Because I don’t actually get paid to post sustainability stuff on ST (OK, sometimes I do, just a little, on my lunch or at the end of a long productive day, thanks California taxpayers, eeep) please read as many of the articles in the latest Sierra Magazine as you can. Not super technical, lots of interesting food for thought, and not as much of a downer as some of the stuff I and others have posted here lately.
Props to Art Vandelay for hammering the conservation argument as best and cheapest low hanging fruit; the Sierra Club agrees. Plus, they rank the oil companies so you can pick the best (OK least evil) as far as enviro impacts and policy goes when buying your petro-death.
You can read the articles on line at their webpage if you don’t have a public library nearby or you aren’t a member getting the mag hardcopy.
Can you point me to the part where they talk about something factual. I started with the article about their plan to slash emissions, and there was nothing resembling a plan there.
It did talk about why nuclear energy is still verbotten per Sierra Club dogma. It listed all the obstacles to nuclear power, many of which they helped create.
I guess you couldn’t find any substance either. If so, please direct me to it. I read about half of it, but where is the beef?
They do have some scraps though. One guy who agrees with astrotri that it is already too late. Another who says it soon will be.
Also, very interestingly, they cite a statistic that 1,000 nuclear power plants on the planet would be enough to make a signinficant difference in global warming. So that would seem to mean that the question I keep asking, how much do we need to do to make a measurable diffence, has an answer, though it is obviously super double secret.
That comment was interesting, since nothing else in the articles seem to deal with anything global whatever, but only with domestic consumption. They overlook that the US emissions could drop to zero tomorrow with no major impact on future global temperatures.
If I am missing something, please direct me to it.
Also, very interestingly, they cite a statistic that 1,000 nuclear power plants on the planet would be enough to make a signinficant difference in global warming.
I know, I know…you say Sierra Club and all hell breaks loose; call this post an impulse post because the magazine was sitting in my mail when I got home last night and it was all about energy.
Dang, now y’all know I’m a tree hugger. But I’m a science guy too so convince me with reliable data and I’ll go along.
I like it when stuff like that happens. the mckibben article mentioned RMI, and I am just finishing up a request for proposal from their built environment team. As soon as I sent the pew climate info, I got an e-mail about a teleconference they are putting on about strategies to reduce ghg emissions. Weird.
An organization that should have Art as a spokesman. They are always looking for people willing to go against the grain and not be brainwashed by a few hundred-thousand pieces of data.
so I come in here to learn a little about Ipods (thanks to the wife-kick ass gift!!), and hit this out of curiosity. Now I feel compelled to put in my 2 cents:
The human race is at carrying capacity. Mother Nature is fighting to keep our #'s in check. We’re going to have some major crisis in the next 100 or so years that will drop the population (likely already seeing a few of the potential scenarios starting…)
Sierra Club are assholes. They put up piano wire and traps on trails to “control” mountain bikers. The guy on the bike isn’t the problem- the CEO of the cement factory on 67 south of Dallas who was in GW Bush’s back pocket when he was governor and swung a dope deal to not lower emissions is (and all the people like him).
Not sure about the rest of you, but I’ve recently moved from TX to IL as part f my personal solution to global warming. In 2 decades I’ll be moving to northern Canada.
Want to survive? Get with Darwin- survival of the fittest. Up to you to figure out what adapts you to your own environment.
