The Shrine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

Climate change stuff. One of the first studies conducted by an economist (as opposed to an environmental scientist) concludes that the economic effects of climate change, unless we start working against it now, will roughly resemble the Great Depression and/or World War II.

Buy that hybrid car, bitches. I ain't going to no soup kitchen line because y'all just had to have that new Acura!

Hey, we're probably beyond fucked already. Our world, just to throw out a rough number (which is very likely wrong) might only be able to support 1-2 billion people without the existence of fossil fuels, we already have more than 6 billion.

Not to detract from the discussion, but you have the coolest avatar I've seen so far in my life.

What's that from?

He is Manfred von Karma, the most ruthless of the prosecution attorneys from Phoenix Wright, one of my alltime favourite games.

Why hybrid? Electric's been viable for 10 years

And where do you think the electricity comes from for that hybrid car?

Kupek wrote:And where do you think the electricity comes from for that hybrid car?

The stork!



Wait, that's where babies come from.

I don't care if you walk, run, or hire homeless people to wheel you around in a rickshaw, but if I make it as a game designer just in time to watch society collapse past the point where video games can be reasonably supported because you guys just HAD TO have heat and fuel, like little whiny pussy babies, I will be taking out my frustrations on all of you. Just an FYI.

Kupek wrote:And where do you think the electricity comes from for that hybrid car?

A non-fossil-fuel burning power station, hopefully. I dunno whether this is possible for you guys but we in Australia are able to buy "green" power - we can request that rather than our power coming from coal-burning plants, as it does by default, it can come from solar, wind, or hydro-generated plants (no nuclear in Australia yet, boooo!). In this way you could buy an electric car, make sure you buy green power, and feel pretty good about yourself :).

But even if your electricity comes from a dirty source, it's much easier to make efficient or replace one dirty source than a hundred thousand individual fossil-fuel burning machines.

Hey, we're probably beyond fucked already.

You fucking quitter!

Kupek wrote:And where do you think the electricity comes from for that hybrid car?

If you were talking to me, Kup, honestly I'm a bit surprised at you.

Yes, of course I'm not dumb enough to think that hybrid cars run on nonexistant or magical power. I have vague plans to break the second law of thermodynamics someday, but until then, all of our machines must run on something.

What is true, however, is that a hybrid car that travels the same distance as a non-hybrid will burn less fuel and contribute to global warming that much less. It's a matter of efficiency.

However, I know you're smart enough to know all of this. I do guess that you might be possibly talking to Zeus instead, and reminding him that the electricity that charges pure electric cars (though you did say "hybrid") comes from power plants that may themselves be polluters. Even then, though, as the Bee mentioned, it's a hell of a lot easier to clean up a power plant than it is a million cars.

So I guess I'm a bit confused as to the thrust of your remark. Who was it meant for and why?

Kupek wrote:And where do you think the electricity comes from for that hybrid car?

Up here, a lot comes from H2O and gravity, part of the benefit of not destroying our landscape. I audited a power generation group of plants which had 4 waterfalls, generators, and 5 employees. Water came down, moved the generator, and voila, electricity was fed right into the grid. MILLIONS of dollars and a 50-year government contract with guaranteed payouts. It's a freakin' goldmine.

Many ways to produce electricity, including using the actual kinetic force in the vehicle itself, but only one way to burn fossil fuels. If it's possible to use just electricity to power a vehicle that can meet the needs of the vast majority of the population, isn't it better than having a hybrid car?

Nev, check out two documentaries, Who Killed the Electric Car? and An Inconvenient Truth. I ain't no environmentalist, but you can't help but say "what the fuck? If HALF that is true, we're just a fucking moronic society".

Of course, I haven't changed my habits and still drive to work 130 km a day alone, but they may interest you if you're on an environmental kick.

It was meant for you, because you seemed to consider hybrids a solution. They're not a solution, because as you know, they put off the problem elsewhere, to the power plants. Cleaner power is possible, but - and I invite people to correct me on this if I'm wrong - the majority of the power plants in the US are not solar, nuclear, water or wind. I know for certain that the <a href="http://www.facilities.vt.edu/utilities/ ... ant">power plant</a> I get power from is not.

I found out a few years back that my area gets a lot of power from a nuclear plant as well as a hydro-electric plant in Peach Bottom (I think it's PA). I actually got to visit both.

I think only three out of the 10 provinces in Canada even still have fossil fuel power plants; Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta; also by, likely complete coincidence, the Conservative strongholds in the country. In

Canada, it is quite strange when it comes to politics, of our major parties: The Liberal Party are not actually Liberals, they are Conservatives, they are fairly set on preserving Canadian tradition. The Conservative Party, on the otherhand, are not actually Conservatives, they are republicans. The NDP, BLOC, Greens, and other parties in Canada, they're the actual true liberals in the country.

Kupek wrote:It was meant for you, because you seemed to consider hybrids a solution. They're not a solution, because as you know, they put off the problem elsewhere, to the power plants. Cleaner power is possible, but - and I invite people to correct me on this if I'm wrong - the majority of the power plants in the US are not solar, nuclear, water or wind. I know for certain that the <a href="http://www.facilities.vt.edu/utilities/ ... ant">power plant</a> I get power from is not.

In the US. But what I'm saying is alternative ways to produce electricty are becoming more and more viable and are in use in more and more countries. So, increasing electricity use in cars will, in fact, cut down on fossil fuel usage, as a lot of plants in the world now, outside of the US, don't use fossil fuels to create electricity. That's my point. Hybrids and better yet electrical cars will cut down on fossil fuel usage overall.

I know all this, I'm just pessimistic about how much our power infrastructure will actually reduce dependence on fossil fuels. And if that doesn't happen, then we're still - as the subject says - fucked. As I understand it, if all of our cars today were replaced with electric cars, we'd still be in trouble both environmentally and in our dependence on oil. (Not to mention I doubt our current power infrastructure could meet that surge in demand.) I'd love to be wrong on this, as I would be much less pessimistic about the future. I don't know where to find such a breakdown of where our power comes from. I'll probably Google it at some point, maybe post the results if I find anything.

Kupek wrote:It was meant for you, because you seemed to consider hybrids a solution. They're not a solution, because as you know, they put off the problem elsewhere, to the power plants. Cleaner power is possible, but - and I invite people to correct me on this if I'm wrong - the majority of the power plants in the US are not solar, nuclear, water or wind. I know for certain that the <a href="http://www.facilities.vt.edu/utilities/ ... ant">power plant</a> I get power from is not.

I would call them "a step in the right direction", not a solution.

And, are you an idiot? Why are you even talking about power plants? Hybrids don't *plug in* to anything - none of the power from a land-based power plant goes into a hybrid. They just use partially electric-based engines to improve fuel efficiency. There's no added burden to power plants from hybrid cars, unless you mean the power plants *in the hybrids*, and those don't generate much in the way of greenhouse gases, as far as I know.

Even if they did draw power from land-based power plants, did you miss Killer Bee's accurate observation that it's easier to clean up land-based power plants, once you've decided to clean things up, than it is to clean millions upon millions of car engines? (Which I mentioned again in my post?) But, not that it matters, because, as I'll state again, HYBRID CARS DON'T PLUG IN TO ANYTHING. They're not like electric cars. They just go further on less gas, the price of which is moderately less acceleration and power provided by the engine. Tell me how that can be any comparatively worse than what we've got going now.

Finally, I note that, despite naysaying my efforts to promote at least a partially cleaner solution to our transportation issues, you haven't provided any alternatives. Which, honestly, is not something I can respect a whole lot. If you're going to criticize people's efforts to reduce the problem, the least you could do is actually *suggest* something else that might work.

Kupek wrote:I know all this, I'm just pessimistic about how much our power infrastructure will actually reduce dependence on fossil fuels. And if that doesn't happen, then we're still - as the subject says - fucked. As I understand it, if all of our cars today were replaced with electric cars, we'd still be in trouble both environmentally and in our dependence on oil. (Not to mention I doubt our current power infrastructure could meet that surge in demand.) I'd love to be wrong on this, as I would be much less pessimistic about the future. I don't know where to find such a breakdown of where our power comes from. I'll probably Google it at some point, maybe post the results if I find anything.

But if we at least make an effort and we know there is a way to decrease the usage of fossil fuels, it's a start. May not be a big one, but it is one

Nev wrote: Finally, I note that, despite naysaying my efforts to promote at least a partially cleaner solution to our transportation issues, you haven't provided any alternatives. Which, honestly, is not something I can respect a whole lot. If you're going to criticize people's efforts to reduce the problem, the least you could do is actually *suggest* something else that might work.

Just because he doesnt like something, that doesnt mean he has to have the ultimate answer. I think Hershey chocolate tastes like crap, but i'm not going to send them a letter to change their formula. I think the Iraq situation stinks, but damned if i know a better solution.

Good god, calm down. I did not make a personal attack on you. I'm not questioning your intelligence or saying you're a bad person. How about you do the same for me? Ignoring that...

I was irresponsible in characterizing hybrids. I know they require a battery which needs to be replaced about every 100,000 miles and that it costs about $3,000-$5,000. This is better than current cars, but even if we replaced all conventional cars with hybrids we'd still be reliant on fossil fuels and still in trouble with respect to global warming. They're more fuel effecient, but the fundamental problems have not been solved.

I hestitate getting into the business of charactertizing your tone, but my initial response was to your hyperbole of ending up in a soup kitchen. Hybrids mitigate the problem, not eliminate it, but that was not the attitude you initially took.

I never disagreed with Andrew's observation, and it's one I have made in the past. We would be better off not depending on oil at all, which is why I was even thinking about it.

This is silly because we all agree that hybrids are better, and that electric are better than hybrids (though not as practical, yet). The point I wanted to make was that even if we change this, we still have other fundamental problems.

Kupek wrote:Good god, calm down. I did not make a personal attack on you. I'm not questioning your intelligence or saying you're a bad person. How about you do the same for me? Ignoring that...

I was irresponsible in characterizing hybrids. I know they require a battery which needs to be replaced about every 100,000 miles and that it costs about $3,000-$5,000. This is better than current cars, but even if we replaced all conventional cars with hybrids we'd still be reliant on fossil fuels and still in trouble with respect to global warming. They're more fuel effecient, but the fundamental problems have not been solved.

I hestitate getting into the business of charactertizing your tone, but my initial response was to your hyperbole of ending up in a soup kitchen. Hybrids mitigate the problem, not eliminate it, but that was not the attitude you initially took.

I never disagreed with Andrew's observation, and it's one I have made in the past. We would be better off not depending on oil at all, which is why I was even thinking about it.

This is silly because we all agree that hybrids are better, and that electric are better than hybrids (though not as practical, yet). The point I wanted to make was that even if we change this, we still have other fundamental problems.

Well, that's not disputed, at least by me. Sorry about that, I tend to fly off the handle when it comes to environmental issues.

The fundamental problem is that we as a species have not been living in sustainable ways, which is understandable given that (until quite recently) the world we lived in was so much bigger than humans and our energy needs that using fossil fuels was a quite rational solution. That's becoming not true anymore, and the major task for our species into the next century is probably going to be figuring out how to meet our energy needs in a sustainable way.

I am under no illusions that hybrid cars represent a solution to even as much as ten percent of the problem, but I try to evangelize them when I can simply because it seems that they are at least a positive step that the average American might reasonably take, and if one step towards sustainability has been taken, others may be able to follow - it's easier to get an environmental movement rolling that has some momentum behind it than it is to begin one from scratch.

I suppose one of the big problems in my tone is that I underestimated you guys (and, probably, the American public) - many of the people I know in my personal life do not respond well to environmentalist logic, and I mistakenly assumed that they (and you) would respond better to hyperbole, which is a flawed assumption now that I think about it, because all the people I'm referring to would do with hyperbole would be to use it as an excuse to get into a fight, and you guys (who actually seem to be more concerned and committed) would actually *rather have* decent and committed environmentalist logic. Which is, actually, pretty cool.

In other words, I screwed up and did not give you guys any credit. This is clearly a mistake. Sorry about that!

Running out of fossil fuels isn't even our problem. We lived without fossil fuels for nearly all of our history. Our problem is over-population. Fossil fuels have actually been quite a terrible thing, what took human civilization thousands of years to build could be destroyed in less than 300 years, beginning in the 1800's and ending in the 2100's. Fossil fuels have destroyed the balance by allowing humans to surpass what has been called as the Malthusian dilema (that is, over-population occurs when population outstrips food supply, then population will decline). Having the benefits of civilization, we would reach a state of equilibrium in our population size. Fossil fuels has allowed us to greatly push WAY past that barrier. What happens when the fossil fuels run out and we are billions past the limit? I like to point at Easter Island, what occured there once their trees were gone.

Humanity can exist fine without fossil fuels. Though we can't exist fine with our current population levels which were reached, in part, by fossil fuels. We shouldn't burn our oil either, there are so many other valuable uses we have for it.

I'm not aware Malthus's words were directly from the God so the human race must die out just because he said population grows exponentially while food increases linearly. I guess Moore is a messenger from God and there's inherent truth to how the # of transistor in a machine must grow exponentially, even though it'll eventually reach a density that cause the chip to collapse onto itself and form a black hole.

What Malthus was merely an observation based on the times. It seemed like human population was growing at an exponential rate. Now we know it is not because in areas like USA and Europe, it's getting pretty close to 0 if not below the sustenance rate. There's no reason the human population has to grow exponentially forever.

I was not using Malthus's postulates for human population growth, I don't agree with it either since he did not factor in birth control. I was using his definition of over-population which occurs when population is greater than the food supplied; this is also a fundamental of Darwinism, which is central to the study of econology, which is currently accepted among the scientific community.

I apologize for the miscommunication.