Carbon footprint of construction is EXACTLY equal to the construction footprint of the equivalent houses. Amazing isn't it? You do realize this wasn't new construction right? It's an existing home as evidenced by the article
“Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don’t know how it could have been rated any higher,” said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.
Average house is....the average. it's the only comparison that matters. 'Should compare to an avg house using all the same techniques"* we'll come back to this in a sec
Nobody said anything about 'airtight', except of course for the Bush administration fear mongering. You're just making stuff up at this point.
Back to 'living the ascetic lifestyle'. He's doing just that by living within a smaller footprint than the average person...which is exactly what the OP doubted.
You can use TERRAWATTS of energy and still be quite frugal when that energy is produced with carbon free sources. The Gores made a point to pay significantly more for their energy needs to purchase from renewable sources.
They are heads and tails above you, me and the average joe.
You would doubt it as anyone would without gathering the details.
linky
*After* finishing the upgrades, despite being 4 times the size of the average Nashville house and functioning as both home and office, average houses in Nashville used 20-30% more energy during a heatwave. (Last paragraph of article)
Because he's 70 years old and won't be around when the real damage starts happening?
Nothing wrong with that.
His seaside CA residence is also on a 50 ft cliff...So no danger from rising seas.
It's the same reason why membership in all male golf clubs is a problem for public facing people. No reason they themselves cant but the groups they represent in public don't like the association.
here's the thing. If Global Warming/Climate Science suddenly was disproven...that same research money would plow into figuring out what/how/where the science went wrong.
If you truly want to know, go ask a traffic lawyer. As you clearly understand, there are varying levels of competence among the driving population.
It's also well established that there is a level of competence that is expected along with reasonable reactions, etc, and if you're determined to not have met it in a particular situation you'll be at fault.
Every self driving car is FAR more aware of its surroundings than a sizable majority of the human's driving, myself included.
I'm amazed this needed to be studied. Still remember the first time I rented a GPS on a business trip.
2 days I to the trip it was clear as day I had no idea how I got from A to B. The GPS just handled it.
The converse though is interactive apps like Waze...Where I monitor whether it's accurate or not. Or just letting it lead you and learning side roads as a result.
Giveth, taketh and maybe giveth back again
not sure you meant to reply to me but....there's a new paradigm at work now. Automation, once the realm only of large scale manufacturing, is going to move into simple small to mid level businesses. That's going to displace a whole lot of people who are currently working low skill jobs.
As the fast food baron said, it's perilously close to a tipping point with a burger flipping machine replacing the cooks. Ordering kiosks could already replace the people taking the orders. That hasn't happened yet mostly due to inertia, but its coming.
What are we going to do with an ever growing population without the jobs that used to exist? In a fast growing world, you can keep people employed with scaled growth, but population will level off before too long and then there simply isn't the growth potential to soak up the jobs.
Those 2 factors require massive change. It will come whether we try to address it or not.
It's not giving people money for free that does that. It's giving them zero hope and actively punishing them for being poor. Like regressive taxes and fees.
But if you have evidence of this, please provide it.
And of course what are you going to do when more than half the low wage/skill jobs disappear to automation? what happens then?
the effect of consumption/usage taxes are already baked into the equation. Increasing them 1% does not have a 1% decrease in demand. It's simply a matter of balancing the costs associated with the benefits gained. And it can be adjusted as needed.
That is what it would seem like but it's not true. Tax revenue isn't only collected once. When I spend money at a store, that's income to the store and that itself is taxed. That store spends the money to buy the goods they are selling, so that purchase is taxed. And on down the line.
This is the power of the free market. A very imperfect comparison would be to compound interest. There isn't just 1 transaction, you get more money in after each transaction on down the line. It's why food stamps actually return MORE money than is put in. For every dollar given out as food stamps, the tax revenue is over $1.50. linky
Now, food stamps for everybody doesn't scale to the entire population but for low income people who need it it's really no brainer economically.
The larger scale of this is economic stimulus. Putting government money into infrastructure. It is things that have to be done, and it keeps the wheels of the economy turning say, during a recession. By spending money to build a road, you pay the construction company. they pay their workers. The workers buy stuff. The stores buy more stuff to reflect the demand. That's how an economy works.
So by the gov putting money into an economy it keeps it moving when there is less private or consumer demand due to a recession.
The real kicker to stimulus is you also do it when the interest rates are low. And they are at historic lows right now. It's never been cheaper to deficit spend. Better if you don' t deficit spend, but that's not the world we have right now. We need to fix our infrastructure and grow the economy.
the one thing is though that you get guaranteed tax revenue as well. Since those people are buying necessary goods and services with the money.
It obviously doesn't likely work very well with no one working, but that won't be a realistic society anyway. There will always be those who want to work.
as others have noted, the coming automation wave is going to wreak havoc on over a century of employment concepts. Something needs to change as the vast majority of low income/skill jobs are going to just disappear being replaced by a fractional number of higher skill tech/maintenance workers
I haven't painted you as anything other than what you've shown which is quite clearly a troll/denier/etc.
AGW is human caused, but for devils advocate if its not human caused...they'd still need to be researching what the heck IS causing it. So no if AGW was disproved, that isn't disproving that it's warming, so they'd still be quite gainfully employed.
Fortunately, AGW is quite real and quite settled science so no there isn't any need for science to keep saying it is. It actually is.
If AGW researchers turn around and say "oh, not a problem after all", most of that funding simply evaporates. The consequences would be personally devastating for anybody working in the area: tenured professors would lose their funding, their research groups and their students
YOUR. OWN. WORDS.
I'm done here since you are clearly willing to contradict yourself to pretend you're winning an argument.
Your claim is that if they disprove AGW they'll be out of jobs.
That's flatly untrue. Since you agree the climate is warming, whether it's AGW or not we need to better understand the effects it's going to have on the future. I.E. The military, corporations, coastal states.
So why would we simply start ignoring a significant threat to our society of it wasn't AGW related?
Slashdot Mirror
Carbon footprint of construction is EXACTLY equal to the construction footprint of the equivalent houses. Amazing isn't it? You do realize this wasn't new construction right? It's an existing home as evidenced by the article
“Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don’t know how it could have been rated any higher,” said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.
Average house is....the average. it's the only comparison that matters. 'Should compare to an avg house using all the same techniques"* we'll come back to this in a sec
Nobody said anything about 'airtight', except of course for the Bush administration fear mongering. You're just making stuff up at this point.
Back to 'living the ascetic lifestyle'. He's doing just that by living within a smaller footprint than the average person...which is exactly what the OP doubted.
You can use TERRAWATTS of energy and still be quite frugal when that energy is produced with carbon free sources. The Gores made a point to pay significantly more for their energy needs to purchase from renewable sources.
They are heads and tails above you, me and the average joe.
You would doubt it as anyone would without gathering the details. linky
*After* finishing the upgrades, despite being 4 times the size of the average Nashville house and functioning as both home and office, average houses in Nashville used 20-30% more energy during a heatwave. (Last paragraph of article)
so yes he's putting his money where his mouth is.
His mansion uses less energy than your house does.
Because he's 70 years old and won't be around when the real damage starts happening? Nothing wrong with that. His seaside CA residence is also on a 50 ft cliff...So no danger from rising seas.
It's the same reason why membership in all male golf clubs is a problem for public facing people. No reason they themselves cant but the groups they represent in public don't like the association.
here's the thing. If Global Warming/Climate Science suddenly was disproven...that same research money would plow into figuring out what/how/where the science went wrong.
It's all science like!
The difference is whether your kink is the only kink (Gor, only male superiority) or just your particular flavor of the kink (BDSM).
If you subscribe to the 'males are superior to women' your a misogynist. If you think YOU are just better than women, you're just an asshole.
I'm sorry, parts of Gor promotes female superiority? news to me
Not a fair comparison. The BDSM community has Dominatrixes AND Dominants Male and Female. Gor has no such equality...that's the problem.
In the US? No it's not. This is the internet, if you don't mean the US you have to specify...
If you truly want to know, go ask a traffic lawyer. As you clearly understand, there are varying levels of competence among the driving population.
It's also well established that there is a level of competence that is expected along with reasonable reactions, etc, and if you're determined to not have met it in a particular situation you'll be at fault.
Every self driving car is FAR more aware of its surroundings than a sizable majority of the human's driving, myself included.
I'm amazed this needed to be studied. Still remember the first time I rented a GPS on a business trip. 2 days I to the trip it was clear as day I had no idea how I got from A to B. The GPS just handled it. The converse though is interactive apps like Waze...Where I monitor whether it's accurate or not. Or just letting it lead you and learning side roads as a result. Giveth, taketh and maybe giveth back again
How about a compromise and do an Armor movie? ;)
Wattsupwiththat is a shill and has been widely debunked as such. Google and edjumikate yourself.
What's my point? That kids shouldn't have to die so we get more daytime hours after work?
yes kids used to walk to school all the time. Up hill both ways even. Mortality was higher back then too.
It more dangerous for kids to be out in the dark of mornings than when it's light out. Do you disagree with that?
Darker mornings mean kids are on the streets in the dark. That's the reality of today.
Now, there is some push to move the school day later so if that happens then there really is no downside.
not sure you meant to reply to me but....there's a new paradigm at work now. Automation, once the realm only of large scale manufacturing, is going to move into simple small to mid level businesses. That's going to displace a whole lot of people who are currently working low skill jobs.
As the fast food baron said, it's perilously close to a tipping point with a burger flipping machine replacing the cooks. Ordering kiosks could already replace the people taking the orders. That hasn't happened yet mostly due to inertia, but its coming.
What are we going to do with an ever growing population without the jobs that used to exist? In a fast growing world, you can keep people employed with scaled growth, but population will level off before too long and then there simply isn't the growth potential to soak up the jobs.
Those 2 factors require massive change. It will come whether we try to address it or not.
It's not giving people money for free that does that. It's giving them zero hope and actively punishing them for being poor. Like regressive taxes and fees.
But if you have evidence of this, please provide it.
And of course what are you going to do when more than half the low wage/skill jobs disappear to automation? what happens then?
the effect of consumption/usage taxes are already baked into the equation. Increasing them 1% does not have a 1% decrease in demand. It's simply a matter of balancing the costs associated with the benefits gained. And it can be adjusted as needed.
That is what it would seem like but it's not true. Tax revenue isn't only collected once. When I spend money at a store, that's income to the store and that itself is taxed. That store spends the money to buy the goods they are selling, so that purchase is taxed. And on down the line.
This is the power of the free market. A very imperfect comparison would be to compound interest. There isn't just 1 transaction, you get more money in after each transaction on down the line. It's why food stamps actually return MORE money than is put in. For every dollar given out as food stamps, the tax revenue is over $1.50. linky
Now, food stamps for everybody doesn't scale to the entire population but for low income people who need it it's really no brainer economically.
The larger scale of this is economic stimulus. Putting government money into infrastructure. It is things that have to be done, and it keeps the wheels of the economy turning say, during a recession. By spending money to build a road, you pay the construction company. they pay their workers. The workers buy stuff. The stores buy more stuff to reflect the demand. That's how an economy works.
So by the gov putting money into an economy it keeps it moving when there is less private or consumer demand due to a recession.
The real kicker to stimulus is you also do it when the interest rates are low. And they are at historic lows right now. It's never been cheaper to deficit spend. Better if you don' t deficit spend, but that's not the world we have right now. We need to fix our infrastructure and grow the economy.
the one thing is though that you get guaranteed tax revenue as well. Since those people are buying necessary goods and services with the money.
It obviously doesn't likely work very well with no one working, but that won't be a realistic society anyway. There will always be those who want to work.
as others have noted, the coming automation wave is going to wreak havoc on over a century of employment concepts. Something needs to change as the vast majority of low income/skill jobs are going to just disappear being replaced by a fractional number of higher skill tech/maintenance workers
I haven't painted you as anything other than what you've shown which is quite clearly a troll/denier/etc.
AGW is human caused, but for devils advocate if its not human caused...they'd still need to be researching what the heck IS causing it. So no if AGW was disproved, that isn't disproving that it's warming, so they'd still be quite gainfully employed.
Fortunately, AGW is quite real and quite settled science so no there isn't any need for science to keep saying it is. It actually is.
Bye now.
If AGW researchers turn around and say "oh, not a problem after all", most of that funding simply evaporates. The consequences would be personally devastating for anybody working in the area: tenured professors would lose their funding, their research groups and their students
YOUR. OWN. WORDS.
I'm done here since you are clearly willing to contradict yourself to pretend you're winning an argument.
Your claim is that if they disprove AGW they'll be out of jobs. That's flatly untrue. Since you agree the climate is warming, whether it's AGW or not we need to better understand the effects it's going to have on the future. I.E. The military, corporations, coastal states. So why would we simply start ignoring a significant threat to our society of it wasn't AGW related?
if you can't post links....
please answer the other question that refutes your claims. Is the climate warming or not?