BEAR on 20/5/2007 at 17:56
Jesus what the fuck is going on in this thread.
Give vig a break guys he cant spread reason everywhere at once.
demagogue on 20/5/2007 at 18:58
Well, if we're going to have a mostly directionless thread on a largely trivial article*, I guess it couldn't hurt to contribute something almost actually on the original topic: the NYTimes had an interesting article today ((
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/magazine/20europe-t.html?em&ex=1179806400&en=80e44c501e5715d8&ei=5087%0A) Why Are They Greener Than We Are?, "we" being the US) about green architecture, and why Europe is doing it so much better than the US (as if this were in debate).
* I don't mean to say that global warming or ecofriendly living are trivial topics, hardly. Just this backwoods Florida housing project that -- while interesting for what it is and it
would be significant if it catches on -- is still just one more housing development, if a green one, in a country with tens of thousands of them. The real news will be if these projects start selling like hotcakes ... until then it's just one more nice idea that has a shot at the big time like so many ideas do, and should make for a pleasant, 2 minute blurb on the Clarksville 6:00 news.
jay pettitt on 20/5/2007 at 19:23
Quote Posted by BEAR
Jesus what the fuck is going on in this thread.
Give vig a break guys he cant spread reason everywhere at once.
It's not reason he's been spreading.
SD on 20/5/2007 at 19:29
My own personal opinions on why Europeans are "greener" than Americans:
1) Unlike around half of Americans, Europeans generally don't think that Armageddon is just around the corner, and therefore believe that mankind might actually have to inhabit this rapidly degrading planet for a little while longer yet, so it would be a good idea to try and preserve it.
2) Unlike around half of Americans, Europeans generally don't think that Global Warming is a scam cooked up by scientists and politicians to try to liberate citizens of their hard-earned cash.
D'Juhn Keep on 20/5/2007 at 19:32
Thread has achieved take off :cool:
demagogue on 20/5/2007 at 20:31
Quote Posted by SD
My own personal opinions on why Europeans are "greener" than Americans:
1) Unlike around half of Americans, Europeans generally don't think that Armageddon is just around the corner, and therefore believe that mankind might actually have to inhabit this rapidly degrading planet for a little while longer yet, so it would be a good idea to try and preserve it.
2) Unlike around half of Americans, Europeans generally don't think that Global Warming is a scam cooked up by scientists and politicians to try to liberate citizens of their hard-earned cash.
Well, the political story I learned in school is related to (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_Law) Duverger's Law and the way of thinking surrounding it (i.e., it's not the law itself that's as important as the difference in attitude that it represents).
The (gross generalization) gist is, in parliamentary politics (UK, Germany, France) political momentum is built up and can have an
a la carte flavor (compared to the US) ... to either build coalitions (a "Green" party doesn't even make sense in the US), because agencies are more a "part" of the gov't than "independent" as they are in the US, and because of the whole Kantian thing where Europeans tend to think gov't is more about getting the "right" answer than self-consciously bargaining/blundering its way into whatever seems to work best, as in the US. Point: In Europe, stuff tends to be put
in to build momentum. In the US, there are two parties; an agenda comes as a bloated whole, and then stuff is taken
out to get traction/momentum. In the end, all of this just means that the system is stacked to get more concrete green policies working on the ground in Europe than in the US.
The other reason is that Europe has already signed onto the Kyoto Protocol. It was much easier for them than the US because, first of all, they noticed that they didn't have to do any real work to be compliant (clumping the EU together, and then refurbishing E. German, etc, industry alone gets them most of the way there; things they would have done
anyway). But it means that European companies see the handwriting on the wall and start going green early so that when regulations really change, they'll have a competitive advantage over those that don't. In the US, companies are really slow in catching on to the whole "competitive advantage curve" idea.
Thief13x on 21/5/2007 at 00:30
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Also your Meteorology 101 is hilariously naive.
how so?
On global warming: I quite honestly don't really care whether it's happening or it's not. My only vehicle is a motorcycle which gets 55 city mpg and 65 highway (even rode it 1000 miles to college), and I always shut off my 1/2 appliances/lights when i'm not using them.
but what's more amazing to me than people blindly following Al-Gore and the media's "factual" interpretation of an utter hypothesis with such meager data (relative to this planet's age) is that, while people are willing to allow the government to regulate automotive companies and, consequently increase automotive prices, they are still unwilling to drop the keys to their SUV's, or make any sacrafices whatsover to help solve the 'problem'.
An amusing game of mine on a boring ride somewhere is to count the number of suv's/vans vs the number of other cars, i'm always surprised to find roughly 50/50
Aerothorn on 21/5/2007 at 01:06
I think you're confusing your demographics here. Most of the people dedicated to saving the species from environmental catastrophe are not driving SUVs. Tons of Americans drive SUVs, yeah, but tons of Americans believe in UFOs, or that the second coming of Christ will happen in the next 5 years. The fact that people won't change their ways has absolutely nothing to do with how serious global warming is - people don't like to change as it is, and change that requires sacrifice will be resisted no matter the problems such resistance will cause.
As for your "oh its just another hypothesis" spiel, I don't even know where to start. Don't you go to a university? Don't they have an environmental sciences department? If you want to have this discussion, go and tell the professors how global warming is an unproven idea and see what they have to say.
Of course, this is Florida, so maybe your professors are just whack, I dunno.
demagogue on 21/5/2007 at 01:19
Contrary to popular belief, science has a little more going for it than taking some politician's / scare mongerer's / industry's word for it.
Sometimes the scientific community supports (
http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/powerlines-cancer-FAQ/toc.html) industry and shuts (
http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/product_images/1020/261879.1020.A.jpg) the greens up, sometimes the greens end up (
http://www.ipcc.ch/) vindicated, although very often not in the way they are comfortable with, since it's the science pushing the conclusion not their ideology. But what's similar about those two cases is that a consensus scientific position pushes the end result, and the policies take it seriously in the end.
Sometimes industry and the greens end up on the same side, as in the miraculously fortunate case -- if you had to pick your choice of environmental catastrophes -- of the Ozone Hole, where it was actually to industry's benefit to ban CFC's, as the alternatives were just as cheap. And not only did they get scientific consensus very fast, but they had a very convenient picture of a big hole in the sky to show everybody so they believed them, probably even you, too, T13x.
Now on other topics (e.g., genetically modified organisms), there is more to it. In that case, there is just as clear a scientific consensus (no unique risk), but a lot of political groups either refuse to believe it, or don't care (to them it's about "unnaturalness", not risk). In this kind of case, it would have been better if the scientific community would have organized a international summit and published a consensus position early on. And then there probably wouldn't even be an issue, just like there isn't in the US. Now -- 10 years after they had the chance -- a lot of consumers (e.g., in Europe) don't know what to believe, and probably wouldn't trust anything the science says. So you get a continent-wide moratorium without a shred of scientific support. So it goes.
SD on 21/5/2007 at 01:56
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
your Meteorology 101 is hilariously naive.
Quote Posted by Thief13x
how so?
Quote Posted by Digital Nightfall
zero fenestration on southern facade, zero skylights, limited fenestration on the western facade. fenestration on the eastern facade is permissible as early morning sunlight produces little heat. no direct sunlight upon the northern facade any time of year allows for unlimited fenestration.
hth
Quote Posted by Thief13x
On global warming: I quite honestly don't really care whether it's happening or it's not.
Of course you don't. This is because you have the comprehension of a jar of pickles. You'll care enough when Florida is underwater though.
Quote:
but what's more amazing to me than people blindly following Al-Gore and the media's "factual" interpretation of an utter hypothesis with such meager data
This "utter hypothesis" is an overwhelming scientific consensus. The world moved on from GLOBAL WARMING IS A CON some time ago; I'd suggest you do the same, or you'll look very silly.
