Alt Energy will save us all.

121 posts / 0 new
Last post

I am a world consuming bastard.

For the record (for the last time) I don't think I'm perfect. We all have work to do. I don't buy Mr. C.'s arguments and I've said so. Perhaps I could have been more tender in my criticism, but the time for molly-coddling is gone. You can call it a diatribe if you want, but before you stick with that opinion, I beg of you, read the cover story of this week's Time (that bastion of mono-maniacal extremism!). It's available on-line at, as long as you sit thru a short (10-15 sec) ad.


I would never have thought I'd be of this opinion, but increasingly, I'm starting to think that nuclear may be the stop-gap we need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels for power generation. Those alt-energy solutions are still mostly theoretical and in their infancy. At least with nuclear (if we can prevent the Three Mile and Chernobyl type events - a highly debatable proposition) we can buy some time.

p.s. I took the test too. For the record. 2.4 for food, 3.5 total. I think I'll eat lentils tonite!

"I'm spouting off the considered opinions of well-regarded scientists who've been ringing alarm bells for years. I'm telling you how they think we'll kill ourselves and take a lot of species with us unless we take action now."

Fixed again. Third time's the charm. Of course if they're wrong and global warming isn't a problem mainly caused by humans in general, and North Americans in particular Dugly, you can point me to more than one peer reviewed article or study that disproves that contention.

Good luck with that. Try to find some (studies that discount the global warming threat) that aren't funded by oil companies too... if you can.

Nuclear could work, but it will cost more (much, much, more). I don't think either of these

will happen, and I don't really think nuclear is the way to go.

However, here's two things that could adress the two major problems with nuclear energy,

and could really help make nuclear work.

1. Accidents: As with most engineering, there's a balance between cost and safety. If a

design for a nuclear reactor was made where the number one priority was safety and

containment, and money was no object. Then you could likely build something that would

satisfy any safety requirement. You can build a truly unsinkable ship (one that could float if

filled with water), but like a perfectly safe reactor, it would cost more than its worth.

2. Waste: There's a problem with nuclear waste, that problem is that it doesn't go away.

There's nothing on Earth right now that eliminates nuclear waste (although they're looking

into it).

The solution: Send the waste into the sun where it will be burnt safely. Of course to do this

you'd have to encapsulate the waste in some sort of hardened storrage device that would

survive the rocket exploding on its way into Earth orbit, the capsule impacting the Earth (or

other planets) at hyper-orbital speed, and survive being burried in the crust of such a planet

until such time it could be retrieved and sent back to the sun (mellenia), etc.

Then you'll need rockets big enough to lift these heavy capsules (and the other rockets) into

orbit, and even bigger rockets to get them to the Sun (Superman's not going to do it). Hmm,

the number of rockets required, and the energy they'd require would probably be worse for

the environment than using coal instead of nuclear. I think we'd at least need to develop


elevators to make this viable.

/ tounge firmly in cheek

// enjoying the fantasy anyway

Mr. Creosote:

I was a very very bad man and drove in to work today. I live 5 minutes further east from the Pt Moody WCE station. You say you live 20 minutes from this stop. It took me 33 minutes - driving over the limit most of the way. My total trip was 29 kms. You say you travel 50 kms in 35-40 minutes. So if you are 20 minutes from the station am I right in calculating that your trip from WCE to Horseshoe Bay is about 15 - 20 minutes? This does not seem right unless you are averaging about 120 km/h in rush hour traffic. Please explain......

We should build space elevators even if we don't go nuclear. Efficient as all get out once they're up and running.

Same with lighter than air heavy lifters for cargo and passengers.

Hi-tech sail boats instead of bunker-fuel freighters.

Bullet trains instead of regional air flights (admittedly geography can play havoc with that solution)

One of our biggest problems is we're addicted to speed. Does it really matter if manufactured goods take an extra week to cross the ocean, or it takes an extra day to get somewhere? Not to me.

Stump says:

Of course if they're wrong and global warming isn't a problem mainly caused by humans in general, and North Americans in particular Dugly, you can point me to more than one peer reviewed article or study that disproves that contention.

Good luck with that. Try to find some (studies that discount the global warming threat) that aren't funded by oil companies too... if you can.

---- end stump ----

If I didn't know better Stump, I'd assume you're missinterpretting what pretty much every counter-point to your argument is intentionally.

Fortunately, I know better. I know that you don't realize that nobody here has suggested that global warming isn't happening. Nor has anybody here suggested that it isn't primarily caused by Human action. People here have completely reasonable opinions about what we can do, and the likely direction that we will overcome our current love affair with oil. We all, from you to me, and Mr. C/Temple/Craig/Kermit/Schecker/Bagger and others; we ALL agree that our society MUST do something to decrease our reliance on Oil.

We merely discuss how that is likely to, and should, come around.

ONLY you refuse to acknowledge the worth of any other plan than our own. Everyone acknowledges that biking is a fine way to decrease reliance on oil. Everyone agrees that alternative energy should be produced, not only for our mobility, but also our electrical supply and heating systems (not necessarily the same solution of course). Everyone other than you seems to agree that society is better off coming to these changes incrementally, and voluntarily. Through education and gradual change.

ONLY YOU refuse to give an inch.

No Stump. I don't mistake what you're doing as intentionally misrepresentation. I honestly just don't think you get it.


And I honestly think you need to work on your reading comprehension. Because here's a number of

quotes by me (many in response to you) that point out again and again that gradual change is the

way. If your eyes don't glaze over by the end, I especially would like to point you to the end where

I address some questions Temple put to me. Education and gradual change eh? Wow, did you crib

that from me, or from somewhere else?

My argument is time-frame. The time is now. Apparently there's a few people who agree. Did you

read the Time article Dugly? Have you considered what a one car/one family world looks like

(because that's the future you're professing in the Arbutus Corridor thread) with 10 billion people

on the planet? 20 billion?


Excerpts from other posts:

Someone noted upthread that we can expect another 25 to 50 years of car dominance at least. And

then what? For the zillionth time, a gradual adaptation is necessary, but at what point do we decide

we've reached the zenith and its time to turn the tide? (plse excuse the mixed metaphor)

Lordy, if you can't make an argument to defeat my position you just change which position you

have me take.







Believe me, I've had this argument too many times to be so stupid as say all people will always

ride bikes. To reiterate, the car/person ratio must drop by a big factor for long-term sustainability.

Cars will not disappear, they will just be recognized for what they are, a resource-intensive,

expensive method of conveyance most suited for a a fairly small number of instances. As such, the

pricing for use will reflect those realities. As the price rises people will find effective substitutes.

"and still he'll claim that bikes are the only way. "

And you'll still get my position wrong, because it's easier than dealing with what I've really said. So

sad. Bikes aren't the only way, just the easiest given what we have and the problems we face.

Answers I wrote to a post by Temple (Temple's questions are in quotes) and continuing my

refutation of Dugly's characterization of my position.


"If you are right, and we can accomplish your goal of people giving up their cars before an

environmental/civil catastrophe. How do you suggest it be done?"

- By example

"What sort of timeline do you think the grassroots advocation of cycling will take?"

- about a hundred years or two generations to get North America mostly on-side in urban areas.

Other countries hard to say and less important, because we are the major consumers of fossil


"Are there better methods of accomplishing your goal. Could you describe how it'll happen

voluntarily? I would suggest that you cannot."

Education and advocacy are the only ways to get voluntary buy-in. Forcing people out of their cars

isn't going to work. It will happen voluntarily when our communal ethical outlook views wasting fossil

fuels to drive cars unnecessarily as morally wrong. Just as our positions on other behaviours have

changed, we'll come to realize our reliance on cars comes at too great a cost. We will evolve, just as

we always have. But it requires someone to take the radical viewpoint, to push the debate and

battle complacency. It's hardly fun all the time (it does have its moments... bikers throw even

better parties than Ultimate players) but it's necessary.

As I've mentioned earlier, the global average for cars to people is a ration of about 1 to 100. In

the U.S. it's either 1.25/1 or .75/1 (sorry, but I forget which one). Clearly something is going on

there. Most people in the know say it's because North America is consuming resources in a ratio way

out whack with our population. Cars play a big role in that.

Either way we'll change our thinking, be it with a partial technological fix, or through a catastrophic

event(s). Math may not be my strong point, so I'm certainly willing to listen to how we'll maintain

our current lifestyle, deal with more numerous people (have you seen the latest pop. growth

figures... people are getting BUSY!) and apportion even scarcer resources, but without a sea change

in our attitudes about entitlement and resource allocation I fail to see how the numbers are going

to add up.

So Dugly, to sum up, either you haven't read what I've written, or are choosing to ignore what I've

written when you respond. Which is it?

"No Stump. I don't mistake what you're doing as intentionally misrepresentation. I honestly just

don't think you get it."

O rly?

I honestly don't think you're willing to ask yourself what happens if we don't make significant

changes in a short time.

In the future, could you do me a favour and just ignore my posts? You're wasting my time having

to continually correct your errors of comprehension.

Do you work for a car company? Oil company? Or the Department of Complacency and Wilful


Bagger - still trying to call me an idiot.

Do you believe I can read a clock? Do you believe that I am at least intelligent enough to subtract one number from another? Then STFU.

To clarify - IF and only IF you add the daycare round trip it adds 20 minutes to my commute. BUT if I do that then I have to make similar adjustments to a transit trip. SO apples to apples comparison - Leaving my house getting to my desk at work - It is a 40minute commute +/- 2minutes almost like clockwork. Note I live on the far western edge of PoMo.

Stump - to step back a few posts - you incorrectly characterized my reasons for not using transit - Reason 1 through 100 are that it doesn't meet my needs when you take into account work start times, transit connection times and getting my son to daycare. I can 't drop my son off at daycare, make the train and get to work by 8am nor make the return trip. Not with where I currently live and work. I have recognized that in order for this to change I need to change where I work - since I won't be able to afford to change where I live. I only brought up my hatred of transit as reasons 101 to 200. And as such they were unnecessary even to note as they didn't impact on my ability to use transit.

You say you refuted my position - not so.

I know the conditions of my life and what I can do (vs. what I will do). Transit falls in the can't do category for purely logistical reasons that are based upon the premise that I want to see my son for a couple of hours each day. Also - the 10% reduction would be inaccurate anyway as transit still requires energy to move my lard ass around. I understand it will be small increment of the 10% but it would still make it less than 10%.

What I said was:

"I asked him why he can't pony up an hour a week (alt-transportation once every two weeks to deliver a roughly 10% reduction in his commuting footprint) to be a part of the solution and his response (partly) is he'd have to mingle with the great unwashed."

As you'll see I used the word roughly because I know it wouldn't be an exact 10% reduction and tacitly acknowledged your daycare issues by saying transit users were 'partly' the issue.

Did you catch Pete McMartin's column today? Could have been describing you. Unwilling to give the white picket fence lifestyle that's a big part of our transportation problems. Where does change start? With whom? And when?

Not be beat a dead horse, but I'm curious to know if you've discussed this with your employer, and asked them if you could be allowed some leeway on start and finish times occasionally, so that you could use transit once in a while?

I don't want to make you out to be the bad guy (although you did volunteer your situation as an example) but it's hard for me to not assert that your choices are impacting all of us, because that's what experts in the field are saying. Does that make sense? Do you understand where I'm coming from in that regard?

"Unwilling to give (up) the white picket fence lifestyle"

10% - yup so we agree on that

re: my employer - umm I think I did say that I investigated all of this 3-4 times - but I guess you and Bag like calling me an idiot in roundabout terms....

The main avenues for flex work are - extended hours 4x10 hour days or some such - or going 80% workload (and 80% pay) - or telecommuting. The work I do precludes telecommuting - the lifestyle I have and want to maintain precludes 80% pay and as I said before extended hours won't match the most important thing in my life - my family. My solution as I have already stated is to change employers - can't do it today - tomorrow doesn't look too good either by by year end it may be a done deal. My solution is actually better than yours in that it will reduce my commuting by 80-90%. Well worth waiting a few months for.

What I want to know is why you are so adamant that you are right, that it can be done? Purely on logical terms you must admit that for some people not using a car is not a reality when viewed in the short term. I mean of 2milion people at least 1 or 2% or whatever number must 100% require a car to get to work. Can it be so hard to admit?

As to lifestyle - yup - I knowingly choose the lifestyle I live - I like having a house and a yard and space to call my own. I hate picket fences - more of a shrub man myself....I like the fact that the effort I put in to my work and life is being rewarded....but I also know that my choices affect the world today and in the future and thus I am plannign on making came to this realization sooner - so you must be older than me you rickety old bastard - and you have already made the choices necessary to reduce your impact....but your not perfect either if your arable land number is an indicator. Hopefully you are continuing to minimize your 'footprint' - I will continue to do so as well.

Oh and here's a little article on wind power - the more interesting thing is the cost per kWH table in the middle - looks like nuke power has a reason for not being a primary power source. If these numbers are even close it looks like some of the main alternative power sources are already well on their way to reducing our 'addiction to oil'

I'm not calling you an idiot.

I asked you a question. Pretty simple one. Yes, or No. If you've answered it directly and I missed it previously my apologies.

And yes, I know some people can't manage w/out a car. See Dugly's comments re: plumbers, carpenters.

You put your life up to examination. Quit belly-aching if people say to you they don't agree with your choices. I'm glad you're looking to minimize your footprint. Everyone should be. But it's your suburban lifestyle that's making your footprint so big. Stop thinking it's a competition, or I'm trying to ridicule you. Your lifestyle isn't sustainable. Neither is mine. And yes, I'm working on it.

I believe you could find a way to not drive one day out of ten. You don't want to find the way, that's fine, but it's not going to change my p.o.v.

There is a difference between disagreeing with my choices and saying that my answers to your questions are wrong....In the end I think that I showed you in pretty uncertain terms a scenario where a pretty normal person can't take transit due to the myriad of life's circumstances. Unfortunately you can't seem to understand that it could be a reality. It's not a likeable reality - in a perfect world I live 5 minutes from work (by foot preferably). But given the facts of my current life scenario I can't make transit work. I could if I were willing to sacrifice my family life but if you are basing your position on the fact that I should be making this sacrifice then we will never agree.

As to the 'suburban lifestye' making my footprint so large - I have to argue that it is only a factor if your work and home are too far apart....I could have a job at a biking distance and make little more impact than you. I guess you could be implying that the core of the suburban lifestyle is urban work suburban home which I would argue is a pretty narrow definition. What I mean to say is that living in the suburbs is not inherently a bad thing for the environment.

I disagree with your choices. I haven't said your answers are wrong. They're simply wrong according to my values.

I'm not buying your scenario. It may make me stupid, but don't confuse that with being vindictive.

As to the suburbs, I'd argue that one family in a home on a lot of land that could support three families in a denser living arrangement IS inherently worse for the environment, no matter where you work. There's also the added infrastructure, the de-centralized planning that makes car trips necessary for shopping, etc.

Are you going to settle for 'normal'? :-). Trust me, eccentric is twice the fun!



Umm, here I go. Probably get another earful (eyeful?) for it but....

Since your wife has Fridays off, perhaps that would be a good day to ask her to take on the daycare drop-off/pick-up (or maybe she stays home with the little one?) and give you an opportunity to try transit?

In all seriousness, other than the fact you'll get home an hour later, what are the impediments to at least trying it a couple of times?

Eccentric also lives in a cardboard box under a bridge.

In not buying my scenario either you think I am lying or just too dense to understand the alternatives. I am pretty sure it's not the latter.

Density isn't all it's cracked up to be. You live in the hive - I'll take the joy of fresh air and tilling soil - (see I can actually grow my own food on all this land)

re: wind and the costs. It may be cheaper soon. Let's hope so. But, it's not 24/7, it can't be used everywhere, and we still need to build the generating plants. We've a long ways to go still. Let's hope there's enough fuel in the tank.

I grow my own food too dude. In the city. In my shared backyard.

It's either density or a population drop. The status quo doesn't compute. Since you've procreated I'll assume you're not comfortable with option two?

Don't confuse eccentric with disturbed. If we didn't waste money on more highways maybe we could afford to give people with mental problems a decent place to live.

Ah stump. How good of you to do exactly what I predicted you'd do.

See... you constantly mischaracterize every single argument put against you into something easier for you to manage. Something you've obviously read in a magazine or newspaper, and have some ready facts at hand to refute the mischaracterized argument.

So way up 25ish posts ago you, once again, mischaracterize the counter arguments put to you. You challenge the other side of the discussion to find plausible research that global warming wasn't happening. Of course you did this intentionally, but I expect you don't even realize you're doing it. What kind of debaotr tries to argue points that aren't brought up? I'd say a pretty stupid one. Get real kid.

So in turn, I intentionally mischaracterized your position (although not by much) and you predictably got remarkably defenseive.

So stump. How's it feel? Until you bother to understand other positions, don't expect anyone to try and understand yours. Alternative power CAN power light-weight personal vehicles. It's been proven. It's in use already. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't change the fact.

My hopes for a plausible future include lightweight vehicles, powered by technologies not reliant on fossil fuels. You think it's magic? OK friend, see you in the 22nd century.

Oh Lord. You're still here.

1) I said I'm not a mono-maniacal extremist. I knew I was setting myself up when I said that, but

hey, I'm not afraid of criticism. I welcome it, esp. from people starting from a faulty premise,

because it gives me a chance to hammer home some reality to the deluded, yet again.

2) You did the old "fixed if for ya" (a little editing magic that I love btw, a fun way to needle


3) I did the "fixed it again" in the same spirit and added an addendum. Who cares besides you

and me? Let it go.

Alternative power might well power lightweight vehicles. But I repeat, there's no sustainable way to

put one in every driveway of every family. That's not just my opinion. It's pretty obvious when you

think about it... and the generally accepted precept which most modern city planners are trying to

work with.

Go do some reading. Lose the blind faith in technology and the tunnel vision that misses all the

other down-sides to an unsustainable system besides the fossil fuel problems. Come back to me

with a car/person ratio you think can be sustained and perhaps there's a concrete foundation for a

productive discussion. Educate yourself about the disparity between North American consumption

levels and the rest of the world and perhaps there's room for a reasoned debate. Until then....

"In not buying my scenario either you think I am lying or just too dense to understand the


I'll be totally straightforward with you here. I think you believe you're entitled to a nice house in

the burbs since you can afford to buy one. I think you believe that you shouldn't have to sacrifice

that dream for the greater good.

I don't share either belief.

And, pre-emptively... No, I don't live on the Internet. I fell asleep at 9:30 with my daughter and I

woke up after midnight and couldn't sleep. :-)

re: wind - it's one of an array of alternative sources - yes there is work to do but it's feasible to do so in the time horizon(30-50 yrs) we are talking about - wind, tidal, hydro, biofuel and solar can all work together to plug the hole that will be left by fossil fuels. Ie. you use the wind, tidal and solar power when it is being supplied and bank the hydro (ie let the dams fill up) and use it at peak periods along with biofuel. In addition, you can use these non-steady state power sources to create hydrogen to use as a fuel for anything off the grid (from generators to cars).

It's not even a matter of if but when - and in many instances it will be the free market that will be providing these solutions in response to demand caused by higher oil/gas prices.

re: growing food - shared back yard - doesn't sound that much denser than where I live. Are you in a 30 unit per hectare density area that is required for functioning transit? Are you really walking the walk or just talking the talk?

And it's not just either density or population drop - it could easily be population redistribution and work take the GVRD as a whole and create multiple pockets of industry and business such that it is possible to find multiple work opportunites where you live - create incentives and penalties that target employers and employees and push them to live/work in the same district. Right now we actually have too much density of business in the downtown core - this is the greater cause of the flood of cars to the city center.

This also allows people to live a variety of lifestyles while still being sensitive to the environment. As I said density isn't the only answer. Talk to a sociologist about density - you may see that it isn't the perfect answer.

re: eccentric - living in a box under a bridge doesn't necessarily mean your disturbed - it could just be your choice of life or a result of your choices- eccentric as it is.

My point was that living outside the norm has it's downsides.

re: scenario purchase - I was speaking more to the transit/drive scenario. I was speaking about a present day situation that I live in. In this scenario transit doesn't work....changes to the scenario need to be made before transit will work - either transit has to change (not likely) or I have to change - as I said I am already on that track.

The fact that you don't 'believe' in the rights to a house in the burbs just shows me that you lack flexibility in your thinking. You seem to not see that this dream is so omnipresent in our society that it must relate to the core of our being. That this desire will not be quenched by dreams of density and glass and concrete towers. People don't want to live that way. It's not just me. I think that these alternatives also need to be investigated. Reread that article by McMartin - it sounded to me like the only people that want density are urban planners and only as long as they aren't the ones being densified.

Mr. Creosote

I think I owe you an apology

I reread your initial post where you said your commute included a 20 minute trip to WCE. What I missed initially was that you said this was because you would have to walk and/or wait for the bus/train. I assumed incorrectly that this was your drive time. So therefore my calculations for the rest of your trip to Horseshoe Bay were wrong. If you can make it from your place to work in 35 minutes, good for you.

Again I was not trying to call you an idiot. I simply couldn't accept the travel times you stated if you in fact were 20 mins from the station. I didn't get a clarification when I asked you to explain so I figured there was some miscommunication. Going over your statements again proved that was the case. I now see part of the reason for your wasnt just the thought of dinging the bell on a bus. haha

Ta ta


Stump, wake up and smell the future.

You want levels of cars/person on a global scale? Who cares? I'm living here. Here in Vancouver. You know, you can see the mountains, we're near the Ocean.

While the rest of the world might not have as many vehicles / person as us, that's a completely different issue. And completely irrelevant to the current discussion. The mechanism and path of growth will be different between each country and each society. Until you realize that, you're bound to your inacurate perception of the world. Until you can see that the world has many different societies, you're bound to constantly be wrong. I don't know if you realize this, but bikes aren't going to get you around in many places in the world, so even your own solution doesn't apply.

Until you can see that the issues are bigger than the few that you continually choose to address, you're never going have a hope of figuring out a solution.

What's that saying. Think Globally, Act Locally? Good advice. You should take it.

Until you realize we're the big pigs at the trough pushing aside all the other little porkers your opinion is worth nothing to me.

John Donne said this:

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee"

Ding, ding, ding. That's not the bus bell.

Mr. Creosote:

Density doesn't have to mean crowded to the gills and glass towers. There's a happy medium between downtown and surburbia. Look at places like Commercial Drive or Joyce St. near the Skytrain. It's mono-culture neighbourhoods that aren't working. As you say neighbourhoods that are all business, all residential, all whatever, have their downsides and I wouldn't argue in favour of them.

I understand the urge for a little piece of land too. It's a matter of degree though and the suburbs are too energy intensive to be sustainable. So, yeah, my house is a one bedroom apt in an old house split into three suites. It's also a few blocks from a mall with everything I need for day to day living, ten minutes from my place of employment. There's three parks within walking distance for a four year old, and I can ride my bike to any Ulty field in Vancouver in under 45 minutes. I feel that's pretty responsible and sustainable. That silly little test seemed to agree, although sure, I have work to do. So do you. We all do.

I think desire/belief in the right to the white picket fence lifestyle is a manufactured desire, aka brainwashing.

Good for you Bagger. I totally respect anyone (wo)man enough to admit their mistakes.

I disagree with you on the picket fence lifestyle being a marketing issue or a manufactured desire. This desire dates back to times well before marketing was an effective tool - I mean why did people come across the Atlantic in the 1800's? Free land - risk your life - leave your family and friends and social network behind because you saw a glitzy poster advertising free land - no. It was because of a stronger imperitive much closer to the core of mankind than you think - you even reflect it yourself in your desire to live in a house with access to land you can call your own (in a sense).

The suburban lifestyle - 2 cars 5 tvs 3 kids etc....yeah I can see aspects of that which are manufactured.

Also on density - check out the wikipedia link below - social groups are generally small (under 150 in most peoples social network) Compressing people together causes alot of social unrest that you are not factoring into your equations.

People came for the free land. And all that it entails. Self-sufficiency, somewhere to call home for generations perhaps, the ability to be in control of their destiny and not prey to the whims of a landowner or a King. They came for freedom. Some would say there's no price too high for true freedom.

That's a far cry from the modern version as you've noted. There's no freedom in the 'burbs, just another kind of jail. The burbs are fattening pens with a little more room, but don't be fooled. Your handcuffs may be a little looser than mine, but you still can't pull your hands out of them. Cuffed to a job, a car, all that stuff. Stuff, stuff, stuff. I like my handcuffs tight. It reminds me that I'm not free and I don't fall into a false sense of complacency.

People don't have to be compressed when we stop wasting more and more land (much of it arable... can you say shoot yourself in the foot?)by paving it for cars. Better a uniform density and a modicum of self-sufficiency. But, that's not the 'burbs.

And anyway, who are we to take so much? Do we give back in equal proportion?

Whew - love to live in your world Stump - everyones just a cow for slaughter - including you - if that's the case then I may as well stink up the joint and have as much fun as possible while I do since there is no meaning in it all and all my kids will inherit is an ever shrinking slaughter pen.

RE: stuff....I hate stuff - I don't like materialism - I tell my wife if she buys new 'stuff' then old stuff has to go. That tends to curb her enthusiasm for shopping.

Re: not compressing - uhh so the population doubles and you still want them in a similar land base - sounds like it'll get ever more compressed to me. And the use of arable land - the ALR should be sacrosanct - non-arable land should be developed ahead of any other source.

The burbs are a pretty uniform density - just not the density of choice in your opinion - and in the end that's all this is your opinion against mine - neither of us are patently right on this topic.

RE: taking so much - I'll go back to the semi-efficient markets theory - apparently I am able to take 'so much' because I do give back value in kind - using the scorecard of money I actually give back more than my share (ie taxes) than the this a fair scorecard - I'm sure you'll give me a kneejerk NO but think through the value creation model - somewhere in the process what I do creates the value that I in turn use to gain that which I desire and have thus earned. You do the same - unless we go back to the days of barter trade it will continue to be the way our value is measured.

Thanks for the kind words, Stump.

Someone's words and actions on any thread say much more about what kind of person they are than anyone else's.

Ta ta Bagger

Stump asks:

And anyway, who are we to take so much? Do we give back in equal proportion?

So I assume you're not going to have another child, since essentially children are just big drains on the global resource pool.

And from what, or whom, have we been taking so much? And to what do we give back in equal proportion?

"And from what, or whom, have we been taking so much?"

Do you really need to ask that?

I'm glad I'm not wasting time in this thread!!

Exactly Kermit. Frightening isn't it?

I think I'll follow your lead, but first:

Y'all heard of Pete Seeger?

Funny guy. Wrote funny songs. I love this one.

Little boxes on the hillside

Little boxes made of ticky tacky

Little boxes

Little boxes

Little boxes all the same

There's a green one and a pink one

And a blue one and a yellow one

And they're all made out of ticky tacky

And they all look just the same

And the people in the houses all go to the university

And they all get put in boxes, little boxes all the same

And there's doctors and there's lawyers

And business executives

And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same

And they all play on the golf course and drink their martini dry

And they all have pretty children and the children go to school

And the children go to summer camp

And then to the university

And they all get put in boxes, and they all come out the same

And the boys go into business and marry and raise a family

And they all get put in boxes, little boxes all the same

There's a green one, and a pink one

And a blue one and a yellow one

And they're all made out of ticky tacky

And they all look just the same

So which one is yours Stump - the pink one, the green one, the blue one or the yellow one.

Well Kermit,

I think it's worth asking. I think we each have our own concept of where and what the consequences of our actions are. To just throw out there the question of if you give as good as you get, or however you want to phrase it, doesn't make any sense, unless you can agree on what "it" is.

As someone else pointed out. There are a lot of ways to keep score. One of them is money. Do I give as good as I get? Yes, at least if you count taxes and how our society disperses those taxes.

Do I use more than 1/6'000'000'000th of the world's oil reserves? Unfortunately so. I actually do make choices to try and decrease my reliance on oil in many cases.

Do I use more than 1/6billionth of the worlds atmospheric oxygen? What if it's replaced?

So how can you NOT want to know what someone means when they throw out a question like "who are we to take so much? Do we give back in equal proportion?". Were the dinosaurs the ultimate givers? Simply turning over and dieing for the betterment of future generations?

What about just pure goodness? Am I nicer to people (in general) than I believe people (the global population) is to me? Or how about you?

Why is it so hard to believe I'd want to know what Stump means. And what about Children. Is it our "right" to have children? If you want to get into discussions about if you give as good as you get, you might as well pull children into the equation, because there's no obvious reason why we should have the "right" to procreate. Now Stump's "eco-footprint" might only be 3.5 (sorry, didn't look back up to check) but together with his daughter, it's almost certainly significantly more than mine.

To be clear, I'm not saying having children is a bad thing, my wife and I certainly intend to, but if you want to discuss what your footprint is how can you leave this out? Having children is a choice that you presumably make, and it certainly increases the impact that you, as an individual, has on the planet. Perhaps more so than any other choice. Am I allowed to drive if I choose not to have kids? My footprint will be smaller.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I think Stump is fighting the good fight. As in I believe that he's making choices based on what he sees as the best choice for not only himself, but also our society, and the global society. I think that's admirable. And I hope that I make many choices based on the same criteria. However my perception, and his perception, and indeed all of us have different perceptions of the consequences of our actions, and the payoffs of that action.

Some people might ignore you when you ask what they meant by some question, because to them it's self evident. But without a common understanding of the underlying assumptions. Why even have a discussion?

But alas, kermit, we are wasting time in this thread by reading it!

I feel like I'm watching a martial arts movie, with protaganist Stump in the middle of a circle of opponents, Dugly with a malfunctioning flamethrower, and Creosote taking the most hits but not going anywhere soon. It's entertaining, but also exhausting to watch after a while. :)

"So which one is yours Stump - the pink one, the green one, the blue one or the yellow one."

Theoretically, it's light grey. Unfortunately, the emissions from the cars on 12th ave a block away

leave a fine dusting of dark particulate. I can't lean against the outside walls of my house because

of cagers.

"There are a lot of ways to keep score. One of them is money. Do I give as good as I get? Yes, at

least if you count taxes and how our society disperses those taxes."

I know you're not suggesting that money is the measure of a man, so I won't go there. However,

are you saying that you pay enough in taxes to cover the costs society incurs for you to live and

work? My understanding is that w/out an industrial/business tax base we couldn't afford all our

current amenities.

How am I doing Craig? No need to consider myself the Bruce Lee of sustainability just yet, eh?

"And from what, or whom, have we been taking so much?"

I will attempt to answer that. But I want to think about it first. My first thought is the Greek word for

Mother Earth, Gaia.


Somewhere a small man just got smaller.

I'm posting this just so someone else can have 100. My treat.......

Whoop Whoop Whoop - at 100 posts this thread is too long and so far off topic as to be ridiculous. I take my proportionate share of the blame for that. See you all on the next topic.