or not pollution is factored in as a cost.
>> electricity .... distribution is much more efficient when done in a large scale
Do you have facts to verify this? What about energy lost via resistance in wires?
No they're not - they're portions of a company, which has staff, IP, assets, cash etc.
There are other financial instruments which are purely paper, eg derivatives - which have immense, highly leveraged trading volumes as the margins are very thin.
>> FYI, no one is going to consume less. Not going to happen. Ever.
Some people HAVE.
Most people, probably not by choice. Doesn't mean it won't happen not by choice, though.
The sums only work out like that because all of the costs of burning fossil fuels are passed onto society, other peoples lungs and unborn future generations.
The solution, of course, is to make pollution no longer an economic externality.
money is nothing but a proxy for real resources, so any waste of money is -- in principle -- bad for the environment.
Money can be printed, the environment existed before humans did, and there's a finite amount of it. The relationship is not anything like fixed or representative, only as a means of humans to perform transactions in a market for those resources
It costs $5 to chop down a tree, and $10 to buy and plant one.
So chopping down the tree saves the environmetn $5? You idiot.
"In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends
Sweet, only 6 months after the military tactic of "terror" by guerilla/insurgent groups stops, everyone can go home!
Energy resources are secured, no more religious extremism, the whole word is happy and doesn't need to be invaded and told the right way to live... go home go home go home!
The most important thing about auctions is competition. Thus:
for buyers - number of listings
for sellers - number of buyers
There are many other eBay knockoffs, some that have had enormous media advertising blitzes and some charge no fees at all, but eBay has continued to be by far the most popular, simply because it is the most popular.
I guess this breaks down to, eBay is will continue to be the most popular because it is the most popular. I don't see how that cycle will be broken, and I don't think eBay's problems and fees are sufficently bad to cause people to switch while they are still making money or buying good stuff of eBay.