[lug] Anyone else hate to get rid of old equipment?

[Carl Wagner]

In hind sight I should have just posted my questions and left it at that.
I was trying to present my perspective or possibilities, not facts.
The same goes for this reply.


dio2002 at indra.com wrote:
>> First, I believe that everyone should start out skeptical about any new
>> idea.  Anyone have issues with that?
>>     
>
> nope
>
>   
>> At first I had trouble understanding why all the 3rd world and 'up and
>> coming country's' like India and China would buy into it, then I
>> realized that they were going to get billions or trillions of dollars to
>> help them develop there economies in a green way.
>>     
>
> i'm skeptical already.  that's a pretty blanket statement.  show me some
> numbers. what exactly are they buying into specifically so we can be clear
> here and how many billions of dollars?  where is it coming from?  us?  if
> they are indeed getting money it ain't coming from you via your tax
> dollars is it?  if so, where how?  how exactly are they taking that money
>   
Please 's/going to get/could get/'.  It's what I was thinking, but not 
what I wrote.

Can you say foreign aid? 

I could never read through the US budget as I would fall asleep by page 2.
So I can't give you specifics, just trying to read between the lines by 
what I hear in in the news.
I just know that it is a lot and probably going to increase.  Currently 
not much of it goes to fund green initiatives, but 'feel' that they will 
be increased to do so (no I don't have any numbers to back that up). How 
much of the UN do we fund?  Close to 50%? (that is a WAG, not sure where 
to find that number).  At least that is how it 'could' be done.

> and greening their countries because i'm assuming if it wasn't coming out
> of your pocket, you wouldn't care b/c everyone should be able to spend
> their own money as they see fit right?  in fact if such money's are being
> spent, it might actually be a good thing if a country decided to invest in
> it's own green infrastructure.  
I am fine with them spending their own money doing green things.  
Hopefully they would buy some of the products from the USA, but it is ok 
if they don't.  (and probably won't as we don't make anything here anymore)
> ever actually been to india or china?  not
> passing through stepping out on the tarmac to catch a connecting flight
> (like one of our ex presidential candidates that claimed to have intimate
> knowledge of intl affairs based on said tarmac tiptoeing) but actually
> getting into the countryside to see how the majority of the populations
> live closer to earth and how their lives are impacted by variables out of
> their control?  how much of the current earth population lives like that
> vs you and I?
>   
Nope - but I would love to.  I have talked with people that have though, 
but that certainly does not make me an expert.
> fwiw, i think you're starting your debate from a very weak starting point
> with little factual, shall i say scientific basis. one that leaves me
> skeptical of your biases ;)
>
>   
Probably so, I am not much of a debater! 
>> All the scientists
>> would loose massive grant money if it were to be proved untrue.
>>     
>
> All?  what does all represent?  that's a pretty blanket statement.  so
> what you're saying is that some majority, no that would be "all"
> scientists in this field fear losing massive grant money.  but that can't
> be so because you are using examples of 'other' scientists that don't
> agree with 'all' of these scientists so their must be some dissension in
> the ranks of 'all' those scientists which means there is no such thing as
> 'all' the scientists.  or is there? ;).
>   
Sorry, that was an oops.  I should have said 'a lot of climate scientists'.
It was a blanket statement and I do that more often than I should.

> fwiw, i find it hard to believe that the entire planet is being held
> hostage by a bunch of scientists working in collusion to fool the other
> 5.99999 billion people on the planet so they can keep their grant money. 
> basically, you're kind of shooting your own starting premise in the foot
> with your own statements.
>   
A subset of scientists with the ear of, and willing participation of, 
governments as well as large corporations.
It doesn't take a lot of people to control a country, look at North 
Korea.  Not that I am comparing anything N.K. does with global warming.
> i'm thinking if all those scientists "got found out", they could go work
> for bp or something and make a mutha load finding ways to prevent the
> destruction of the environment right? ;)
>
>   
I don't think it is a conspiracy as much as a lot of people who want 
things to be a certain way.  You can tend to get rose colored glasses.  
And I am sure that I am guilty of this as well!
>> With
>> global warming ALL governments get to extract more control (power) over
>> their citizens).  Big business wins as they get to build the green
>> technology.  The power companies win as they get to replace their old
>> plants with newer 'green' plants that probably employ less people, and
>> the get the PUC's to pass rate hikes to pay for it.    I am not claiming
>> conspiracy, just a bunch of groups looking after there own interests.
>>     
>
> you were readily willing to proclaim conspiracy in the scientific world,
> but you sort of stopped short here with big business and govt?  why stop
> now - is it b/c these two groups have such a brilliant track record of
> working in your best interests? ;)
>   
As I said above, I don't think it is a conspiracy, but if it were, I 
think the government and big business would be in it fully.
I am not sure where I implied that the government or big business was 
doing anything in my interest?  I agree fully that they do a lot of 
things that are not in my best interest.

> i've understood the facts you just presented almost completely opposite of
> the way you presented them.  imho (and it's only my *opinion* based on
> what i've seen in the places i've lived and to people i've talked to that
> are closer to the industry including the utility guys when they've come
> out to the house) big business wasn't and generally has never been
> interested in green anything UNLESS they've been forced to do it.  no big
> utility in *this* country to my knowledge has been a leader in doing
> anything green without some incentive on their own volition.  generally,
> it's all about status quo and NOT investing in new infrastructure since
> they can use the one they have and in general green technologies have been
> more expensive for consumers.  iirc, locally excel finally started getting
> into wind power farms up north because incentives made it feasible and b/c
> i think a certain percentage of wind power was mandated for them by the
> govt.  otherwise, they wouldn't have done it.  ironically, i believe it's
> turning out to be quite a boon for them.  were those incentives funded by
> my tax dollars i'm not sure.  maybe the breaks were in tax deductions
> which means i didn't give them anything, they just payed less.
>   
What's the difference between them getting more money or paying less 
taxes, to their bottom line?
> i guess i've never seen any utility jump at this on their own is my point.
>   
I didn't say they would do it on their own, just that if they do it they 
would 'win'.  They can justify rate hikes and make more money, as you 
alluded to.
> other countries i've lived in *do* embrace alternate / green technologies
> both from a consumer and business standpoint but it's because it
> represents a better business model and because there is demand for the
> product.  it's not rate gauging.  there's a genuine progression forward
> with the newer technologies.  i'm sure it's profit driven but you collect
> a paycheck every day right?  you can't say profit is good only where it
> works for you.  if it's responsible and it makes sense and earns a profit
> BFD.  fwiw, denmark, norway and sweden come to mind as leaders across the
> pond.  specifically with wind.
>   
Ah wind.  How many birds and bats died at the blades of the turbines?
It is not a primary source.  How do you store it until it is needed?
Solar is better as it more matches up with demand, but it is still not a 
primary source.
> regarding rate hikes, i can't say i've personally every experienced a
> utility / energy based rate hike rate hike related to the "greenifying" of
> my grid.  have you?  where are the examples?  but i can say i certainly
> feel like i've been scammed in terms of gas prices related to shortages. 
> people in california (enron) were held hostage when power outages, caused
> shortages that were then sometimes artificially manipulated.  that had
> nothing to do with going green did it?
>   
How many power plants were built in California in the last 20 years?
How much has power demand increased?
I am not saying that Enron did not play games, they probably did, but I 
don't know.
> i guess i'd like you to cite some examples of how green companies are
> holding the public at large?  without any, we haven't even started the
> debate yet and your biases are fairly obvious.
>   
That is why I suck at debating. I have trouble arguing the side I don't 
believe in.  ;-)
So you my biases are obvious.
> otoh, i have cited a few examples of traditional mom and pop NON GREEN
> utilities gauging folks at will.
>   
I am not sure if I would call Excel a mom-and-pop utility.   More like a 
800 lb gorilla.
> to wrap up, my experience on the planet based on observation leads me to
> believe that any way a business / utility can make some coin off of it's
> customer base, it's going to.  and as we've seen with bp (different but
> related topic) that also includes getting away with whatever it can
> without performing due dilligence in the absence of some kind of
> oversight.  history appears to prove there's no incentive to do otherwise.
>
> you can't claim that green business is or will be evil and absolve non
> green business which clearly has already displayed those tendencies.  it
> don't jive with your debate.
>
>   
I am not 'that' anti green.  But I consider nuclear 'green', and it is a 
viable primary source of power.
I would prefer to be able to use lights and my computer on a calm night.

And why is it that PV camp keeps promising major advances in PV 
technology and then we only get minor incremental changes?

By the way, if I thought is was cost effective I would love to put a 
bunch of PV panels on my roof, but the ROI needs to get down to about 5 
years.  I HOPE THAT HAPPENS!!!!

One think that would make wind and solar more viable is if they could 
efficiently convert them to hydrogen, as hydrogen can be stored.  I 
don't know what work is being done here.

>> Who losses?  The middle class.  They have to pay higher rates as
>> dictated by the PUC's.  They have to pay for the 3rd W.C.'s to develop
>> green infrastructure.  All products and services go up in price.  Gas
>> prices go way up.
>>     
>
> i agree the middle class gets reamed a lot.  but i'm about 100% sure sure
> they're not paying for the third world's green infrastructure.  i'm not
> sure where you're getting this from so some specific examples would really
> help me understand your base premise here.
>
> i'd also like to say that if you're equal to or above middle class, your
> standard of living is probably a *lot* better than 5+ billion people on
> this planet most who never see any of your tax dollars and live in utter
> squalor as well as being the beneficiary of the negative by products of
> your over consumption.  when i say "your", i mean i, you, me, we and
> everyone else that is reading this right now.
>   
I agree.  But the solution is to bring them up, not US down!
> generally speaking, middle classers probably don't need to be complaining
> about classes lower than them.  relatively speaking they are extremely
> privileged.  but i wonder why they never get all up in arms about the
> machine that sits higher than them on the totem pole or take a closer look
> at how they themselves might actually be screwing the next guy lower on
> the totem pole.
>
>   
>> Some points I would like to see discussed:
>>     
>
> we can't even get here until we get past the basics above b/c there are
> too many holes in the first part.
>
>   
>> So in essence, I don't trust the raw data, and without that, garbage
>> in->garbage out.
>>     
>
> that was kind of my thought about about your entire opening dialogue. 
> just saying.
>
>   
>> And I am concerned with anything that will cut my standard of living in
>> half or worse.
>>     
>
> i think this is fairly revealing.  i didn't even have to address anything
> else above.  imho, this sentence reveals great bias / preference before
> you even enter any debate.  you've stated very clearly that you have a
> strong motivation to maintain your standard of living and a set limit of
> what you would be willing to settle for.  that's a roadblock to any
> unbiased discussion.  whether you want to or not, it's highly likely
> you're going to find some way to protect, defend and uphold that notion at
> all costs - your predefined level of standard of living - and that is
> going to influence how you approach the topic of global warming / CO2,
> etc.  based upon what i've already read, there is enough bias in most
> everything you said that is built upon the foundation of this one sentence
> to leave holes in all your statements or anything else you're going to
> provide as fact or evidence, because you will have likely chosen the
> sources as those that will support your motivation.  something to think
> about.
>   
So are you saying that you would rather live in a cave and be a hunter 
gatherer?
Who of the 6 billion people out there want their standard of living to drop?
Which of them wouldn't fight to keep it, whatever it is?

>   
>> Remember Cap and Tax is just the start.
>> What if we spend 30 Trillion dollars and it turns out to be a naturally
>> occurring event.  How do we get the money back?
>>     
>
> blah blah blah.  this all comes back to standard of living which somehow
> is being tied to the CO2 emissions. which means the issue has nothing to
> do with CO2 emissions but your *personal* comfort and consumption level
> and choices regardless of how it impacts anybody else aka as it's
> *impersonal* impact.  it's strikes me as quite selfish.
>
> name me some of your money the govt did take of yours that benefited you? 
> do you drive on a paved road?  if you don't want to pay taxes i'm cool
> with that.  try to organize a meeting with your neighbors, pool your money
> together to build a road out to the main connector road and report back
> how well that goes.  name me a product you bought with your own money that
> you liked? ever buy something you didn't like and wish you had never
> bought and couldn't return?  you didn't get the money back did you?  you
> win some you lose some.  you've made the same mistakes others have.  it's
> ok.  life goes on.  part of the standard of living you hold on to tightly
> is a result of your tax dollars.  eh?
>   
Yes I like having roads, a national defense, police to protect me, FDA - 
at least the 'F' part, and several other things.
But there is plenty that the government does that I don't like.
>   
>> Don't believe the above?  What would it take to get back to 1850 carbon
>> emissions levels?  Kill off 80% of the population?
>>     
>
> i'm all for anybody that supports the idea of population control as long
> as they're willing to be one of the 80% to stand first in line ;)  as long
> as the 80% in line come from some other country you don't have to look in
> the eye, it seems to be a popular notion.
>   
I wasn't advocating, just questioning what it would take to get to 
1850's level of CO2 emissions.
>
>   
>> I did see one scientist who was in the warming camp that said that
>> instead of trying to reduce emissions, we should be looking for ways to
>> deal with the effect of climate change.
>>     
>
> analogy: instead of trying to prevent cancer, lets just try to deal with
> the effects.  instead of trying to prevent obesity, lets just staple our
> stomachs and deal with the diabetes, stroke, cancer, heart attacks. dual
> approach seems feasible to me?  in terms of health care, prevention is
> less costly by a large a margin.  for a dude that cares about tax dollars,
> something tells me prevention would make you a lot happier than dealing
> with the effects later.
>
> fwiw, dealing with the shat after it hits the fan *is* actually how we
> mostly deal with things already.  don't take care of yourself or something
> and then expect somebody else to take care of it.  your kind of
> crosstalking here.
>   
Everything within moderation.  Daily full body scans would not be more 
cost effective.
IFF we are responsible for warming, then what action will be necessary 
to change it?
To what levels of CO2 emission do we need to drop to prevent warming?
I never see this addressed.

>   
>> I have a lot more questions but this should be a good start.  If anyone
>> has any ideas where to move this debate (if it actual starts), I would
>> love to here them.
>>     
>
> you need to supply some answers before we can explore your list of questions.
>
>   
>> And I am not above being convinced.  But pictures of glaciers calving
>> into the ocean are not convincing as if they did not do  that, all the
>> oceans would be solid ice, as glaciers continually move to the sea.  And
>> according to 'Deadliest Catch' the sea ice went much further south last
>> year than it had for many years.
>>     
>
> i can only suggest that you read a few of the other emails including my
> earlier one.  people that seem to be global warming doubters look at water
> only in terms of changing from ice to water to cloud to rain and think
> BFD? but there are so many other life sustaining processes and
> relationships affected by that cycle. they're not "exciting" enough for
> the news and for most people to give a ratsass about. but i wish people
> would become more aware of them b/c those are actually the things that you
> need to be worried about.
>   
The problem I have is I don't think anyone knows all the factors that 
are involved in climate.
I also don't believe that climate is a steady state machine, where if 
you do X, Y will happen.
Just as a human accommodates to their surroundings, I think that the 
climate accommodates to changes.

> i also get the feeling your views are 1st world centric.  there's an
> entire different set of environments out there that most of the world
> lives in.  you need to take that into account when you're factoring your
> standard of living into this equation.  go travel a bit (and add some CO2
> to the atmosphere) flying there to grab a taste of what it's like.  if
> you've already traveled, travel some more or get off the beaten path.
>   
That is true.  And I would love to travel, and get off the beaten path, 
and talk with people of different backgrounds.
I like talking to people who come here from other places.  Based on your 
name and what you have said, I would guess you have grown up in another 
country(s).  I would love to chat with you over a beer about your 
experiences, assuming you are on the front range.  If not I guess we 
could each have a beer in our own locations and use Linux to do some 
sort of video conference!!
> i will give you this though, you were honest about your need for x
> standard of living.  i appreciate that.  you have to know yourself and
> what your needs are before you can enter a discussion.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> Join us on IRC: irc.hackingsociety.org port=6667 channel=#hackingsociety
>
>   

Thanks!
Carl.