COMMENTS: 109
How to Live a Low-Energy Lifestyle
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.
Aside from all the sniping about his annual home power bill (which turns out to be so high partly because he spends an extra five grand or so to buy wind power and might also have something to do with a vice president's security needs), lots of the usual "free market uber alles" types are accusing him and all green-minded folks of forcing them to wear the dreaded "hair shirt" of mandatory reductions in their energy use.
Incredibly, those who aren't complaining about the sacrifices are indignant about Gore making it all seem too easy. In Robert J. Samuelson's New York Times editorial last week titled "Hollywood's Climate Follies," he accuses Gore of painting the issue as "saints vs. sinners" and failing to acknowledge that "the lifestyles that produce greenhouse gases are deeply ingrained in modern economies and societies. ... Those who believe that addressing global warming is a moral imperative face an equivalent moral imperative to be candid about the costs, difficulties and uncertainties."
It's hard to tell exactly what triggered Samuelson's outrage, but it seems to be a line from Gore's Oscar acceptance speech where he said, "We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act. That's a renewable resource. Let's renew it."
But what will it take to renew that resource? Everywhere the conventional wisdom is that Americans will never give up their big cars, big houses, air conditioning set at 65 degrees on hot summer afternoons and incandescent light bulbs blazing throughout the house. This is the American way of life, and the idea that it cannot last seems to drive some people into hysterical fits. Don't just do something, panic! Al Gore and the greenies want to send us back to the 1970s!
There's no decade more reviled than the 1970s. Everything about it, from the funky earth-tone fashions, to the granola-chomping hippies, to disco, has been the butt of countless jokes. What I remember most about the '70s though, was getting my driver's license and then having to wait in line to buy gas because OPEC had decided to act like capitalists and charge what the market would bear. That formative experience set me on a career path concerned with energy and the environment. It also committed me to lifestyle choices that have led to me to where I am now -- sitting on a hillside in Oregon just beyond reach of the power grid.
With all the attention now on what are admittedly going to be the great challenges and sacrifices that lie ahead, I feel it incumbent to serve as an ambassador for the American low-energy lifestyle. It's really not so bad, folks.
That said, there's no way in which I feel I am some sort of paragon of sustainable living. I'm not. I drive a car, I buy too many cheap, imported consumer goods, and I take lots of hot baths and showers. In many ways, my life is like that of any typical suburban homeowner of modest means. Except that I make my own power for 11 months out of the year.
It's only 11 months, because after the rains start in November, it still takes a month for the creek to rise high enough to run the small hydropower generator that gets me through the cloudy winter months. So there's a month of running the gas generator, at least part of the time. But from April to October, there's plenty of sunshine to keep my batteries charged. And my system is a relatively small one. I have 700 watts of solar power that cost me about $5,000 to purchase and install.
My small power system is enough because I have taken several easy measures to keep my energy use within my means. No. 1 is to turn things off when they are not in use -- this includes light bulbs as well as the plethora of electronics and appliances that sit around sucking up standby power. Seventy-five percent of the electricity used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned off. Across the United States, this equals the annual output of 12 power plants and costs consumers over $1 billion each year. Buy some power strips so you can take back control over these "vampire loads."
Light bulbs are also crucial. Lighting is about 25 percent of US electricity use. Compact fluorescent (CF) light bulbs use about one-third the energy of incandescent bulbs. I hear a lot of griping about compact fluorescents -- the color is weird, they're not as bright, etc., and I don't understand it. I've been using them for ten years now and they have gotten so much better! The old ones were an awful blue color and they cost 10 or 15 bucks a piece. Now you can get them in a full spectrum of colors for less than two dollars. I don't miss incandescents a bit. Except for the sauna -- don't put a CF bulb where it will get too hot, like a recessed lighting fixture. I'm going to get one of the LED bulbs for my wood-fired sauna.
My small power system won't allow me to run electric heat or air conditioning. I have a wood stove for heat that also supplies hot water in the winter, and I don't need air conditioning here in Oregon. I have a propane refrigerator, bought back before we added the backup gas generator. I may switch to a superefficient, electric-powered refrigerator at some point. That leaves laundry. Luckily, the other member of my household seems to enjoy the trip to the town laundromat. It's a chance to hang out at the bagel shop and socialize.
Does all this amount to a hair shirt? Am I suffering, or do I feel deprived? No. When I need light, I have light. I've got a computer, phone and home entertainment whenever I want it. I stay warm, and I eat good food. I have friends and neighbors who share my values. We eat home-grown vegetables, play home-grown music and celebrate life. We eat (gasp!) granola.
I think there was a campaign against the hippies -- I'll never understand why we got such bad press, except that I think we were bad for business. We tended to value community over consumerism. But despite the repression, there are many ways that the hippie ideals have carried through into the mainstream culture.
The back-to-the-land movement may have started with the Foxfire series, that wonderful compendium of Appalachian traditional arts and crafts, but it ended with Martha Stewart. The American handcraft tradition is something we still long for. When we can't afford the shipping for cheap Chinese goods, maybe we'll support native handcrafters again. One person's hair shirt is another person's hand-knitted sweater from soft, locally grown Merino wool.
Living with the earth rhythms the way you do off-grid isn't for everyone, and it doesn't have to be. You don't have to like the hippie style or aesthetic. But you might have to start looking more Euro or Japanese than you really want to. The Japanese use half the energy we do, yet still maintain an affluent lifestyle. Many European countries do the same. We can look to Japan and Europe for models, but we can also do it our own way.
Now is our chance to develop the American low-energy lifestyle. You can see how I do it. Multiply my investment by ten and you can outfit a regular suburban house in California to meet all of its own energy needs plus charge an electric car. See "The Near-Zero-Energy Home Makeover" in Solar Today. But not everyone can afford to make that kind of personal investment in solar energy. We have to pull together to make it happen. It's mostly a matter of changing our priorities.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has projected that the final cost of the Iraq war will be at least a trillion dollars. I wondered how much solar power that money would buy, so I made a quick, back-of-the-envelope calculation. The installed cost of solar power is currently about $9 a watt, so $20,000 would buy a 2.2 kilowatt solar power system. That is enough power for a household with modest needs to spin the meter backward a good portion of the time. A trillion dollars would put a system like that on 50 million roofs.
Our parents and grandparents rose to the challenges of WWII and retooled our domestic industries into a finely honed war machine in a matter of months. There was no whining about "hair shirts" and sacrifice. There's a part of us that longs to make the kind of noble sacrifice we are called on to do in wartime. Many, many people are looking at their children today and wondering what they can do to leave them a world cool enough to live in. They are ready to do something now but don't know where to start. Here are the first two things everyone should do right now.
Start by turning things off. That's a very American mode from my growing up. Parents who lived through the Depression were always telling you to turn the lights off. Thrift is a virtue.
The other immediate sacrifice we all should make is to devote whatever amount of time it takes to contact all of our state and federal representatives and instruct them to start legislating Al Gore's 10-point action plan into reality. Do it now. There is no time to waste.
Note: Here's my advice for anyone who wants to start investing in a home energy system now. The variety of federal and state incentives programs is confusing, so start by going to Findsolar.com, a website supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and the solar power industry. There you will find a database of qualified solar installers, along with a handy tool to estimate the size, cost and payback time of a system that meets your needs, taking into account your area's solar potential and the state programs you are eligible for. One word of caution: The estimator asks you to input your current average monthly power bill as a way of calculating your energy needs. This may lead to a much larger system than you really need. If you haven't already taken steps to reduce your use, do that first. In our experience of living off-grid, we have learned that it is much cheaper to invest in energy-saving light bulbs and appliances than to buy additional solar modules.
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gourdman on Apr 5, 2007 1:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The rules don't apply to our elite Socialist overlords
Posted by: ateo
» RE: The rules don't apply to our elite Socialist overlords
Posted by: CriminallySane
» Oh, I heard from one of these idiots that Gore was supposedly...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: The rules don't apply to our elite Socialist overlords
Posted by: wiseowl2
» Change the world? Change your diet!
Posted by: swells
» RE: Take responsibility for the world? Take responsibility for your diet!
Posted by: angryyoungwoman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Apr 5, 2007 2:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Samuelson-style critiques are right in that Al Gore has the sense of mission and the money to do all of that. Many of us are just trying to survive, and already watch our energy consumption.
The part that bothers me about the anti-hippies is the active resistance...throwing trash in the recycle bin, throwing recycles in the trash bin...throwing trash out the window, driving an SUV, etc. It all goes back to this American attitude that we can do whatever we want; f*** the environment and f*** the rest of the world. It's a big part of our national mentality, and only crisis circumstances will force a large-scale change.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Anti-hippies"
Posted by: ateo
» And yet some want to consider a culture that fosters that to be healthy. nm
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: "Anti-hippies"
Posted by: NWCrow
» Just Remember
Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Cool
Posted by: plantsareneat
» RE: Cool
Posted by: Artkansas
» Too a point ...
Posted by: AdamSelene40
Comments are closed-
Posted by: socialpsych on Apr 5, 2007 3:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» There are those who are skeptical of it.. but their voices often don't make it into the mainstream..
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Good answer
Posted by: kepstein7777
» Yep
Posted by: WhatNow?
» Yes! Two of the major factors go ignored.
Posted by: JohnF
» Ecocide for a Quick Buck
Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: cocide for a Quick Buck
Posted by: JohnF
» RE: BIRTH CONTROL Indeed
Posted by: Arousiak
» RE: BIRTH CONTROL Indeed
Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: BIRTH CONTROL Indeed
Posted by: angryyoungwoman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: expos on Apr 5, 2007 4:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Remember the '60's song...
Posted by: truthteller
Comments are closed-
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Apr 5, 2007 4:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It isn't possible for everyone to suddenly change to the author's lifestyle, but if we make this a crash national priority and make a significant investment in R&D we could lead the world in new greener technologies - definitely a growth industry for decades to come.
Instead of leading the world in energy consumption and environmental impact, we can lead in the opposite direction - and incidentally create millions of jobs and enormous wealth in the process. That is what investment is supposed to do. With some real leadership on the national level, it will.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's great when people do what they can to reduce their footprint
Posted by: CriminallySane
» RE: It's great when people do what they can to reduce their footprint
Posted by: churchofone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: williameon on Apr 5, 2007 5:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Drive less.
Change that light bulb.
Shut that light off!
Make more energy efficient:
Choices and purchases.
With your Dollar
This is how we can effect the market.
The Quit voice
Turns into a roar.
Practice
Energy conservation.
Everyday
Together we can beat this thing.
With cooperation and application
Of basic energy conservation principles.
The Three Y’s
Say:
Yes to more efficient Vehicles!
Say:
Yes to Fluorescent Light Bulbs
Say:
Yes to more efficient Appliances!
Make your World a better place
&
That’s a start.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» But most importantly . . .
Posted by: swells
» unless you fly often
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ellie on Apr 5, 2007 5:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
power deregulation happened here a few years ago, but there are no 'green' energy suppliers in this state (ohio)...
our power bill rate per killowat hour is the same as our neighbors, but we manage to use fewer hours (a lot fewer) and our bill always seems to be higher then theirs... fees, taxes, generating charge, transmission surcharge etc...
don't say hire an electrician to figure out why our bill is higher because the other person in this home IS a journyman, union electrician...
my point is, that if you cut too far back on consumption, you are penalized...
ok, back to coffee and trying to figure out the electric bill that came in this morning!!!!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I've discovered the same thing,
Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming
» That's a shame; where do you live? This doesn't happen here
Posted by: Beck
» The devil you know
Posted by: eddie torres
» You are welcome, and I stand corrected, anyway
Posted by: Beck
» RE: in many communities in this country...
Posted by: DrSuess
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bart Thesc on Apr 5, 2007 6:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Arkansas does that, actually..
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ecoalex on Apr 5, 2007 7:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IMPEACH BUSH CHENNY NOW !
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Florescent light causes cancer
Posted by: bgeerdes
» RE: Florescent light causes cancer
Posted by: CriminallySane
» RE: Florescent light causes skin cancer?
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Florescent light causes cancer
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Florescent light causes cancer
Posted by: juanpecan81
» RE: Florescent light causes cancer
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Florescent lights contain MERCURY!!
Posted by: HoldmAccountable
» yes, you are not supposed to throw them in your regular trash
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lonpine on Apr 5, 2007 7:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine if prices were set by the market, and you could essentially buy and sell power not only from and to the monopoly utility, but also to millions of other customer-producers. People could see the value of investing in solar systems. The price of solar would continue to drop. People's rooftops could become a source of revenue for them. Pass a carbon tax, and big utilities will see the price of solar and wind become even more competitive. Perhaps solar PV chips would start following Moore's law, and become ever more efficient with time.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» distributed subsidies
Posted by: eddie torres
» Yeah, but that just uses up more resources to make all the tech to do it with...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Risky, but worth the gamble
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: distributed power
Posted by: truegenius
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rdf on Apr 5, 2007 8:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then there are those who live in the suburbs and, increasingly, the exurbs. There is nothing that they can do to compensate for the ecological cost of driving, sprawl and loss of land to development. Some stories have started to emerge about the looming water crisis in the sun belt, but in truth there is no long range solution. People should be moving into the rust belt which has compact cities and plenty of existing infrastructure.
Then let's not forget the consumerism that underlies our economy. Walmart got as big as it is by selling us stuff we don't need that is cheaply made, shipped half way around the world and quickly replaced. Sorry, I belong to the group that thinks sacrifice is inevitable - even if no politician will talk about it. The US is 4% of the world's population and consumes 40% of the resources. This simply can't continue.
We can either make a plan to transition to a sustainable economy or mother nature will do it for us.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Unrealistic
Posted by: juanpecan81
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jzelensk on Apr 5, 2007 10:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In an inner ring suburb of Denver, we switched to all fluorescent lamps (we called them bulbs till our Electician son corrected our terminology!), got a front loader clothes washer (at Sears Scratch & Dent), hang dry our laundry over the tub, downsized our cars by around 50% in cu. inches, put on-off switches on some of our appliances (TV's, etc.), installed automatic timed thermostats, double-wrapped our water heater with insulation, and replaced a gas furnace (c. 1972) with a more efficient one without a pilot light, and replaced some single pane metal-frame windows and glass doors with double-pane wood frame ones. But we still have a ways to go: need to replace 20-yr. old fridge, dishwasher and stove with more energy efficient ones.
None of these actions killed us, and by doing them over about 5 years, smoothed out the financial hit. As a result, despite rising gas and electric rates, our monthly bill is slightly less than what it was in 1987. And oh, by the way, that is after adding a 1,000 square foot pop-up 11 years ago.
We're hardly wearing hair shirts.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: JimZ
Posted by: Madame Defarge
» RE: JimZ
Posted by: truegenius
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DrSuess on Apr 5, 2007 10:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nice tip. Hadn't heard about that yet.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: halve your heat bill to save the planet
Posted by: djnoll
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DrSuess on Apr 5, 2007 11:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, fate intervened, and I did not buy a house in the “right” part of town. Computer programmers were slammed with outsourcing after 2000, and in 2003 I got a pink slip made by “outsourced” programmers in India. Fate, as in a long period of underemployment (ie a highly skilled programmer grading tests, cleaning apartments, and flipping burgers) brought me into the deep downtown of Indianapolis.
I now own 6 houses in the deep downtown, all of them were in need of “rehab” when I bought them. I can tell you with certainly that it is possible to increase the energy efficiency of these old houses- I have done it. I can also tell you that there are places in every city where the government is extremely free with its building permits. As long as you don’t have a car up on blocks in your front yard- everything is ok. There are also new home subdivisions in Indianapolis where you cannot build a dog house, or plant the “wrong” kind of tree in your back yard, or put a fence around your yard.
Most people will not follow my course, and move into an old neighborhood in need of revitalization. There are however, many neighborhoods in Indy – almost all of them older neighborhoods, where you are fairly free to do what you want. The most restrictive rules about building permits are in the “new” neighborhoods- ie 1990 and 2000 houses. Neighborhoods built before that usually have more lenient rules. In Indy, there is an “artsy” place called Broad Ripple where I see quite a few solar panels on roofs. If you want freedom to do what you want – the older neighborhoods are better.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: on Apr 5, 2007 11:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
* They're damned expensive. Roughly $15 for a single bulb.
* They die very quickly when turned on and off frequently. They fare better when left on permanently, which obviously defeats the whole purpose. (Even if they're more efficient than incandescents, I don't want them on all the time.)
* They contain mercury, which is an extremely nasty toxin. I'm not taking chances with direct mercury exposure, especially given I have a small child in my house.
* They are dangerous. On one occasion, one of those damnable compact fluorescent bulbs burned out on me (due to having been turned on and off too frequently). But rather than simply dying like an incandescent, what happened was that voltage continued to surge through it, and the plastic material in the base became extremely hot. I have no problem believing that if I wasn't there, a fire could have started. Did mercury get released as well? I have no way of knowing. I've also read reports from other people who have had the same extreme-heat-on-burnout issue happen to them. Search the internet on your own and you will see what I mean.
Given the expense, the toxicity, and the danger, I'll pass on these pieces of shit. Thanks anyway.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Fear Mongols, not fear mongers
Posted by: eddie torres
» Rubish
Posted by: sondjata
» RE: ubish
Posted by: truegenius
» RE: You can shove compact fluorescent bulbs where...nothing shines
Posted by: weatherking
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bttl on Apr 5, 2007 12:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is the yard- quit scalping the lawn, grow a huge garden, and mulch, mulch, mulch. Don't use gadgets like those blowers- rake your leaves- and compost them.
Bike, walk, do mass transit if it exists. Carpool, lump your errands into one trip.
Quit buying so much stuff. Buy used. Really.
Buy local food- it matters.
Downsize to a smaller car or drive the one you have a lot less. Don't idle. Slow down. Don't tailgate.
Turn stuff off in the house. Unplug the phantom loads.
Don't wash clothing unless they are dirty-other than socks and underwear- why not wear it several times?
Insulate and calk leaks.
Turn down the heat. Quit using AC. Fans work.
Done all this? Well work on the town to relax their rules- so you can have no lawn if you want, hang the clothes out to dry and keep chickens or whatever.
Then worry about solar panels, wind gens etc if you want.
I live totally off-grid-but I do all of the above as well. I promise you-it's not painful, it's a good life and way cheaper too.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Just Start Already
Posted by: truegenius
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Guy on Apr 5, 2007 1:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all know why Big Oil wants to maintain the status quo, but we need to be able to take back govt so that it can be used to lead us in the right direction.
"Lookin for a leader...."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: harinama on Apr 5, 2007 2:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Honest and frugal living for me has these tenets:
not wracking up massive debt (credit card)
using only the energy needed
getting more exercise by GOING OUTSIDE (vs. health clubs,
indoor crap trainers, etc)
not having children
recycling/composting everything possible
having a garden that supplements my food
using biodegradable disposable products (ie. plastic bags)
1 car in my family (vs 2-3 average)
taking a bus to work EVERYDAY
living in a modest size house at 1600sqft (vs 3000+ average)
reusing everything before throwing away (ie. wood scraps, nails, etc)
putting 20%+ of GROSS income away for retirement
refinanced to a 15yr house loan, saving us over $200k.
buying many clothes at a 2nd hand stores($3 for a shirt instead of $50), and shopping garage sales, etc.
driving ONLY when necessary. (ie. we use a handcart for groceries up to 3 bags)
last but not least, RESTRICTING TV(propaganda) WATCHING.
These are the things that EVERY family should be doing in America. We need to use peer pressure to change the habits of our families and friends. With enough outcry, the lawmakers will begin to take notice and force changes.
However, ultimately responsibility lies with the consumer. Think about it everytime you use your card, or whip out cash "Do i NEED this, or do i just WANT this"? That is the metric i used to help my wife change her spending habits, and now she is seeing the payoff, and we both have much less anxiety, as we now have a safety net, instead of living month to month.
In an era when most families are buried in debt, society has to start using peer pressure to get them to shape up. Govt needs to crack down on preditory lending, corporatist domestic and foreign programs, push CONSERVATION, better technologies with carrots and sticks, and reinstating a more progressive tax system, and STOP SPENDING THE NATIONAL TREASURY ON IMPERIALIST WARS.
We can make a difference by setting an example and hounding others who don't. These issues need to be taught extensively in schools, namely conservation, frugality and finance.It is far past time to worry about other people's feelings, or infringing on their "way of life" we need to shove frugality and conservation down their throats and make them pay dearly if they refuse to cooperate.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: quality of life
Posted by: churchofone
» RE: quality of life
Posted by: truegenius
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vertical on Apr 5, 2007 2:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You don't use that much? Do you factor in the energy costs for every product you consume?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» The chores, the chores
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: The chores, the chores
Posted by: peacefullaim
Comments are closed-
Posted by: joshuawelch on Apr 5, 2007 3:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mn on Apr 5, 2007 6:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I'm not sure momma is able to be all that selective when reading the "genetic codes".....
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nutu on Apr 5, 2007 7:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WitchyNy on Apr 5, 2007 8:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing you can do is shop secondhand for all your clothes. Fancy city 'work' clothes are such a joke. We should all be living in (Union made in America)blue jeans and tee shirts.
Meanwhile- shop second hand....think of it as a form of protest- a way to recycle- and a way to save LOTS of money- all in one!
A good start to changing the world-let's kill off the fashion industry!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: you poor city people-
Posted by: truegenius
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Apr 5, 2007 11:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone and everyone could and should raise the issue at their local city council meeting and encourage the issue to at least be factored into normal maintenance and replacement cycles as a good-governance issue. If we're all turning off our own lights, why don't we ask that cities do the same?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The biggest collective waste of electricity...
Posted by: Madame Defarge
» RE: The biggest collective waste of electricity...
Posted by: bookie
» RE: The biggest collective waste of electricity...
Posted by: Madame Defarge
» RE: The biggest collective waste of electricity...
Posted by: truegenius
» RE: The biggest collective waste of electricity...
Posted by: churchofone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bookie on Apr 5, 2007 11:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Findsolar.com
Posted by: truegenius
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rottndog on Apr 6, 2007 12:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for the laundry being done at a laundromat......isn't that on the grid???? Uhless you happen to be using the most modern laudromat in the country it's not even likely they are very efficient machines.
As for the hydro power, that's one of the biggest environmental disasters in the country today, damning of streams. Maybe not your little part time brook...although that may be causing problems for some animals....but is that in any way something reproducible for even hundreds of thousands of americans???? Never mind millions?? Is the Three Georges dam in China a green form of energy?
You definitely make some good points but seem to really miss the mark on a few things too. If you need to use the laundromat, oh well, but don't say your off the grid.....and wood buring in hardly an enviromentally great way of doing anything, nor is damming streams and rivers.
Unfortunately I think your article tends to make largely exactly the opposite point it attempts. It is not really possible to live much of a life style on 700 watts of power, or even to make it all that cleanly with today's technology and prices. You are buring gas (some of the time, and in a small generator that is much dirtier per watt of output than large industrial plants, not to mention harder to regulate and the costs and dangers of fuel transportation), burning wood and damming streams. All that done on a large scale hardly adds up to a really green planet.
We should all be doing many of the conservation things you are and I praise you for your goals, it's just not close to what you make it out to be right now. We need a lot more funding of research, capital investment and much stronger regulation of outputs of pollutants of large power plants, much stronger CAFE standards, probably some form of Al Gore's BTU tax, LOTS more public transportation, better designed and sited housing, stop or minimize wasteful outdoor lighting....it's a long list, and it includes lots of things people will see as sacrifices, even if over all it's a much better lifestyle...oh, and eating less meat would make a huge difference too!
When modern and efficient, and well regulated, large industrial power plants are orders of magnatude cleaner than your wood furnace or gas generator. That's something we could make huge difference in if the congress and president would act like it matters.
:) Mark McCabe
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richholland on Apr 6, 2007 5:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Big companies like PROFITS, so if you use less energie the prices will go up.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Apr 6, 2007 5:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the 1980s LA had 1762 days of unhealthy air warnings... in the 1990s it had 658 days.. a drop of 62.7 %. The point is yeah we have done some stupid crazy things to our planet, but we have actually been cleaning things up with little fanfare...
Consider also the fact between 1982 and 2002 the US eliminated 92% of environmental dioxins. Not to mention the fact that lead once found in the bloodstreams of babies is now absent from the majority...
I think it is far more useful to look at the successes that we have had and build on them rather than point fingers and bitch and moan and say that everytthing is awful...Ask yourselves this... what are you more attracted to? A cause with a positive message with hope or that which constantly berates and belittles people for thier lifestyles.... I certainly know I will always be more inclined to latch onto a cause that is certain of success...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Lets
Posted by: truegenius
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Madame Defarge on Apr 6, 2007 8:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Most office buildings in large cities are lit up through out the night, every night. We could adopt laws that would charge office buildings triple the electrical rate from 7:00pm until 7:00pm.
2. For decades, many third world countries have refused to require catalytic converters on their cars and trucks, even though they make a big difference in both air quality and carbon emissons. The World Bank and UN could offer subsidies for public transportation and buyouts of old lead based fuel cars and trucks.
3. All coal fired plants the world over should be required to have scrubbers, while all automobile manufacturers should have a target to boost their gas milage by at least 50% in the next 5 years.
4. Put a $20.00 surcharge on all 660 million plane tickets sold in the US every year and use the money to build a high speed rail system. With dough like that we could change the way much of America travels, perhaps within a decade.
5. Likewise, a penny per gallon tax on gasoline sales could raise almost 1.5 billion dollars per year (if my math is right) which could be put into public transportation projects such as subways, street cars and light rail.
6. San Francisco has a system that gives all residents a bin for compost, that is collected every week along with the trash and recycling. The city then sells the compost. It's great way to cut down on carbon emissions that's good for the soil, too.
If we put our energy into inspiring governments and businesses to make massive changes, we'll get a lot more accomplished a lot sooner.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dayahka on Apr 6, 2007 9:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Are you poor or just re-direct your affluence?
Posted by: Kelpie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: johndoraemi on Apr 6, 2007 6:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you track the popular Internet videos, you may have come across a British TV production called The Great Global Warming Swindle (Google Video). I do not wish to defend the propaganda, the personalities, or the several straw man arguments that appear in this lengthy program.
All I want to focus on is the science.
This is a study of some global warming dissenters in the climate field.
Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is also explored, in particular Gore's central claim, the theory of manmade global warming as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:
"The relationship is very complicated, but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this: when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer." --Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth
This quote is presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle at around 20 minutes in, and then it is mercilessly shredded by the climate scientists.
According to Al Gore's theory, increased levels of carbon dioxide CAUSE an increase in global temperature. But, interestingly enough, Al Gore does not prove this in his film. Far from it. The very real possibility that increases in temperature cause an increase in carbon dioxide levels (and not vice-versa) is never addressed. Al Gore has short-changed humanity in this most glaring omission: establishing causation.
So, which is it?
Does a rise in carbon dioxide cause a rise in the temperature?
OR, does a rise in the temperature cause a rise in carbon dioxide?
This is no small question. The entire global economy is being reengineered on the assumption that the first scenario is true. But is it really?
What About 800 Years of Lag?
The big counter-argument to Gore is made by Professor Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa. Clark says that the ice core record shows that changes in atomospheric carbon levels come after the temperature has already changed, in one example by as much as 800 years.
"CO2 clearly cannot be causing temperature changes. It's a product of temperature. It's following temperature changes." --Professor Ian Clark
This is highly significant, if true, as it completely disproves Al Gore's theory of manmade global warming. This view is seconded by Professor Tim Ball, a Climatologist at the University of Winnipeg:
"But the ice core record shows exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change -- due to humans -- is shown to be wrong." --(emphasis in original) Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
Is There a Better Alternative Theory?
The film presents an alternate theory that better matches the data: Changes in sun activity cause changes in global temperature.
Other scientists who study sunspots, which are actually gigantic storms and indicate more solar activity, present their case.
The data record of changes in solar activity can be corroborated by multiple data sources. The conclusion of the film is that this record proves that sun activity correlates to global temperature far better than CO2 levels do.
This is a simplified, scaled-down summary of the claims made by the two camps.Further investigation will be needed.
continues
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Continued
Posted by: johndoraemi
» RE: Has Al Gore's CO2 Theory Fizzled Out? No, it hasn't
Posted by: dkm
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 420africa on Apr 7, 2007 9:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
420africa.org
The 420 Africa Project
Did you know that a very simple way to restore wealth to Africa is to grow a lot of pot there? In fact, at roughly 25% of Africa's total crop production, Africa would soon become the wealthiest continent on Earth.
Pot or Marijuana also known as Hemp is one of the most useful plants on the planet.
Hemp can be easily grown where the earth is arid, and can, in fact, thrive in a low water environment creating a root system 6 feet deep. After harvest, the soil where the hemp was sown is healthier and aerated 6 feet deep into the earth making a perfect environment for crops previously untenable in the same soil. The newly aerated soil will be sufficient for most harvested fruit, vegetable & grain crops.
Our Mission:
We have outlined five major steps to accomplishing the most efficient transfer of wealth to the African continent:
Step 1:
Africa begins to rotate 25 percent of all its crops as hemp creating a rich fertile soil for all desired crops. Africa improves its soil aeration to add new crops
Step 2:
Africa creates hemp fiber and hemp paper assembly line products that would soon easily dwarf the current American textile sources.
Step 3:
Africa uses a biodeisel fuel created by Hemp to eliminate world oil markets. The amount of clean burning biodeisel would be about 50 percent of all hemp crop production in Africa at current oil usage levels.
Step 4:
Africa becomes the world leader in marijuana medical therapies; including drug derivatives; concentrated extracts and methodology. Rastafarian Jamaicans with connections to Ethiopia or other African nations help spread the word throughout Africa about how to grow and use marijuana.
Step 5:
African people restore pride & prominence to their history and culture. Africa becomes a very safe healthy environment choosing its own non-colonial destiny.
End of Mission
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vertical on Apr 9, 2007 2:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Apr 10, 2007 7:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And where did THAT energy come from?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gourdman on Apr 5, 2007 1:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The rules don't apply to our elite Socialist overlords
Posted by: ateo
» RE: The rules don't apply to our elite Socialist overlords
Posted by: CriminallySane
» Oh, I heard from one of these idiots that Gore was supposedly...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: The rules don't apply to our elite Socialist overlords
Posted by: wiseowl2
» Change the world? Change your diet!
Posted by: swells
» RE: Take responsibility for the world? Take responsibility for your diet!
Posted by: angryyoungwoman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Apr 5, 2007 2:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Samuelson-style critiques are right in that Al Gore has the sense of mission and the money to do all of that. Many of us are just trying to survive, and already watch our energy consumption.
The part that bothers me about the anti-hippies is the active resistance...throwing trash in the recycle bin, throwing recycles in the trash bin...throwing trash out the window, driving an SUV, etc. It all goes back to this American attitude that we can do whatever we want; f*** the environment and f*** the rest of the world. It's a big part of our national mentality, and only crisis circumstances will force a large-scale change.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Anti-hippies"
Posted by: ateo
» And yet some want to consider a culture that fosters that to be healthy. nm
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: "Anti-hippies"
Posted by: NWCrow
» Just Remember
Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Cool
Posted by: plantsareneat
» RE: Cool
Posted by: Artkansas
» Too a point ...
Posted by: AdamSelene40
Comments are closed-
Posted by: socialpsych on Apr 5, 2007 3:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» There are those who are skeptical of it.. but their voices often don't make it into the mainstream..
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Good answer
Posted by: kepstein7777
» Yep
Posted by: WhatNow?
» Yes! Two of the major factors go ignored.
Posted by: JohnF
» Ecocide for a Quick Buck
Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: cocide for a Quick Buck
Posted by: JohnF
» RE: BIRTH CONTROL Indeed
Posted by: Arousiak
» RE: BIRTH CONTROL Indeed
Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: BIRTH CONTROL Indeed
Posted by: angryyoungwoman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: expos on Apr 5, 2007 4:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Remember the '60's song...
Posted by: truthteller
Comments are closed-
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Apr 5, 2007 4:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It isn't possible for everyone to suddenly change to the author's lifestyle, but if we make this a crash national priority and make a significant investment in R&D we could lead the world in new greener technologies - definitely a growth industry for decades to come.
Instead of leading the world in energy consumption and environmental impact, we can lead in the opposite direction - and incidentally create millions of jobs and enormous wealth in the process. That is what investment is supposed to do. With some real leadership on the national level, it will.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's great when people do what they can to reduce their footprint
Posted by: CriminallySane
» RE: It's great when people do what they can to reduce their footprint
Posted by: churchofone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: williameon on Apr 5, 2007 5:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Drive less.
Change that light bulb.
Shut that light off!
Make more energy efficient:
Choices and purchases.
With your Dollar
This is how we can effect the market.
The Quit voice
Turns into a roar.
Practice
Energy conservation.
Everyday
Together we can beat this thing.
With cooperation and application
Of basic energy conservation principles.
The Three Y’s
Say:
Yes to more efficient Vehicles!
Say:
Yes to Fluorescent Light Bulbs
Say:
Yes to more efficient Appliances!
Make your World a better place
&
That’s a start.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» But most importantly . . .
Posted by: swells
» unless you fly often
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ellie on Apr 5, 2007 5:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
power deregulation happened here a few years ago, but there are no 'green' energy suppliers in this state (ohio)...
our power bill rate per killowat hour is the same as our neighbors, but we manage to use fewer hours (a lot fewer) and our bill always seems to be higher then theirs... fees, taxes, generating charge, transmission surcharge etc...
don't say hire an electrician to figure out why our bill is higher because the other person in this home IS a journyman, union electrician...
my point is, that if you cut too far back on consumption, you are penalized...
ok, back to coffee and trying to figure out the electric bill that came in this morning!!!!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I've discovered the same thing,
Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming
» That's a shame; where do you live? This doesn't happen here
Posted by: Beck
» The devil you know
Posted by: eddie torres
» You are welcome, and I stand corrected, anyway
Posted by: Beck
» RE: in many communities in this country...
Posted by: DrSuess
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bart Thesc on Apr 5, 2007 6:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Arkansas does that, actually..
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ecoalex on Apr 5, 2007 7:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IMPEACH BUSH CHENNY NOW !
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Florescent light causes cancer
Posted by: bgeerdes
» RE: Florescent light causes cancer
Posted by: CriminallySane
» RE: Florescent light causes skin cancer?
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Florescent light causes cancer
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Florescent light causes cancer
Posted by: juanpecan81
» RE: Florescent light causes cancer
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Florescent lights contain MERCURY!!
Posted by: HoldmAccountable
» yes, you are not supposed to throw them in your regular trash
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lonpine on Apr 5, 2007 7:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine if prices were set by the market, and you could essentially buy and sell power not only from and to the monopoly utility, but also to millions of other customer-producers. People could see the value of investing in solar systems. The price of solar would continue to drop. People's rooftops could become a source of revenue for them. Pass a carbon tax, and big utilities will see the price of solar and wind become even more competitive. Perhaps solar PV chips would start following Moore's law, and become ever more efficient with time.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» distributed subsidies
Posted by: eddie torres
» Yeah, but that just uses up more resources to make all the tech to do it with...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Risky, but worth the gamble
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: distributed power
Posted by: truegenius
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rdf on Apr 5, 2007 8:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then there are those who live in the suburbs and, increasingly, the exurbs. There is nothing that they can do to compensate for the ecological cost of driving, sprawl and loss of land to development. Some stories have started to emerge about the looming water crisis in the sun belt, but in truth there is no long range solution. People should be moving into the rust belt which has compact cities and plenty of existing infrastructure.
Then let's not forget the consumerism that underlies our economy. Walmart got as big as it is by selling us stuff we don't need that is cheaply made, shipped half way around the world and quickly replaced. Sorry, I belong to the group that thinks sacrifice is inevitable - even if no politician will talk about it. The US is 4% of the world's population and consumes 40% of the resources. This simply can't continue.
We can either make a plan to transition to a sustainable economy or mother nature will do it for us.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Unrealistic
Posted by: juanpecan81
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jzelensk on Apr 5, 2007 10:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In an inner ring suburb of Denver, we switched to all fluorescent lamps (we called them bulbs till our Electician son corrected our terminology!), got a front loader clothes washer (at Sears Scratch & Dent), hang dry our laundry over the tub, downsized our cars by around 50% in cu. inches, put on-off switches on some of our appliances (TV's, etc.), installed automatic timed thermostats, double-wrapped our water heater with insulation, and replaced a gas furnace (c. 1972) with a more efficient one without a pilot light, and replaced some single pane metal-frame windows and glass doors with double-pane wood frame ones. But we still have a ways to go: need to replace 20-yr. old fridge, dishwasher and stove with more energy efficient ones.
None of these actions killed us, and by doing them over about 5 years, smoothed out the financial hit. As a result, despite rising gas and electric rates, our monthly bill is slightly less than what it was in 1987. And oh, by the way, that is after adding a 1,000 square foot pop-up 11 years ago.
We're hardly wearing hair shirts.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: JimZ
Posted by: Madame Defarge
» RE: JimZ
Posted by: truegenius
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DrSuess on Apr 5, 2007 10:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nice tip. Hadn't heard about that yet.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: halve your heat bill to save the planet
Posted by: djnoll
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DrSuess on Apr 5, 2007 11:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, fate intervened, and I did not buy a house in the “right” part of town. Computer programmers were slammed with outsourcing after 2000, and in 2003 I got a pink slip made by “outsourced” programmers in India. Fate, as in a long period of underemployment (ie a highly skilled programmer grading tests, cleaning apartments, and flipping burgers) brought me into the deep downtown of Indianapolis.
I now own 6 houses in the deep downtown, all of them were in need of “rehab” when I bought them. I can tell you with certainly that it is possible to increase the energy efficiency of these old houses- I have done it. I can also tell you that there are places in every city where the government is extremely free with its building permits. As long as you don’t have a car up on blocks in your front yard- everything is ok. There are also new home subdivisions in Indianapolis where you cannot build a dog house, or plant the “wrong” kind of tree in your back yard, or put a fence around your yard.
Most people will not follow my course, and move into an old neighborhood in need of revitalization. There are however, many neighborhoods in Indy – almost all of them older neighborhoods, where you are fairly free to do what you want. The most restrictive rules about building permits are in the “new” neighborhoods- ie 1990 and 2000 houses. Neighborhoods built before that usually have more lenient rules. In Indy, there is an “artsy” place called Broad Ripple where I see quite a few solar panels on roofs. If you want freedom to do what you want – the older neighborhoods are better.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: on Apr 5, 2007 11:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
* They're damned expensive. Roughly $15 for a single bulb.
* They die very quickly when turned on and off frequently. They fare better when left on permanently, which obviously defeats the whole purpose. (Even if they're more efficient than incandescents, I don't want them on all the time.)
* They contain mercury, which is an extremely nasty toxin. I'm not taking chances with direct mercury exposure, especially given I have a small child in my house.
* They are dangerous. On one occasion, one of those damnable compact fluorescent bulbs burned out on me (due to having been turned on and off too frequently). But rather than simply dying like an incandescent, what happened was that voltage continued to surge through it, and the plastic material in the base became extremely hot. I have no problem believing that if I wasn't there, a fire could have started. Did mercury get released as well? I have no way of knowing. I've also read reports from other people who have had the same extreme-heat-on-burnout issue happen to them. Search the internet on your own and you will see what I mean.
Given the expense, the toxicity, and the danger, I'll pass on these pieces of shit. Thanks anyway.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Fear Mongols, not fear mongers
Posted by: eddie torres
» Rubish
Posted by: sondjata
» RE: ubish
Posted by: truegenius
» RE: You can shove compact fluorescent bulbs where...nothing shines
Posted by: weatherking
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bttl on Apr 5, 2007 12:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is the yard- quit scalping the lawn, grow a huge garden, and mulch, mulch, mulch. Don't use gadgets like those blowers- rake your leaves- and compost them.
Bike, walk, do mass transit if it exists. Carpool, lump your errands into one trip.
Quit buying so much stuff. Buy used. Really.
Buy local food- it matters.
Downsize to a smaller car or drive the one you have a lot less. Don't idle. Slow down. Don't tailgate.
Turn stuff off in the house. Unplug the phantom loads.
Don't wash clothing unless they are dirty-other than socks and underwear- why not wear it several times?
Insulate and calk leaks.
Turn down the heat. Quit using AC. Fans work.
Done all this? Well work on the town to relax their rules- so you can have no lawn if you want, hang the clothes out to dry and keep chickens or whatever.
Then worry about solar panels, wind gens etc if you want.
I live totally off-grid-but I do all of the above as well. I promise you-it's not painful, it's a good life and way cheaper too.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Just Start Already
Posted by: truegenius
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Guy on Apr 5, 2007 1:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all know why Big Oil wants to maintain the status quo, but we need to be able to take back govt so that it can be used to lead us in the right direction.
"Lookin for a leader...."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: harinama on Apr 5, 2007 2:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Honest and frugal living for me has these tenets:
not wracking up massive debt (credit card)
using only the energy needed
getting more exercise by GOING OUTSIDE (vs. health clubs,
indoor crap trainers, etc)
not having children
recycling/composting everything possible
having a garden that supplements my food
using biodegradable disposable products (ie. plastic bags)
1 car in my family (vs 2-3 average)
taking a bus to work EVERYDAY
living in a modest size house at 1600sqft (vs 3000+ average)
reusing everything before throwing away (ie. wood scraps, nails, etc)
putting 20%+ of GROSS income away for retirement
refinanced to a 15yr house loan, saving us over $200k.
buying many clothes at a 2nd hand stores($3 for a shirt instead of $50), and shopping garage sales, etc.
driving ONLY when necessary. (ie. we use a handcart for groceries up to 3 bags)
last but not least, RESTRICTING TV(propaganda) WATCHING.
These are the things that EVERY family should be doing in America. We need to use peer pressure to change the habits of our families and friends. With enough outcry, the lawmakers will begin to take notice and force changes.
However, ultimately responsibility lies with the consumer. Think about it everytime you use your card, or whip out cash "Do i NEED this, or do i just WANT this"? That is the metric i used to help my wife change her spending habits, and now she is seeing the payoff, and we both have much less anxiety, as we now have a safety net, instead of living month to month.
In an era when most families are buried in debt, society has to start using peer pressure to get them to shape up. Govt needs to crack down on preditory lending, corporatist domestic and foreign programs, push CONSERVATION, better technologies with carrots and sticks, and reinstating a more progressive tax system, and STOP SPENDING THE NATIONAL TREASURY ON IMPERIALIST WARS.
We can make a difference by setting an example and hounding others who don't. These issues need to be taught extensively in schools, namely conservation, frugality and finance.It is far past time to worry about other people's feelings, or infringing on their "way of life" we need to shove frugality and conservation down their throats and make them pay dearly if they refuse to cooperate.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: quality of life
Posted by: churchofone
» RE: quality of life
Posted by: truegenius
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vertical on Apr 5, 2007 2:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You don't use that much? Do you factor in the energy costs for every product you consume?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» The chores, the chores
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: The chores, the chores
Posted by: peacefullaim
Comments are closed-
Posted by: joshuawelch on Apr 5, 2007 3:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mn on Apr 5, 2007 6:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I'm not sure momma is able to be all that selective when reading the "genetic codes".....
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nutu on Apr 5, 2007 7:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WitchyNy on Apr 5, 2007 8:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing you can do is shop secondhand for all your clothes. Fancy city 'work' clothes are such a joke. We should all be living in (Union made in America)blue jeans and tee shirts.
Meanwhile- shop second hand....think of it as a form of protest- a way to recycle- and a way to save LOTS of money- all in one!
A good start to changing the world-let's kill off the fashion industry!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: you poor city people-
Posted by: truegenius
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Apr 5, 2007 11:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone and everyone could and should raise the issue at their local city council meeting and encourage the issue to at least be factored into normal maintenance and replacement cycles as a good-governance issue. If we're all turning off our own lights, why don't we ask that cities do the same?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The biggest collective waste of electricity...
Posted by: Madame Defarge
» RE: The biggest collective waste of electricity...
Posted by: bookie
» RE: The biggest collective waste of electricity...
Posted by: Madame Defarge
» RE: The biggest collective waste of electricity...
Posted by: truegenius
» RE: The biggest collective waste of electricity...
Posted by: churchofone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bookie on Apr 5, 2007 11:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Findsolar.com
Posted by: truegenius
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rottndog on Apr 6, 2007 12:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for the laundry being done at a laundromat......isn't that on the grid???? Uhless you happen to be using the most modern laudromat in the country it's not even likely they are very efficient machines.
As for the hydro power, that's one of the biggest environmental disasters in the country today, damning of streams. Maybe not your little part time brook...although that may be causing problems for some animals....but is that in any way something reproducible for even hundreds of thousands of americans???? Never mind millions?? Is the Three Georges dam in China a green form of energy?
You definitely make some good points but seem to really miss the mark on a few things too. If you need to use the laundromat, oh well, but don't say your off the grid.....and wood buring in hardly an enviromentally great way of doing anything, nor is damming streams and rivers.
Unfortunately I think your article tends to make largely exactly the opposite point it attempts. It is not really possible to live much of a life style on 700 watts of power, or even to make it all that cleanly with today's technology and prices. You are buring gas (some of the time, and in a small generator that is much dirtier per watt of output than large industrial plants, not to mention harder to regulate and the costs and dangers of fuel transportation), burning wood and damming streams. All that done on a large scale hardly adds up to a really green planet.
We should all be doing many of the conservation things you are and I praise you for your goals, it's just not close to what you make it out to be right now. We need a lot more funding of research, capital investment and much stronger regulation of outputs of pollutants of large power plants, much stronger CAFE standards, probably some form of Al Gore's BTU tax, LOTS more public transportation, better designed and sited housing, stop or minimize wasteful outdoor lighting....it's a long list, and it includes lots of things people will see as sacrifices, even if over all it's a much better lifestyle...oh, and eating less meat would make a huge difference too!
When modern and efficient, and well regulated, large industrial power plants are orders of magnatude cleaner than your wood furnace or gas generator. That's something we could make huge difference in if the congress and president would act like it matters.
:) Mark McCabe
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richholland on Apr 6, 2007 5:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Big companies like PROFITS, so if you use less energie the prices will go up.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Apr 6, 2007 5:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the 1980s LA had 1762 days of unhealthy air warnings... in the 1990s it had 658 days.. a drop of 62.7 %. The point is yeah we have done some stupid crazy things to our planet, but we have actually been cleaning things up with little fanfare...
Consider also the fact between 1982 and 2002 the US eliminated 92% of environmental dioxins. Not to mention the fact that lead once found in the bloodstreams of babies is now absent from the majority...
I think it is far more useful to look at the successes that we have had and build on them rather than point fingers and bitch and moan and say that everytthing is awful...Ask yourselves this... what are you more attracted to? A cause with a positive message with hope or that which constantly berates and belittles people for thier lifestyles.... I certainly know I will always be more inclined to latch onto a cause that is certain of success...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Lets
Posted by: truegenius
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Madame Defarge on Apr 6, 2007 8:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Most office buildings in large cities are lit up through out the night, every night. We could adopt laws that would charge office buildings triple the electrical rate from 7:00pm until 7:00pm.
2. For decades, many third world countries have refused to require catalytic converters on their cars and trucks, even though they make a big difference in both air quality and carbon emissons. The World Bank and UN could offer subsidies for public transportation and buyouts of old lead based fuel cars and trucks.
3. All coal fired plants the world over should be required to have scrubbers, while all automobile manufacturers should have a target to boost their gas milage by at least 50% in the next 5 years.
4. Put a $20.00 surcharge on all 660 million plane tickets sold in the US every year and use the money to build a high speed rail system. With dough like that we could change the way much of America travels, perhaps within a decade.
5. Likewise, a penny per gallon tax on gasoline sales could raise almost 1.5 billion dollars per year (if my math is right) which could be put into public transportation projects such as subways, street cars and light rail.
6. San Francisco has a system that gives all residents a bin for compost, that is collected every week along with the trash and recycling. The city then sells the compost. It's great way to cut down on carbon emissions that's good for the soil, too.
If we put our energy into inspiring governments and businesses to make massive changes, we'll get a lot more accomplished a lot sooner.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dayahka on Apr 6, 2007 9:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Are you poor or just re-direct your affluence?
Posted by: Kelpie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: johndoraemi on Apr 6, 2007 6:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you track the popular Internet videos, you may have come across a British TV production called The Great Global Warming Swindle (Google Video). I do not wish to defend the propaganda, the personalities, or the several straw man arguments that appear in this lengthy program.
All I want to focus on is the science.
This is a study of some global warming dissenters in the climate field.
Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is also explored, in particular Gore's central claim, the theory of manmade global warming as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:
"The relationship is very complicated, but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this: when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer." --Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth
This quote is presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle at around 20 minutes in, and then it is mercilessly shredded by the climate scientists.
According to Al Gore's theory, increased levels of carbon dioxide CAUSE an increase in global temperature. But, interestingly enough, Al Gore does not prove this in his film. Far from it. The very real possibility that increases in temperature cause an increase in carbon dioxide levels (and not vice-versa) is never addressed. Al Gore has short-changed humanity in this most glaring omission: establishing causation.
So, which is it?
Does a rise in carbon dioxide cause a rise in the temperature?
OR, does a rise in the temperature cause a rise in carbon dioxide?
This is no small question. The entire global economy is being reengineered on the assumption that the first scenario is true. But is it really?
What About 800 Years of Lag?
The big counter-argument to Gore is made by Professor Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa. Clark says that the ice core record shows that changes in atomospheric carbon levels come after the temperature has already changed, in one example by as much as 800 years.
"CO2 clearly cannot be causing temperature changes. It's a product of temperature. It's following temperature changes." --Professor Ian Clark
This is highly significant, if true, as it completely disproves Al Gore's theory of manmade global warming. This view is seconded by Professor Tim Ball, a Climatologist at the University of Winnipeg:
"But the ice core record shows exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change -- due to humans -- is shown to be wrong." --(emphasis in original) Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
Is There a Better Alternative Theory?
The film presents an alternate theory that better matches the data: Changes in sun activity cause changes in global temperature.
Other scientists who study sunspots, which are actually gigantic storms and indicate more solar activity, present their case.
The data record of changes in solar activity can be corroborated by multiple data sources. The conclusion of the film is that this record proves that sun activity correlates to global temperature far better than CO2 levels do.
This is a simplified, scaled-down summary of the claims made by the two camps.Further investigation will be needed.
continues
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Continued
Posted by: johndoraemi
» RE: Has Al Gore's CO2 Theory Fizzled Out? No, it hasn't
Posted by: dkm
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 420africa on Apr 7, 2007 9:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
420africa.org
The 420 Africa Project
Did you know that a very simple way to restore wealth to Africa is to grow a lot of pot there? In fact, at roughly 25% of Africa's total crop production, Africa would soon become the wealthiest continent on Earth.
Pot or Marijuana also known as Hemp is one of the most useful plants on the planet.
Hemp can be easily grown where the earth is arid, and can, in fact, thrive in a low water environment creating a root system 6 feet deep. After harvest, the soil where the hemp was sown is healthier and aerated 6 feet deep into the earth making a perfect environment for crops previously untenable in the same soil. The newly aerated soil will be sufficient for most harvested fruit, vegetable & grain crops.
Our Mission:
We have outlined five major steps to accomplishing the most efficient transfer of wealth to the African continent:
Step 1:
Africa begins to rotate 25 percent of all its crops as hemp creating a rich fertile soil for all desired crops. Africa improves its soil aeration to add new crops
Step 2:
Africa creates hemp fiber and hemp paper assembly line products that would soon easily dwarf the current American textile sources.
Step 3:
Africa uses a biodeisel fuel created by Hemp to eliminate world oil markets. The amount of clean burning biodeisel would be about 50 percent of all hemp crop production in Africa at current oil usage levels.
Step 4:
Africa becomes the world leader in marijuana medical therapies; including drug derivatives; concentrated extracts and methodology. Rastafarian Jamaicans with connections to Ethiopia or other African nations help spread the word throughout Africa about how to grow and use marijuana.
Step 5:
African people restore pride & prominence to their history and culture. Africa becomes a very safe healthy environment choosing its own non-colonial destiny.
End of Mission
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vertical on Apr 9, 2007 2:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Apr 10, 2007 7:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And where did THAT energy come from?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Why Is Obama Trying to Prop Up a Doomed 'Nuclear Renaissance'?
How Can We Talk About Transformational Change Without Losing Hope?
Could All the Freezing Weather Lately Have Anything to Do With Climate Change?




