|
Post by doctork on May 17, 2008 19:22:51 GMT -5
I'm way too humble to think we have all, or much of any, answers on global warming. But I'm a proponent of the Precautionary Principle. That is, why not be careful?
Whether or not man has an influence on global warming, there are other reasons for reducing our oil dependence. It's economically unsustainable, giving the rapid rise in competition for oil from developing India and China, a significant factor in higher prices. And politically, it makes us overly reliant on entities such as Saudi Arabia, who do not necessarily have our best interests at heart (ahem). Ethically and morally, the cost is high. Intellectually and developmentally, we should be exploring many alternatives.
Am I certain of these recommendations? Nope, I have way too much experience with unintended adverse consequences of our good intentions. I still think we should try.
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 18, 2008 12:18:22 GMT -5
I'm way too humble to think we have all, or much of any, answers on global warming. I'll go a step further and suggest that I am way too humble to patently assume that man has the ability to drastically manipulate an ecosystem that has evolved over 3.5 billion years when blue green algae thrived in ancient seas. But I'm a proponent of the Precautionary Principle. That is, why not be careful? Yes indeed. However, it's likely that we may part company in drawing the parameters.Whether or not man has an influence on global warming, there are other reasons for reducing our oil dependence. It's economically unsustainable, giving the rapid rise in competition for oil from developing India and China, a significant factor in higher prices. And politically, it makes us overly reliant on entities such as Saudi Arabia, who do not necessarily have our best interests at heart (ahem). Amen. Ethically and morally, the cost is high. Intellectually and developmentally, we should be exploring many alternatives. We could be doing more, but the federal government’s noose on big oil has destroyed the incentives. There's no money in exploring alternatives. There's no money in developing new oil refineries. Am I certain of these recommendations? Nope, I have way too much experience with unintended adverse consequences of our good intentions. I still think we should try.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on May 18, 2008 14:04:33 GMT -5
Rmn, I think that you like most people, at least in this country, look at mans effect from the view of the past 1-200 years. You may be over looking the fact that mans active footprint is a hundred thousand years long or better. This continent alone has suffered the destruction of over 90% of it's natural forests. I know that you are going too quote the statistics that we have more trees than ever but tree's alone do not compose a forest. Sterile tree farms are by no means the balanced biological system required to keep our atmosphere healthy.
The deforestation of this continent is miniscule compared to the deforestation which has occurred worldwide. Africa, Asia, Europe— all of these have suffered the effects of human occupation for tens of thousands of years. You can claim that what we are experiencing now is a natural cycle but then I guess that you would have to call humans a natural enemy of the natural environment.
Then we have the question of our use of chemical energy. At this point we have no clear idea what oil is. Fossil fuel? Esteemed scientists, and researchers seem to think that it is not— since they have found the stuff at enormous depths (I can't remember the exact figures right now). So what are the ramifications of pumping a viscous compound from the interior of the planet at he rate of billions of cubic feet per day and converting it into a gas. What if it is an essential lubricant or coolant? Of course we can't arrest the course of economy for the mere possibility of saving civilization as we know it. That would be ...uncivilized.
|
|
|
Post by hartlikeawheel on May 18, 2008 14:19:29 GMT -5
Hey, roges. Sunny smiles from so. MN.
I tend toward being out of my league in discussing politics with you better informed folk but I can offer an observation.
Little in the way of solutions here but from my perspective most of our planet's difficulties stem from a pervasive human trait - hubris.
I think both DrK and rmn have hit upon the key to the solutions - humility.
Will humans as a group ever desist from operating from a position that we are superhuman and that everything revolves around us? And that the answer is always money and power? That I doubt.
I do see a rise in ownership of scooters around here and that takes a certain amount of ability to humble one's self. (A Harley woman's joke!)
Humor aside, it is an admirable quality in people to accept their limitations and adopt fun and useful methods for dealing with them. I'd like to see governments do the same.
The problem is less one of behavior and more so of motivating factors - attitude - in my opinion.
The one thing we like least to do is the one thing which can make change. And that is to change ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 18, 2008 17:53:28 GMT -5
the federal government’s noose on big oil has destroyed the incentives. There's no money in exploring alternatives. There's no money in developing new oil refineries.
Honestly, rmn, I don't know how you can keep a straight face writing this. Have you seen the profits of big oil? and not the profits of sspeculators, who are certainly responsible for some of the mess we're in, but the profits of Exxon and the rest? When did greed get so rapacious that the concept of "reasonable profit" simply vaporized?
As for there being no profit in exploring for alternatives, that sounds -um- a bit socialistic. Should govt step in and promise there will be no risk? How much incentive did the government offer Bill Gates? People get great ideas, think there's a market and go for it. Most fail and some win big, but why should govt. have to offer incentives?
Actually, I do believe in incentives for start-up costs and reasonable loan rates, but I don't believe in guaranteeing profits. Capitalism is about risk, which is why all the fat cats wax poetic about the reason they deserve so much profit - look at the terrible risk we took! But if they won't expand refinery capacity and they can't convince communities that they can build a safe refinery, all the more reason to stop stubbornly pursuing oil and gas for energy.
There's a lot going on in the plains states - from here to Texas - with wind farms. As I said earlier, a lot in the hydrogen abracadabra I don't understand and solar which I also don't understand. But I'm not going to be the venture capitalist who makes it big in these industries. I'm going to be the cautious consumer who says, hmm, maybe one of those dealies hart was talking about. Or maybe we could go back to street cars which were ripped out so Henry Ford could get rich.
But this is getting off-topic on global warming. The evidence is there. If a logical hypothesis is that carbon fuels are a significant driver of the undeniable phenomenon, why not test the hypothesis?
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 18, 2008 20:38:38 GMT -5
Rmn, I think that you like most people, at least in this country, look at mans effect from the view of the past 1-200 years. You may be over looking the fact that mans active footprint is a hundred thousand years long or better. This continent alone has suffered the destruction of over 90% of it's natural forests. I know that you are going too quote the statistics that we have more trees than ever but tree's alone do not compose a forest. Sterile tree farms are by no means the balanced biological system required to keep our atmosphere healthy. The deforestation of this continent is miniscule compared to the deforestation which has occurred worldwide. Africa, Asia, Europe— all of these have suffered the effects of human occupation for tens of thousands of years. You can claim that what we are experiencing now is a natural cycle but then I guess that you would have to call humans a natural enemy of the natural environment. Then we have the question of our use of chemical energy. At this point we have no clear idea what oil is. Fossil fuel? Esteemed scientists, and researchers seem to think that it is not— since they have found the stuff at enormous depths (I can't remember the exact figures right now). So what are the ramifications of pumping a viscous compound from the interior of the planet at he rate of billions of cubic feet per day and converting it into a gas. What if it is an essential lubricant or coolant? Of course we can't arrest the course of economy for the mere possibility of saving civilization as we know it. That would be ...uncivilized. Actually, I wasn't going to quote any stats at all. I might have mentioned in a previous post that there are stats aplenty to serve either argument. Collected data aside, we disagree as to the extent of man's involvement in this current warming trend. You've written that man's active footprint dates at 100,000 years or better. Agreed, but I guess it depends on what you mean by fingerprint. Surely, you wouldn't be suggesting that the activities of human beings 100,000 ago had any influence whatsoever on temperature variants at the macro environmental level. Frankly, I'm more concerned over the ramifications of not pumping the oil.
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 18, 2008 21:07:56 GMT -5
the federal government’s noose on big oil has destroyed the incentives. There's no money in exploring alternatives. There's no money in developing new oil refineries. Honestly, rmn, I don't know how you can keep a straight face writing this. Have you seen the profits of big oil? and not the profits of sspeculators, who are certainly responsible for some of the mess we're in, but the profits of Exxon and the rest? I think it best that you revisit your Econmics 101 and skim the part referencing the distinction between a profit and a profit margin. When you've done this, we'll discuss varying profit margins associated with Exxon and businesses from other sectors. When did greed get so rapacious that the concept of "reasonable profit" simply vaporized? As for there being no profit in exploring for alternatives, that sounds -um- a bit socialistic. Should govt step in and promise there will be no risk? The business of oil exploration is inherently risky. You missed my point. I'm simply indicating that existing taxation related to big oil is counterproductive to exhaustive exploration, not to mention the development of much needed oil refineries. How much incentive did the government offer Bill Gates? People get great ideas, think there's a market and go for it. Most fail and some win big, but why should govt. have to offer incentives? Actually, I do believe in incentives for start-up costs and reasonable loan rates, but I don't believe in guaranteeing profits. Capitalism is about risk, which is why all the fat cats wax poetic about the reason they deserve so much profit - look at the terrible risk we took! But if they won't expand refinery capacity and they can't convince communities that they can build a safe refinery, all the more reason to stop stubbornly pursuing oil and gas for energy. Rubbish.. There's a lot going on in the plains states - from here to Texas - with wind farms. As I said earlier, a lot in the hydrogen abracadabra I don't understand and solar which I also don't understand. But I'm not going to be the venture capitalist who makes it big in these industries. I'm going to be the cautious consumer who says, hmm, maybe one of those dealies hart was talking about. Or maybe we could go back to street cars which were ripped out so Henry Ford could get rich. But this is getting off-topic on global warming. The evidence is there. If a logical hypothesis is that carbon fuels are a significant driver of the undeniable phenomenon, why not test the hypothesis?
|
|
|
Post by doctork on May 19, 2008 6:29:14 GMT -5
rmn, your point about profit vs profit margin is well-taken. As I understand it, the profit margin for the oil industry as a whole is in the neighborhood of 9 - 10% - not very high for a "risky" industry. I believe pharmaceutical margins are in the vicinity of 15 - 18 % (definitely a risky business when it costs over $1 billion to bring a new drug to market, and only one in 5,000 substances investigated leads to a blockbuster drug.) Utility companies, the epitome of safety as "widows and orphans investments," run a highly regulated (ie, government-dictated as permissible) margin of 7 - 8 %.
Of course, if the profit margin is 10% and the gross revenue is $100,000, the margin of $10,000 will be absolutely larger than the margin of $1,000 when the gross is $10,000.
With oil currently at record prices of $126 per barrel, the raw material cost is about $3.00 per gallon, at 42 barrels per gallon, and assuming it's relatively pure. The remaining $1.00 per gallon must cover the costs of exploration, refining, transporting and delivering to the consumer, including the costs of creating many different versions of the product to meet different state and business requirements. That's a pretty low-margin business.
In our county, we always have the highest gas prices in the state, even though there is a refinery within sight of my house (ie, minimal transport costs). Great minds (UW and WWU) have studied the explanation: supply and demand competition. We are a small county, so we get a relatively small allocation, but we face substantial competition for the supply from Canadians. So close to the border, people from BC always fill up here when they visit our airport or mall, and some will drive down here just to tank up, as even though we are over $4 per gallon, we're more than $1 cheaper than in BC. However, those Canadian dollars keep our economy strong in many other ways, so I won't complain too much.
Does this absolve the corporate titans and the feds from guilt? No. Still too much greed on the part of execs who grant themselves huge salaries and bonuses while self-serving boards smile and stamp "OK." This crime is not limited to the oil industry; there are far worse offenders elsewhere, and they have more to do with corporate governance (as well as lax regulation). And the government - it's in league with the auto/oil industry in perpetuating more of the same instead of retooling for alternatives. I'm told by local great minds and those elsewhere, that technology exists to build 98% efficient automobiles and zero-energy buildings, or even buildings that produce energy to add to the grid.
Oh - don't forget that those profits accrue largely to us, we the people who invest in the companies, either directly through stock purchases, or indirectly through our retirement accounts, or through our corporate accounts, for those fortunate enough to still have a "defined benefit" pension.
Oil is a puny whipping boy, compared to the thickly lined pockets of those who pursue it (the corporatocracy, if you are no too sick of me blaming them), protect it, and fight wars over it.
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 19, 2008 13:14:38 GMT -5
Very well written, DocK.
rrmn, your point about profit vs profit margin is well-taken. As I understand it, the profit margin for the oil industry as a whole is in the neighborhood of 9 - 10% - not very high for a "risky" industry. I believe pharmaceutical margins are in the vicinity of 15 - 18 % (definitely a risky business when it costs over $1 billion to bring a new drug to market, and only one in 5,000 substances investigated leads to a blockbuster drug.) Utility companies, the epitome of safety as "widows and orphans investments," run a highly regulated (ie, government-dictated as permissible) margin of 7 - 8 %. Of course, if the profit margin is 10% and the gross revenue is $100,000, the margin of $10,000 will be absolutely larger than the margin of $1,000 when the gross is $10,000. A simple analogy provides another way to look at this: A company in Hoboken makes gizmos, selling each for $10. One gizmo costs the company $8 to produce, so the company profits $2 on each unit. The company’s profit margin is 20%. The supplier then raises the cost of materials so the gizmo now costs $16 to produce. The company then raises the price of the gizmo to $20. Now, the company makes $4 profit on each unit sale, but the profit margin remains at 20%. In theory, more money is made, but the profit margin remains steady.
Lots of consumer angst out there regarding Exxon’s fat cats and their evil ways. There’s nothing wrong going on here. This is simply smart business.With oil currently at record prices of $126 per barrel, the raw material cost is about $3.00 per gallon, at 42 barrels per gallon, and assuming it's relatively pure. The remaining $1.00 per gallon must cover the costs of exploration, refining, transporting and delivering to the consumer, including the costs of creating many different versions of the product to meet different state and business requirements. That's a pretty low-margin business. In our county, we always have the highest gas prices in the state, even though there is a refinery within sight of my house (ie, minimal transport costs). Great minds (UW and WWU) have studied the explanation: supply and demand competition. We are a small county, so we get a relatively small allocation, but we face substantial competition for the supply from Canadians. So close to the border, people from BC always fill up here when they visit our airport or mall, and some will drive down here just to tank up, as even though we are over $4 per gallon, we're more than $1 cheaper than in BC. However, those Canadian dollars keep our economy strong in many other ways, so I won't complain too much. Does this absolve the corporate titans and the feds from guilt? No. Still too much greed on the part of execs who grant themselves huge salaries and bonuses while self-serving boards smile and stamp "OK." This crime is not limited to the oil industry; there are far worse offenders elsewhere, and they have more to do with corporate governance (as well as lax regulation). And the government - it's in league with the auto/oil industry in perpetuating more of the same instead of retooling for alternatives. I'm told by local great minds and those elsewhere, that technology exists to build 98% efficient automobiles and zero-energy buildings, or even buildings that produce energy to add to the grid. Oh - don't forget that those profits accrue largely to us, we the people who invest in the companies, either directly through stock purchases, or indirectly through our retirement accounts, or through our corporate accounts, for those fortunate enough to still have a "defined benefit" pension. Oil is a puny whipping boy, compared to the thickly lined pockets of those who pursue it (the corporatocracy, if you are no too sick of me blaming them), protect it, and fight wars over it.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on May 20, 2008 20:08:08 GMT -5
You have all made some good points here, and it seems indicative to me that any discussion on global warming inevitably progresses into a discussion of government economic policy and corporate economic policy, while skirting the most likely cause, as Hart suggests, the hubris of humanity— the one thing that we, as individuals, have the potential to change.
Here is a blog that has been predicting the progression of the oil crisis exactly as we are experiencing it since before the first Bush administration. His archives seem to only go back to 2007 now, but his site is still all inclusive. My favorite article header from his blog dates back to at least 2004— "Deal With Reality or Reality Will Deal With You" www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Over the past several generations—since the end of WWII— we the people have taken the concentrated wealth of the world and wasted it on toys. Although the formula for the failure of the oil economy has been evident since the 1970s and the evidence for potential biological damage to the environment has been apparent since the 1960s — science educated thinkers such as Asimov, Heinlein, and Hal Lynsey, to mention the few most well known, wrote non fiction essay's on the dangers of chemical industrialization and over-population going back to the 40s— we the people still raised three generations of children engrossed in the resource intensive economy of toys and the increasing desire for immediate gratification. We now begin to see the reality of that foresight being played out before us and still, we the people, refuse to collectively modify our behavior or, in a timely manner, prepare for our children.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on May 20, 2008 20:45:27 GMT -5
Doc, I have little to say in response to your views since I agree with them in principle. One question I might ask though is: Do you think that the consumer, in this country, is also guilty of, not only over consumption, but laziness in education? What social reforms would you think would be necessary in order to create more rational consumers and a more integrated society.
It would be interesting to hear your comments now that you are somewhat isolated from the immediacy and mediated doctrine of American society.
I Am...Socially concerned and Anti-social (Is that possible?!) Roges
|
|
|
Post by doctork on May 21, 2008 18:56:07 GMT -5
Doc, I have little to say in response to your views since I agree with them in principle. One question I might ask though is: Do you think that the consumer, in this country, is also guilty of, not only over consumption, but laziness in education? What social reforms would you think would be necessary in order to create more rational consumers and a more integrated society. It would be interesting to hear your comments now that you are somewhat isolated from the immediacy and mediated doctrine of American society. I Am...Socially concerned and Anti-social (Is that possible?!) Roges I think socially concerned and anti-social are both possible at the same time, even though it would seem to be an oxymoron. Just as the necessity of social and educational reform coexists with the impossibility. Required contradictions. Yes we are certainly slavishly dedicated to over-consumption, and are lazy in many aspects of American life, not just education. But then, is this not what the older generation always thinks of the younger generation? The more labor-saving devices, the harder we work, 40 - 50 - 60 hours a week on the corporate treadmill. But it's not nearly as hard as having to hunt or grow your own food, let alone dodging landmines to find firewood. Education sinks into the mire of lower SAT scores and dumbed down curricula, but then there is so much more that has to be learned these days. I read an essay a few years ago which suggested that if all Americans would just live on $35,000 per (family income I guess?) and distributed the overage to those in need elsewhere, then everyone on the globe could have food, shelter, healthcare and basic education in fairly short order. Thought provoking, sounds good, but how could that be made to happen? Not voluntarily in most quarters. So then I wonder what disaster will it take to make us change? There are many times I think "Well this is the lowest we can sink, we must have hit bottom, and now things will change." But we don't, we just lower the bar of expectations. No Doomsday yet, but can it be far away. We seem quite insulated from the consequences of our actions, lacking in accountability. If reforms could instill consequences and accountability, that would be an excellent first step. One could say that is what we see now in rising gas prices, and peoples' response. However, I was also around in 1973 - 1975 (or whenever it was we had the last big oil crisis). I thought back then that surely we would change our wasteful habits. Instead we just have more monster SUV's and Hummers, 99% of which are never driven off-road or by people in military attire. Guess it just depends on my mood on the day you ask. Other days, I am filled with hope for the future, and inspired by many positive changes I see. One reason I do volunteer work overseas is to keep things in perspective, quit my bellyaching.
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 22, 2008 15:10:37 GMT -5
You have all made some good points here, and it seems indicative to me that any discussion on global warming inevitably progresses into a discussion of government economic policy and corporate economic policy, while skirting the most likely cause, as Hart suggests, the hubris of humanity— the one thing that we, as individuals, have the potential to change.
Here is a blog that has been predicting the progression of the oil crisis exactly as we are experiencing it since before the first Bush administration. His archives seem to only go back to 2007 now, but his site is still all inclusive. My favorite article header from his blog dates back to at least 2004— "Deal With Reality or Reality Will Deal With You" www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Over the past several generations—since the end of WWII— we the people have taken the concentrated wealth of the world and wasted it on toys. Although the formula for the failure of the oil economy has been evident since the 1970s and the evidence for potential biological damage to the environment has been apparent since the 1960s — science educated thinkers such as Asimov, Heinlein, and Hal Lynsey, to mention the few most well known, wrote non fiction essay's on the dangers of chemical industrialization and over-population going back to the 40s— we the people still raised three generations of children engrossed in the resource intensive economy of toys and the increasing desire for immediate gratification. We now begin to see the reality of that foresight being played out before us and still, we the people, refuse to collectively modify our behavior or, in a timely manner, prepare for our children. Well written. Thoughts well formulated. I look forward to looking at these links this weekend. r
|
|
|
Post by michael on May 22, 2008 21:52:47 GMT -5
These last half dozen or so posts have been some of the best serious posting I’ve read here. Very impressive thoughts, and beautifully articulated too!
When I read about curbing overindulgence, I think about China’s one-child policy. It’s extremely unpopular with many, but one can’t say that the Chinese government isn’t serious about dealing with over population. I guess that’s one of the benefits of not worrying about being reelected by popular vote.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on May 22, 2008 22:40:52 GMT -5
I agree with Mike. These posts are educational and enjoyable.
I know that I'm very undereducated in these particular matters, but there is so much to know in this world. I can't shake a finger at myself for my ignorance. otoh, if I were to bury my head in the sand, that would be another matter.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jun 19, 2008 13:55:05 GMT -5
FWIW, which isn't a lot, this from a right-wing site:
//Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:48 PM
In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former vice president’s home energy use surged more than 10 percent, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”
In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.
In February 2007, "An Inconvenient Truth," a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.
After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.
Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.
In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.
“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.//
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jun 19, 2008 19:16:43 GMT -5
Ace, you said a mouthful. We supposedly pay attention to saving energy, but we're awfully spoiled. I simply cannot get Jerry to remember to turn off lights. But I'm the one who starts whining whenever the temperature is a degree off my ideal range, which is embarrassingly tiny. You can see what Snopes has to say about Gore's house here: www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.aspI'll bet DrK could open our eyes to what life in Afghanistan is like. For instance, do they shower and put on clean clothes every day? Would they let water run to get a cold drink? How far is too far to walk?
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jun 19, 2008 23:15:53 GMT -5
I'll bet DrK could open our eyes to what life in Afghanistan is like. For instance, do they shower and put on clean clothes every day? Would they let water run to get a cold drink? How far is too far to walk? Few people in Afghanistan have running water, except in the form of a nearby stream or river, which may be dry anyway, owing to the eight years of drought. And the temperature is what it is - if people have money for fuel, they don't waste much of it on heating water. There are few refrigerators, since electricity is unreliable in Kabul, and non-existent outside of cities. I never saw any ice on this trip including in restaurants, though on my previous visit, our guesthouse had a refrigerator/freezer and I made ice cubes from bottled water. The city of Kabul still doesn't have a central water supply, so there are wells in most neighborhoods, from which most people pump their water into buckets and carry it home for use. Needless to day, the water is not necessarily clean, so there are regular cholera outbreaks, not to mention who knows what toxins. Despite all this, I was amazed at how clean most people were (sponge baths I assume, as showers are rare, full baths an occasion), and the great efforts most people made to have clean clothes. "Laundry" usually involved hauling the clothes to the river, washing them there, then laying them on the rocks to dry. Yet even in the villages, most people dressed their best and were clean and nearly 100% polite, helpful, and appreciative. One of our three clinics had electricity and running water (non-potable however), the others had neither. We generally worked an abbreviated day, say 9 am to 1 or 1:30 in the clinic, because it was not safe to eat our lunch in the clinic area. Two reasons - us gringos would get sick if we ate food prepared in the normal Afghan fashion, and then it really wasn't a good idea to eat even a modest lunch in the presence of hundreds of people who were hungry but had minimal food. I'm sure it bothered us more than the Afghans, as they are always hospitable to guests, and they would go hungry themselves while they served generous meals to visitors. Travel - most anyplace is not too far to walk or bike. Or else you don't go there. There are real buses in the cities, always crowded, and then there are informal buses. In certain areas, cars or vans gather and load up with people headed in a certain direction. A price is negotiated, and off they go. One never sees a car or van that is not packed full of people, and most people plan trips well in advance to line up the vehicle and passengers. Taxis are plentiful in the cities, but you have to have the money to pay for them. If you throw away anything, it will probably be recycled. Many people earn their meager living by scavenging trash cans;plastic water bottles are prized. "Trashcans" is actually a misnomer, as civic garbage collection is quite limited. When I was working as a consultant in Kabul in 2003 I had to make an under-the-table arrangement to have hospital trash hauled away when it was more than we could incinerate. All that said, life in most of Afghanistan is much better now than in 2003. The headlines you see relating to Taliban activity, which is increasing greatly, pertain to the border areas, and maybe 5 provinces. Overall, more kids, especially girls, are in school, the Afghan National Police are more numerous and professional, the Army is making progress in self-defense, and fuel and electricity are more plentiful, at least in the cities. There are traffic lights and traffic cops, and most drivers pay attention. We in the US are incredibly privileged, and often we don't even realize how much we take for granted. Every day I think it's a miracle when I turn on the tap and get drinkable water. Personally, I refill the plastic bottled water bottles I get at meetings or at 7-11 in a pinch; I don't worry about BPA (at least not as an adult). In the Third World, those bottles are reused for all kinds of creative endeavors.
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Jun 19, 2008 23:54:01 GMT -5
Last night, to celebrate our 20th anniversary, Ace and I attended an event sponsored by his college alum. (I can not possibly spell the plural on that word. Total mystery) It was about creating a sustainable life. One idea a speaker put forth is that an already-built house is greener than a newly built house. Well, he said it snappier than me, but his point was that it takes much more of our resources to build a new house than to "green up" an older home. And that houses built before 1920 are more green than houses build between 1929 - 2000. Gracie? You're in an old home, oui?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 20, 2008 0:19:49 GMT -5
Last night, to celebrate our 20th anniversary, Ace and I attended an event sponsored by his college alum. (I can not possibly spell the plural on that word. Total mystery) It was about creating a sustainable life. One idea a speaker put forth is that an already-built house is greener than a newly built house. Well, he said it snappier than me, but his point was that it takes much more of our resources to build a new house than to "green up" an older home. And that houses built before 1920 are more green than houses build between 1929 - 2000. Gracie? You're in an old home, oui? Wow, you guys really know how to celebrate! Did they serve Champagne? Mike
|
|
|
Post by Gracie on Jun 20, 2008 7:14:22 GMT -5
Last night, to celebrate our 20th anniversary, Ace and I attended an event sponsored by his college alum. (I can not possibly spell the plural on that word. Total mystery) It was about creating a sustainable life. One idea a speaker put forth is that an already-built house is greener than a newly built house. Well, he said it snappier than me, but his point was that it takes much more of our resources to build a new house than to "green up" an older home. And that houses built before 1920 are more green than houses build between 1929 - 2000. Gracie? You're in an old home, oui? Hey, happy anniversary! Couldn't happen to two nicer people... We live in an old house, yes--although it's not as old as the house I still love and miss, which was built in 1897. This one was built sometime in the '40s, I think. And I think there are some greener aspects to it. For one thing, people didn't used to have all the gadgets we have now, so there are far fewer outlets for electrical use. There are no hallways--every room opens into another--which waste a lot of light, heat, etc. (My daddy never built a hallway into any of the houses he designed for our family.) There is carpet here, but the floors beneath are hardwood. If we owned this place, I'd tear up the carpets and go with rugs over the floors--which is what I did in my house. Old houses were hardly ever carpeted, and carpeting can have a lot of chemicals in it. The rooms are big enough but not too, and the ceilings are ditto; this place can be heated and cooled very efficiently; there is one A/C unit in the living room and I would not have it except it makes a huge difference for my asthma, because it keeps the humidity down much better than a dehumidifier does. But it's not set at iceberg temps, and has been off the last three days/nights, because we're having lovely mid 70's temps and wonderful breezes. And this place is heated with a boiler--yeah, hot water heat. We put up ceiling fans (which have to come down when we move out) to circulate either the heat or coolness much better, and then we can keep the temps at much more reasonable levels. I can see how things could be improved here, but we don't own it and can't do anything that isn't pre-approved. We go as green as we can: walk wherever we can, dovetail tasks so they can be accomplished in one trip, and Griz handles all the errands near his office and I near the library. When we need to buy anything, we hit the thrift shops first, and almost always we can find what we need in one of them. I don't have Tupperware; my leftovers are stored in glass jars and we wash and reuse plastic bags indefinitely. I use gallon and half-gallon pickle jars to store the various rices, beans, grains, flour, sugar, pasta, dry milk, all that, on my pantry shelves; it looks nice, it makes it easy to see when supplies are low. Almost all our clothes come from thrift shops, including what we wear to work. I often buy adult clothing that can be taken apart and made over into things for Betsy, something I learned from my mom (she does the same thing, making many nighties and dresses for her, which Betsy adores.) I pretty much stick to classic styles; my winter coats are a swing style blue wool that I got at a thrift shop ten years ago and a green trench coat I got at a consignment shop eight years ago. Neither looks dated. With Betsy constantly growing, most of my clothing money goes for her, so I am always watching for separates that I can mix and match for myself, and that way I don't look as if I am wearing the same thing ALL THE TIME! I do a lot with scarves and belts, and I buy bags of junk jewelry at the thrift shops and yard sales and re-make them into things I like. I get tons of comments on my style, and I can feel really good at knowing that I am recycling by doing what I do. Just yesterday I recovered Grizzy's papa-san chair cushion with a Persian style rug I used to use at camp. The edges are ragged, but the rug is soft, faded, lovely muted colors, and it looks fantastic. It makes me smile every time I see it. And you know what? Both the rug and the chair were trash-picked. Freebies. Our neighbors behind us--the ones who tore down the old house and built a huge new very expensive one--not green at ALL--are constantly acquiring things and then they set stuff out with free signs on it. Just this summer alone, we have got 4 oscillating fans, a lawn glider which was worth taking for the cushions alone, and two sets of wicker bookshelves that are taller than I am. We pretty much live as our parents did, with the mindset of 'use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without.' And none of feel in the least deprived. I actually enjoy the challenge of making something from nothing, and I love seeing how nice I can make things without spending much. And I think we are giving Betsy some good values by doing so. She's the first one to pick up trash when she sees it littering, and is passionate about recycling (which of course we do, every single thing we can--if we can't recycle or reuse in house!) Coming to full circle about houses....my parents built one in 1980 using lots and lots of used items--fixtures, windows, even flooring (they were the low bidders on the old YMCA gym floor, and once we removed all the old paint there was gorgeous blond maple flooring, enough for every room but the kitchen and bath, which were tiled with discontinued floor tiles that we got for 3 cents EACH). We did all the work ourselves, too, right down to digging the drain fields for the septic system and backfilling around the foundation. The house cost $20,000 to build, and was appraised and valued at $60,000 when it was completed.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jun 20, 2008 9:29:58 GMT -5
I'm curious about what's involved in "greening up" a house. I guess I always thought that meant things like solar panels. Is it greener to have walls and hallways? HGTV still has every househunter or redesigner raving about open floorplans. (These shows continue to amuse me, though I'm tapering off.)
Our house was built in 1940, so I guess it missed the magic cut-off. What happened in 1929 besides the stock market crash? Or is that the connection - that they started using cheaper materials? I know that insulation in many houses was newspaper.
Our Mpls. house was built in 1909, a cute little workingman's bungalow, but I wouldn't have called it green. We had to tape all the windows in winter and there were a million places for cold to get in. But I'm guessing there's more to green than that.
Kristin, I knew you would amaze us, but my socks have been blown all the way to Manitoba. Still, much of what you describe is like the state of the little cottage my grandparents had on the last remaining 20 acres of their farm. Propane stove, electricity but not much power, pumping all water from the well, spit baths and an outhouse. It was still like that when we sold it in 1964, though anyone going "out to the 20" took bottled water.
About BPA. I thought we were never supposed to wash and reuse plastic bags or bottles. I feel really guilty about the quantity of plastic bags we use and I don't think they're recyclable. OTOH all the little microbes have gotten so much more lethal that keeping things tightly sealed seems almost essential. DrK's comment about common cholera outbreaks makes me shudder.
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Aug 6, 2008 1:34:59 GMT -5
France accused of Rwanda GenocideThis story is shocking to me. All my francophile ways aside, I'm keen to hear the truth behind this. The gist of the story: Rwanda has accused France of playing an active role in the genocide of 1994, in which about 800,000 people were killed.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Aug 6, 2008 12:20:02 GMT -5
I'll watch the Christian Science Monitor on this, as among US publications, they have the best and most comprehensive coverage of international news. They explain how and why something happened, as well as the details of what happened. In fact Susan, you could probably check their online edition and archives for more info.
I suspect that both the Rwandan and French sides of the story you posted have considerable truth to them. I'm a Francophile myself, but must admit that the French had centuries of imperialistic activity in Africa, hence frequent references to "francophone Africa". And the French Foreign Legion has always attracted outstanding warriors, some of whose origin and behavior are at best from the fringe.
IIRC, Bernard Kouchner was the founder of MSF (Doctors Without Borders), something of a surprise appointment as foreign minister. But his heart is probably still in the right place, I hope. I saw a clip of former President Clinton touring Rwanda recently, and he was fudging and dancing about his culpability in that genocide. The entire world could have done much better.
The Hutus of 1994 were a far more efficient killing machine than the Nazis ever hoped to be. so much for "never again."
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Aug 6, 2008 19:27:47 GMT -5
There's a further story on the BBC page, did you two read that? I'm having trouble following the different factions, and the resulting international relationships. The follow-up says Clinton and Tony Blair are friends of the current government.
To be honest, the 90s weren't my best years. There's a lot of African and European news that I just don't remember clearly - Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia etc. But we know that our own hands were anything but clean in South American wars that we should be ashamed of meddling in. The French may well have aided and abetted without ever intending genocide.
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Aug 7, 2008 2:32:50 GMT -5
I have not read further.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Aug 23, 2008 13:50:11 GMT -5
Is picking Joe Biden as a veep candidate a stroke of genius? It sure seems to me like it may be.
I heard a very smart person say, the other day, that if McCain chooses Lieberman (sp?) as his running mate, he may as well go to work forwarding Obama's mail to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Aug 23, 2008 21:43:23 GMT -5
A couple of thoughts.
Joe Biden certainly has a lot more experience than Barack Obama, and could serve as a bit of reassurance to people who like Obama but aren't sure he's ready, much as Cheney on the ticket in 2000 reassured people who thought Bush might not be quite up to the job.
OTOH some people, like me, might say that they have the ticket upside down. Obama might have been a good running mate for Biden. A parliamentary system would not have made this mistake.
On balance, I think it is a good choice, and he'll probably help the ticket, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Aug 23, 2008 22:01:24 GMT -5
A headline on msn's home page makes it look like Biden has come out swinging and yelling about the Republicans. That disappoints me. Why can't they just campaign for what they believe and want to do, and not immediately begin the negativity?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Aug 23, 2008 22:09:51 GMT -5
Well, I suppose they have to dissuade people from voting for the opponents, if they can't convince them to vote for themselves. IOW, a certain amount of pointing out what's wrong with the opponents is legit as a way of telling people why they should vote for you, but the Senate in particular seems to have become a hotbed of excessive negativity. I hadn't especially associated Biden with it, but maybe he's filling the role on this year's ticket.
|
|