Earth Day 2007 …
… finds us imperiled by threat of sky falling! Fringe nutjob beliefs now mainstream. You can recycle and engage in conservative practices re energy, environment when it makes sense if you want to. I’m doing it because the signals I receive via the rabbit ears on my tinfoil helmet tell me to.
Unemployment, good for the environment!
Topics: warmalism
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:04 am Comments (21) on Sunday, April 22, 2007
21 Responses to “Earth Day 2007 …”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:48 am
Being an engineer, I went to the “American Institute of Architects” web site and browsed around for what they consider to be a green building.
On the face of it, many of the recommendations are reasonable. However, as with any design standards and technological solutions, some things work better than others. What really matters if the building fits into the local conditions AND supports the needs of the humans using said building, and can be operated at a resonable cost. Any design can be describe as a series of compromises between the ideal and what works best that offer the optimum solution.
As an example, the AIA offers the strategy “Develop strategies to provide natural lighting. Studies have shown that it has a positive impact on productivity and well-being. ”
This makes lots of sense…..if you can provide a minimum ambient light level all day throughout the year. This is difficult to do the further north (and south) one goes from the equator. Therefore, some internal lighting is always required. An opitimum solution would be a balance between natural and artificial light sources.
Assuming, of course, that the building will never be used at night, and requires only minimum safety lighting necessary.
Anyone care to invest in a building that will NOT be used after dark? I don’t think so!
So what will happen is that the builder will install a full lighting system, and install controls to provide “on demand” lighting. Which is an additional cost to simply installing a basic lighting system with manual controls.
The AIA argues that the life cycle returns of such additions will pay for themselves (i.e., they are an investment), but agree that this is an extra up front cost.
Unfortunately, investment returns on new buildings from reduced operating costs assume that the building will not be operated in the traditional fashion. For example, if the “green lighting system” doesn’t provide enough light, the “on demand” lighting system will be turned off in favor of manual controls….thereby eliminating the investment return. Poof! goes the savings….thanks to the poor assumption that people will accept minimum conditions.
I bring this up because I work in a building that was designed to be open and airy, with plenty of natural light…..if you are near a window, and the cubicle walls don’t throw a shadow. Or the full sunlight doesn’t glare your monitor out before you before you pull down the blinds (to the chorus of complaints of other people who aren’t affected in a similar fashion).
And don’t even ask about the costs of maintaining a decent (not comfortable, DECENT) temperature in this building! The “innovative solution” of the time (back in the early 1990s) turned out to be pretty damned expensive almost immediately. Between the heating and cooling load from all the windows and the goofy HVAC system, it’s a pain.
Green buildings make sense….when they are well built. Which is not always the case. Plus green construction techniques make a lot of assumptions that don’t always play out due to environmental factors not considered in the construction plan.
For example, in this article (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/297947_greenfactor01.html), Seattle wants to see more gardens and parks. But one problem with that is they become a “hotel for rats”. Yep, it all comes down to specifics.
So……the AIA talks well, but clearly are more interested in forming architectural design teams using a greenie platform, than in pointing out that “green buildings” are simply highly energy efficient….if the people using them want them that way.
Fringe nutjob beliefs ignore (dare I say it? YES!!) inconvenient truths. That’s not a good idea when it comes to large construction projects. Or even small ones. That way comes disaster. Or at least major problems.
FWIW, when I remodeled my house, I went out of my way to make it energy efficient, but primarily in terms of HEATING, not lighting, but insulating the hell out of the place. So I am not unsympathetic to the concept.
But I also installed a NEW wood stove, and kept the natural gas furnance (and AC unit, by God!). I assume a minimum standard of living, thankyouverymuch, greenies. I save energy because it saves me money…..but I am willing to pay for my creature comforts, without being extravagant (cough cough Al Gore cough cough).
Maybe future generations will accept a lower standard of living, if they can be brainwashed early enough. Not me.
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:54 am
Won’t you join me in celebrating Earth Day by enjoying two of Gaia’s greatest gifts to humanity, cigars and malt whiskey? The tobacco leaf and the alchemical miracle of barley smoked over a peat fire can be appreciated by even the strictest vegan or animal rights activist. Light up, pour forth, and sit back. And say thanks to Mother Nature for her guiltless bounty. It’s finally spring in Boston, and the old girl has never looked more fetching.
Bloodthirsty Liberal
http://bloodthirstyliberal.com
April 22nd, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Make mine a brandy.
Jeff, you are asking people to take all of the context into consideration. In the real world, very little is as simple as they are.
April 22nd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
“…very little is as simple as they are.”
Heh! I have to remember that one, saltydog……
April 22nd, 2007 at 3:25 pm
A lot of buildings could be built with lower impact if the architects simply considered difficulty of implementation for plumbing/electricalHVAC systems specified.
The number of time I see plans with one electrical gear room in a building and massive spider webs of branch circuit home runs spreading out among several floors is incredible.
April 22nd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Yup,
Cigar and a glass of Evan Williams for me, thank you :)
Jeff, the problem with the extra “green spaces” that our freinds of the earth also overlook is that folks want them to be neat and tidy. That means gangs of folks with gas-powered mowers, chippers, leaf blowers, etc, adding more “carbons” into the atmosphere. Plus, because they need all that equipmemt, they also need a hig-assed truck to haul it from park to park.
Now, the simple solution is, of course, to let mother nature take care of the place. Put a nice wrought iron fence all around it, and graze some sheep and/or goats on the place. Maybe pasture the police horses there as well. keeps it neat and tidy, plus fertilizes the park, all at very little overhead. All you need is a shelter for the critters at one end of the green for the winter months. Hey, it’s how they used to keep the grass neat at the White House during the Lincoln Administration (and earlier).
respects,
April 22nd, 2007 at 6:58 pm
If the Iraq War is really as important as you guys say it is, then the smart move would be for you to embrace the anti-climate change position.
Win allies!
Appear reasonable!
Appear not to be tools of Texas-based energy companies!
Show you really can compromise!
Sumpin to ponder.
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Win allies? Like who? The Europeans?
They ain’t worth a warm bucket of spit as allies.
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Crimminee,
With allies like the French, who would possibly need enemies?
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I’m talking about American voters, guys.
The cost of complying with Kyoto is about $2 billion a year.
Or about what we blow in Iraq every single week.
Why stake out a nonsensical position on climate change just because the libruls are on the other side of the issue when it also costs support for your very important clash of civilizations war?
Priorities.
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Note the non sequitur from THE ALPHTARD, folks. From a discussion of leftie envirotards to Iraq to American voters. Only THE ALPHTARD can hijack a thread with such finess.
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Yeah, Tim, I agree. Green spaces in the middle of a city are cool, but they have to be tended. Not to mention being a potential haven for unwanted critters (e.g., rats). Plus the simple overhead for the upkeep. Some people just don’t have a clue, and are happy to describe their “solution” with the big hand wave over a tiny map.
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
The cost of complying with Kyoto is about $2 billion a year…..
Wrong. Maybe in your country, but not even close here.
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:52 pm
It makes sense to keep the environment clean and healthy, and certainly we should be working to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with the environment. But, in fact, our air and water are much, much cleaner than they were fifty years ago, or even thirty years ago (Cuyahoga River, anyone?). And no matter what we do or don’t do, it’s not going to make an iota’s difference in the climate.
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Actually no one has ever complied with Kyoto. And if all it would cost is about 2 billion a year why is it that not one Senator, Democrat or Republican would support it when they had the chance, back in the good old days when Saint Bill was president? Not one vote.
The truth is Kyoto is a joke, designed to help rich countries bleed poor countries while they use some UN based program as a scam. Same old same old. Ten years later no one would have complied, nothing would have been accomplished, economies would have been wrecked and no one but a bunch of oily internationalists and third world thugs would have anything to show for it. The poor would be poorer. Food for oil redux.
Bush has started a program the AP6 {it includes China, Japan, India, South Korea and Australia} that is geared toward technology transfers and real life goals designed to help nations use cleaner fuel. It is voluntary the critics say while they claim Kyoto is binding. What a joke. No one has ever come close to actually complying with that thing and so far the envirocops have not arrested anyone or anything when they failed to reach their quota. All of that for a reduction of 1/2 of 1 degree in a half century….maybe.
Morons like alphie can say what they will but Bush has a ranch which is built with energy saving and green technology. That was part of its construction back before it was popular to do that sort of thing. Gore, on the other hand lives like a King in a palace and absorbs enough energy to sustain a small town…that sort of says it all.
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Kyoto is a wealth transfer scam
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Purple Avenger, I think you mean “wealth re-distribution”, rather like what socialists are always prattling on about. And I doubt that it’s a coincidence.
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Hey, I thought the Democrats were going to get the price of gas down, and now I hear rumors of a carbon tax. It could not be that they lied to people to get their votes now could it? After all as we all know, Democrats are all poor and hate oil companies and rich people and are for the little guy blah blah blah
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:13 pm
The Democrats lied!?!?!?!?!!? Say it ain’t so, Terry! SAY IT AIN’T SO!!!!!!
/histrionics
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 am
What’s more important to you, terrye?
Stopping the Islamofascist meanace or avoiding paying a few cents a gallon more for gas?
Think carefully, you can only chose one…if that.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:54 am
Well alphie, I think I could ask you that question and I am sure the answer would be, the most important thing to me is seeing AlQaida win in Iraq and lots of people get killed and the price of oil skyrocket and the world economy collapse and oodles and gobs of poverty and suffering and death and I can blame it all on the wingnuts. Like my hero Chucky the man Schumer said, this war will win us Senate seats. Parasite.