Zach, I'm assuming out of the numerous positions outlined by Don, these two are the most pertinent to your argument:
Solar Energy in DC
Germans install solar energy systems on residential roofs for about $2 per peak watt. In DC multiple vendors are able to do it for $4 per peak watt or slightly less. A major difference is that in Germany there are no required permits and inspections reducing costs by about $2,000 on average. There is a web based form that needs to be filled in no more than two hours. A German installation is typically done in two weeks or less. The complexity of the American process can requires much more time and higher profit margins. What would you advocate to bring DC costs down to something closer to the average in Germany?
Net Zero Buildings
Mayor Grey has released an impressive Sustainable DC plan. It says that almost 75% of the energy in DC is consumed by buildings(p 58) primarily for heating, lighting and air conditioning. There is a goal of requiring all new building to be netzero by 2025. That means that the building produces as much or more energy than it consumes. There is the further goal of retrofitting all existing and multi-family buildings to be netzero by 2032. The plan notes DC's first passive house in Deanwood which meets a very high standard of energy efficiency. What policies would you recommend for DC to address energy efficient buildings?
Of those two, the top portion asking for less regulation should be amenable with your position. I'm assuming "requiring" all new net zero buildings by 2025 is the one you disagree with according to the principle "Controlling people is much worse for the "environment" than any of the consequences of those people's actions."
Unfortunately, what you've failed to realize is you're essentially taking popular narratives and asking us to accept their truth precisely because they're "self-evident". Other examples of this type of thinking includes:
- Kids today are total morons compared to their predecessors.
- professors know nothing useful but theories.
- All politicians are corrupt and greedy.
There is no further need to examine data. There's no need to look at evidence. it is always the case because it's a popular narrative and it must be true.
So "forcing" car makers for example, to create every new car with a seatbelt has now made everyone worse off...
"Forcing" a racist employer who only wants to hire white people has now made society worse off.
In these two specific instances I suppose you'd prefer if the government took an "advisory" role... as in we advice you to create seatbelts. We advice you not to marry 7 year old girls. We advice you not to discriminate.
At some point Zach, seriously examine the truth of your narratives. This either/or all or nothing thinking that fails to see nuance and understand gray areas is precisely the type of thinking that religious folks tend to have.....
Let the flame wars begin :)
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Zach Moore <[address removed]>
Let's just make something clear. Controlling people is much worse for the "environment" than any of the consequences of those people's actions. As long as you remit yourself to the position of advice giver and not slave master of the public good, then y'all should feel free to rhapsodize all you want about the environment and your own personal initiatives.
On Mar 15,[masked]:53 PM, "Don Wharton" <[address removed]
Yes, we do need to start thinking more
deeply about how we live together. I think most of us are only
slightly unhappy with the rise in food prices. Not all of us connect
the dots and see that much of the rise is linked to the droughts we
had last year and those droughts are what is expected with global
warming AND that future impacts will be much more severe. There
seems to be a consensus that agriculture in the American southwest
will be in trouble. It is not as clear that the breadbasket of our
nation will eventually turn into a scrub desert destroying a much
bigger part of our agricultural productivity.
Sub-Sahara Africa has been subjected to
waves of starvation in the past. Those are very likely to become
worse. The IPCC reports do not project mass starvation from weather
changes. The actual magnitude of precipitation will increase because
a warmer atmosphere will contain more water. They do know that the
water will come in bigger chunks, causing flooding. They also know
that a hotter atmosphere will suck more of the moisture out of the
ground which will make droughts worse. They have not put the dots
together to see that our farmers will have a very tough time dealing
with the changes. To some extent the efficiency of agriculture is
dependent on having the expertise and investment in a given
agricultural area tuned to what can be expected. When the
expectations change there is no guarantee that adjustments can be
made. Our Midwestern farmers can start growing cactus crops and we
can import wheat from Siberia. I somehow doubt that we will find
The IPCC reports have consistently been
off the mark in their projections. Reality seems to have tracked the
absolutely worst aspects of every projection that they have made.
Obviously they are leaning over backwards to be careful in what they
say. That carefulness has meant that the scientific consensus does
not really capture the reality of how bad things will be. The
instincts to be cautious and careful in the scientific reporting is,
in my opinion, resulting in a systematic distortion in the magnitude
of our understanding of what can be expected.
Chad Albus <[address removed]
Ultimately, in spite of my hostility towards religion in general, I think it may be critical to start pushing a sustainable / green energy / pro-depopulation agenda across the god fearing and godless spectrum. If we cannot form a majority within the human community that seeks to find alternatives to the production and consumption of food, population, new construction techniques, and manufacturing then we humans living today may quickly run our course and deservedly so. People who understands nature and mankind's good stewardship thereof more than make up for their short comings in religious belief. A solid environmentalist, who thinks magic underwear will expedite their journey to heaven, trumps the typical SUV driving - mcmansion dwelling - plastic
water bottle consuming -
secularist any day. I have never once referred a fundamentalist christian to the Origin of Species with any hope of conversion. However, preventing human extinction through environmentalism can cut across all walks of life and mystical beliefs... I hope.
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed]
This message was sent by Chad ([address removed]
) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Chad , visit his/her member profile: http://www.meetup.com/DC-Atheists/members/13579518/
Set my mailing list to email me
As they are senthttp://www.meetup.com/DC-Atheists/list_prefs/?pref=1
In one daily
Don't send me mailing list messageshttp://www.meetup.com/DC-Atheists/list_prefs/?pref=0
Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Don Wharton ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Don Wharton, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages
Meetup, POB 4668 #