Baraka_Guru

The BP disaster was quick and devastating, and its effects will linger for a long time.

BP oil spill: 1 year later - Technology & Science - CBC News

Some people call the Alberta tar sands a disaster in slow motion.

Environment Canada says tar sands pollution will get worse - Toronto Star


What do you think? Should we be shifting our focus regarding our energy demands to compensate for the impact it has on the environment?

I think we need to shift and shift hard. I think the average oil consumer has very little clue of the real damage that the oil industry has on the planet. I think that even if we shift now---and hard---that even that is too late. We should have been shifting over our energy policies to renewable clean energy with much more gusto than we have been. We should have done it "yesterday."

I don't think that Americans---or even Canadians---know well enough the specific damage the oil industry has (America is a big customer of Canadian oil). The companies working the Alberta tar sands have destroyed the environment of entire communities, and there isn't enough being done to prevent more damage from happening. This isn't just about flora and fauna---the human victims of oil are real. Either way, the damage being done to the environment alone has gone on for too long.

I realize this will likely result in the increase in energy cost, but I don't think we have a choice, unless we would rather choose flirting with widespread environmental (and, ironically, economic) disaster.

What do you think?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Ourcrazymodern?

I think you know that quick & cheap has always been more attractive to our species. You might legitimately deride the rides oil has given us, but you can't ignore such lubrication. We crawl around at considerably <3 mph on our own. We were supposedly out of crude by the turn of this century, but you'll witness that a lie. We'll keep digging where we know we shouldn't until there's nothing left to dig for. I think we should stop being so greedy &! believing the profit motive is always a good thing. Substantiate our substrates? Yeah.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Lindy

I think we're already too far behind the curve. There's a couple/three billion people in the world that want what we (USA and Canada) have, and are willing to go to any length to get it. They won't want to tolerate any regulations that impede their development.
How many automobiles will it take to make China, India, Indonesia happy? Not to mention the exploding populations of Africa and Brazil who would like air conditioning.

And now, after the tsunami, there's a hue and cry to take nuclear energy completely off the table. Which will greatly increase the demand for and price of oil. Duh! So now, for the sake of the environment we should stop environmentally marginal production? And replace it with what?

So, the elephant in the room is:

The world cannot sustain a high standard of living (or development, if you will) and a population of nearly seven billion people. For a truly sustainable high standard of living, like we enjoy in USA, Canada, Western Europe, and a few other places, about five billion people need to die. Any volunteers?

edit: Interesting that the poll would us the term "oil exploitation" rather than the more neutral "oil production."

Lindy
(Saturday is rant day...)

aberkok

Energy cost and supply. Just the other day I was ranting that we need a politician with the balls to tell us we are going to ration power (like a hose ban... even numbered addresses have power one day, odd numbered addresses the next).

That way, wind, solar and other clean forms will begin to suffice en lieu of deadlier forms like oil and nuclear.

The alternative, as I see it... is that we can all die a slow painful death.

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

Baraka_Guru

This is a big reason why its such a pressing issue. Not enough people have the foresight to see what's happening.

There have been vocal opponents of nuclear energy for years (David Suzuki comes to mind). The amount of money plowed into nuclear (much of it wasted and irrecoverable) could have been put into safer, renewable sources of energy.

I disagree with your premise. I think it's because you base it on current factors. We need to change the factors. I think a high standard of living is possible, but it depends on your standards. You can have a high quality life without being wasteful. Sustainable living is possible, the problem is that we lack the will. Unfortunately, I think it will take dire situations before people will get it.

The problem isn't with oil "production," it's with "exploitation." There is little neutral about oil. This is the problem

Production is a rather antiseptic term. Who doesn't like production? Production is good.

Exploitation has a double meaning; it is either generally "use"; or, as is the case here, it refers to the use of something unjustly---meaning, there are negative consequences to the action.

I refer to the oil production that has widespread negative consequences. There is little clean about these operations, and it's not simple "production." Obtaining oil in and of itself isn't inherently bad. It's a fuel source and many products can be made from it. The problem is that the way we currently obtain it in certain locales. It exploits the environment and communities within them.

The poll option doesn't refer to reducing the simple production of oil; it refers to reducing the exploitation of it. Oil is a part of the environment within which it is acquired. We don't necessarily need less oil; we need less of the damages extracting it causes. That's what that poll option refers to. It acknowledges the virtual unavoidable connection between oil production and environmental degradation.

---------- Post added at 06:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 PM ----------

Ouch. What about energy quotas?

I think what will (and should) happen is that oil will become outrageously expensive (I believe peak oil is real and that the global recession has been hiding it well) and demand for alternatives will spike. You're going to see green energy increasing on the individual family level: solar power and high-tech/new energy efficiencies built/reno'd into homes. You are going to see it on the corporate/government level: green roofs becoming the norm, etc., urban farming, etc. I think that 20 or 30 years from now, you're going to look back at the 2010s as the turning point decade of shifting away from the oil paradigm. Just wait until the global economy recovers by the end of the decade. Watch the price of oil.

Anything slow enough can be avoided in the end. Let's hope the problem is a slow one.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

MSD

I'm a child of the '80s. I remember clearly in our lessons about the environment and the ozone hole in elementary school that when I had kids and they grew up to be my age (then) that they wouldn't be able to play outside, that it would be unsafe for anyone to go outside for more than a few minutes without sunscreen, and that skin cancer rates would increase by a factor of ten if we were lucky. Was it a bit heavy and fatalistic to teach that to second graders? maybe, but it stuck with me.

What changed was that the US and a few other countries took the initiative to ban CFCs to slow ozone depletion and the rest of the world followed suit. Now, almost 20 years later, not only have we halted ozone depletion, studies are coming out saying that within my lifetime, the ozone layer will be back to where it was before we realized that we were fucking everything up. If we're sufficiently motivated, we can end our oil dependency and curb the environmental impact of our oil use. There's nothing to debate; global warming is real and we are the cause. Extraction of petroleum from oil sands is the most disgusting thing we have done to our planet. Oil drilling is an unfortunate necessity but the lax safety measures observed when drilling today are unacceptable. Continued dependence of industry and day-to-day life on fossil fuels is unsustainable. Fission power is the best answer we have to our problems in the short term, but a massive revision of laws and regulations is necessary in light of what we've learned in the wake of the Fukushima disaster: that although modern nuclear power is inherently safer and less damaging than coal and oil power, when you trust private companies to balance profit against safety, safety loses out.

What we need is a concerted effort by all industrialized nations to move beyond fossil fuels. I have written to and directly spoken to my elected representatives to convey my belief that the US needs to once again lead the world in environmental change and establish a program with the scale, scope, and budget of a modern Manhattan Project to develop sustainable renewable and nonpolluting energy sources.

Baraka_Guru

I didn't realize there was a short-term solution that could include fission power.

Boone Pickens is banking on natural gas, and America is sitting on a shitload of it. I don't know what this means, and I haven't looked at current initiatives in technology regarding the use of natural gas.

I know natural gas can be used for home heating, and some commercial vehicles are now using it. Is it practical and safe to move towards using it in most automobiles? What about the airline industry? Is there such thing as natural gas jet fuel? What about the significant chunk of oil that goes towards making products that aren't related to fuel?

What are the environmental factors regarding a shifting away from oil extraction and towards natural gas? Is it just more of the same?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

MSD

Pickens has placed all his eggs in one basket. Realistically, you could get around 30% of the US power grid supplied by wind power. That's what T Boone Pickens has proposed, and I respect his "transition" from an oil man to a proponent of wind power, but expert analyses of his plan I've seen show it to be overblown (I apologize for the pun) and only a small part of transition from an oil economy to a (highly suspicious) wind economy.

He's a hedge fund manager, don't underestimate him on that but understand that he's invested in wind power as THE answer while his highly profitable and sustainable plan is only part of the answer.

Baraka_Guru

I'm talking about this sort of thing regarding the Pickens plan: T. Boone Pickens Drops Wind Power From His Energy Plan [Video] | Nathanael Baker

And this:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/ar...0_WhenTB613741


He's talking big about natural gas and using it for vehicles. I'm not that read up on wind power these days, but maybe natural gas plays a role in that too.

It natural gas an option for transitioning from oil? What are the differences environmentally regarding oil vs. natural gas? Why isn't there more talk about this transition in government? The U.S. has so much of it. What's the problem?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Mikey5

we're all screwed, it's just a matter of time. Nukes aren't as bad as the extremists say and it isn't a great as the other extremists claim either.

It seem like the japanese built on a fault line, that's not too bright, but don't worry, it was done in the USA in southern california.

Producing electricity is the way to go, not oil, not gas. solar panels would be awesome. people say they are expensive and to that I say, more expensive than protecting the middle east? more expensive than cleaning up nuclear accidents and storing spent fuel?

Those costs should be factored in when comparing solar. "ya build a panel and 50 years later it's working just fine" - that's why we use them in space.

For the people that are anti oil on every front, I say quit driving and using plastic. If you're anti nuke and get your power from nuke reactors, quit your power company.

People just like to complain, if you don't like an industry, don't give them your money.

Ourcrazymodern?

The oil & the wind came & come from the sun. Don't solar panels contain plastic? The "getting away" we need, until we can get away, is from the wasteful practices we developed before we knew better. It's not as if folks in much earlier times didn't notice choking on fumes was not preferable to clean air. $! heh.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

ASU2003

My solar panels only have a plastic box on the back... I would imagine that it could be made out of aluminum or something else. But, if we can get down to 10% of our usage for absolutely necessary uses, I would be happy with that.

The big problem I see with oil and gasoline is that it has to be coming close to taking one gallon of gas to produce one gallon of gas at the pump. There are so many steps that are energy intensive in the processing of oil sands, and I would have to imagine that the quality of tar sands will drop as time goes forward. Plus, I doubt we have enough capacity to produce the oil needs of everyone in North America right now from the oil sands.

chinese crested

Good timing. Last week, it was revealed under the freedom of information act, that BP British Gas and other companies had lobbied the british govt over getting a fair cut of the oil in Iraq - this was months before war was launched - looking for the elusive bin laden. The major oil companies all have very long and lucrative contracts - as decided between British and American governments well before the gulf war. They will each get many millions in profits - and lots of service families will each get a six foot plot to visit. All over greed.

snowy

My husband has worked in research for solar panel manufacturing, and actually, the latest research is attempting to figure out ways to make panels in the most environmentally responsible way possible, in addition to attempting to use materials that are plentiful (aka not using rare earths).

I'm all for getting off of oil, but I think we need to reconsider how our power grid currently operates, and invest in fuel cell technology. Wind doesn't do us a lot of good if it overloads the system; we need some way to store power effectively over the longer term with minimal loss.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

StanT

An interesting project nearby:

Powerplant details - Mount Elbert Powerplant - Bureau of Reclamation

2 lakes with a generator/pump between them. They use surplus power during off-peak to pump water uphill and then release it as needed during peak times.

chinese crested

Although not a spring lamb, I am not ancient enough to remember personaly - didnt Ainslinger ban a plant that produces alternatives - like paper, instead of cutting down forests, a yearly harvest could be planted and reaped, and wasnt the plastics industry against the same plant, as your plastic parts on solar panels could be made from the same plant - the plastics manufacturers were against the same wee 'gift of mother nature'.

EventHorizon

plastics last forever, don't decay, they're cheaply made, and the vegetation from when they come doesn't require a rocket surgeon to re-plant.

/advocating devil

__________________
Does Marcellus Wallace have the appearance of a female canine? Then for what reason did you attempt to copulate with him as if he were a female canine?

Quote:

Originally Posted by canuckguy Pretty simple really, do your own thing as long as it does not fuck with anyone's enjoyment of life.

ASU2003

*Some plastics take a long, long time to decay (UV light isn't good for them), other types of new bio-degradable plastics will break down over a shorter time period.

How long does it take for waste materials to decompose? That Danny!

Earthsoul India :: 100% BioDegradable and Compostable BioPlastic Products

And yes, we should be growing hemp to make plastic.
Hemp plastic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ourcrazymodern?

Beautifully & delicately put, but seemingly disregarding that those who have the gold make the rules. The powers that be prefer to disregard the power we are given. Maybe you should check with Fly.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

bagatelle

It's really strange, we aren't using solar power more already. Each household could propably produce energy for their own needs.

I'm wondering, could producing lots of solar energy change the economy of countries, which get more sun light, so that they would become wealthy like those with oil are now.

IMO growing crops for fuel sounds weird condsidering population is constantly increasing and we rather need farming land for food producing.

__________________

Baraka_Guru

That raises an interesting question, bagatelle. I think a lot of it has to do with the market. Perhaps there isn't enough of one to make it easily accessible and cheap. Either that, or perhaps homeowners don't realize the benefit. Maybe they think it's more trouble than it's worth.

As for governments, I think some are now keen on tapping the abundance of renewable resources, but, again, it comes down to markets. It's about cost-benefit analyses and the break-even points. I think the will is there on both the government side and the voter side. The other issue is perhaps many don't see a pressing need.

However, it's interesting to note that there are certain countries with a lot to gain from tapping their natural renewable energy resources. Provincial governments in Canada are starting to find "wind rich" corridors in essentially barren parts of their land. The challenge is finding out the best way to tap them in such a way that provides an overall payoff. Also, many unpopulated places in Canada have rivers and other waterways that could be used for more run-of-the-river technology. Our coastlines could be used for tapping tidal power. We should be looking into these things.

There is so much opportunity, and so the fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't about whether it makes sense in principle; it comes down to whether it makes sense financially.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

bagatelle

I believe oil industry (and other industries exploiting the fossil fuels) is still much holding down the progress for other options. The techonology for solar power is already there, but there is not yet enough competition for the markets to bring the costs down for the common consumers.

They say Finland is behind the other world in exploiting wind power, but they were jubilating over the fact that we have know-how to make wind power units for arctic use in particular.

Our rivers are pretty much in use already.

__________________

Baraka_Guru

There are countries that will be considered either role models or guinea pigs.

Look at some of the things being done in places like Germany, India, and China. Germany has long been on the vanguard in terms of development and technology, and their policies and development regarding energy and conservation is no exception. The latter two have both good practices and horrific track records. The bittersweet reality is that renewable energy is viewed as essential based on their high populations and continuing move towards becoming developed nations.

Germany is interesting to look at as a whole, for our own purposes, as a developed nation transitioning to a sustainable society. They are considered a leader in green energy. Of course, they haven't done this without any criticism. What they do is they set goals and try to achieve them. Even if they don't hit their targets, they make progress and learn from the experience. This is a new frontier, and I commend Germany for taking the risks associated with transitioning their entire economy towards sustainability. By taking the risks and learning how to find a balance between what works and what the people don't want is what more nations should be doing.

Have a look at this Wiki regarding what they've accomplished: Renewable energy in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some highlights:

• The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3% of the national total in 2000 to about 16.1% in 2009.
• In 2010 nearly 17% of Germany's electricity supply was produced from renewable energy sources, more than the 2010 contribution of gas fired power plants.
• Every third solar panel and every second wind rotor [used worldwide] is made in Germany, and German turbines and generators used in hydro energy generation are among the most popular worldwide.

And with regard to conservation, Germany is also a big player in zero-energy buildings, including the passive house (Passivhaus) concept. And, of course, there is the highly desirable energy-plus-house concept, which produces more renewable energy than it consumes.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

bagatelle

This is all very interesting and we should also more effectively change our behaviour and attitude - the ecological footprint.

Building regulations should include more details and requirements for energy saving options.

__________________

Baraka_Guru

About our ecological footprint: beyond the market limitations, the other big barrier to this shift is that people don't want to make sacrifices to their lifestyle. They don't want higher energy prices that will cut into their discretionary spending. They don't want fewer options regarding everyday consumer goods and big-ticket purchases such as cars, homes, and vacations. They don't want to do what is perceived as "missing out."

The big picture reveals that many of these desires aren't based on any real need. They're turned into needs based on marketing messages. We can live happy and fulfilled lives without damaging our planet wantonly. As much as we like to think we're independent and critical thinkers, there are those who hold great influence over our decision making. Consumer behaviour isn't a new science, and it's only getting increasingly sophisticated to keep ahead of the continuing sophistication of consumers themselves.

---------- Post added at 11:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 AM ----------

I hope to see more initiatives like Chicago's green roof incentive program. And if I'm not mistaken, isn't it Chicago that has a stipulation regarding green roofs for businesses who renovate to a certain extent or build new?

This is a step of but one of many. It's my understanding that most new buildings in North America are essentially hermetically sealed heat sinks.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

bagatelle

So very true about marketing. Even if we aren't (admitting being) influenced directly, yet we must have at least close to what everyone else is having.

I haven't really read the texts of this Finnish thinker, Pentti Linkola, but I read an article, where he condemned the consumerism. He says simple life is enough and we should abandon technology. We don't need to fly to exotic countries - just to experience something different, it's enough for him to row to an island nearby and eat some blueberries.

Well, he's considered very extreme, but is this what we need? Extreme ideas.

Seems like there might be no other option than a big disaster that enforces us to change our life style radically.

I know I am too self-indulgent to go as far as I could living simply.

__________________

Baraka_Guru

As an aside, rowing to a nearby island and eating blueberries sounds delightful!

Thanks for the info on Linkola, but he seems to be an extremist at first glance. I suppose there is no harm in taking some of his perspectives and discarding others.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

i get a little confused about questions of reducing petroleum dependency that i read on my plastic laptop with all its plastic components inside and its power cable insulated in plastic connected to the plastic outlet in the wall that's connected to a wire by a splice that has little plastic caps on each of the twists, connected to the net via a plastic wireless router with lots of plastic bits inside it that's on a shelf beneath a giant plastic printer next to some plastic trays filled with paper.

if you look to your left from in front of the printer you see a deck with some plastic furniture on it. directly beneath that my car is parked. it is black and yesterday the hamilton high school lacrosse team attempted to wash it but did so in a way that basically moved the dirt around and in the process changed it from being ambient grime to actually prominent streaks with the result that i shall soon drive the car---and use some of the fifty dollars worth of gas i put in yesterday---to a mechanical carwash facility chock-a-block full of plastic and other petroleum derived materials.

on the way i shall pass a supermarket. there's no point in walking into the building and starting to enumerate the various distribution systems that explain how the various commodities in their funny plastic packaging arrived on the shelving units (plastic), and even less to start listing the various production processes that produced the commodities that entered into the distribution systems or the trucks and ships and so on that connect them and the petroleum-based materials they all use and the distribution systems that explain the simultaneous presence of all the components in those trucks and ships and the manufacturing processes that enable those systems to have commodities to move and so on and so on.

there's just a riot of things and processes.

it makes me a little dizzy.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

Plastic is recyclable, oil used as energy isn't renewable.

Dell Turns to Recycled Plastic, Thin Client for Green Computers: Cleantech News and Analysis

Also, there is the possibility to shift away from plastics and into newer materials, such as bioplastics made from plants that require low nutrients and low irrigation.

Of course, there is also simply moving away from an economic model based on ridiculous packaging and planned obsolescence.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

ASU2003

And we are exporting $1 billion dollars a day to fund this plastic lifestyle based on oil... But plastic parts and items aren't all bad. They are a one time cost, which will last a long time if constructed well. (There is hemp plastic, but the DEA doesn't like it for reasons that are probably classified.)

I wonder how much people would spend on lottery tickets if they drew someones name everyday to win $1 billion... What would spending $1 billion dollars a day in our neighborhoods do?

Ourcrazymodern?

& relatedly off-topic, how would society change if every one was enabled from birth? I think we are. I don't think our clinging to oil has been a harder choice than (those I can't conceive of), because I'm/we're entirely/sort-of...lazy. Getting whatever you need out of the environment has always been easy enough. Getting whatever you want is more difficult. Obliviously, I will state: Keeping ourselves busy would be accomplished more cleanly doing only needful things. I don't know what might happen to beauty, but I think it might remain intact, as natural.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT