Hmm, well as a citizen of the US, I hate all coinage. The dollar being so weak only makes them worth that much less. So I prefer to use plastic to pay for stuff.

 

There's a certain psychological barrier to spending large amounts of money when you're using cash, however...

it would be better to use no pennies, or to replace the penny with a common crustal element (iron or aluminum alloys), so as to minimize the use of elements which are rare and very risky to retrieve.

 

That would require the government to do something right...never going to happen.

A Green Economy is good, but we have to be careful it isn't hijacked by extremist using misinformation to gain power or money. Perfect example would be Al Gore and global warming.

:rolleyes:Ahem.. back to our regularly scheduled program, already in progress..

Now, a green economy needs honest, educated, ethical referees. What are the best options, in your opinion??

And, Al Gore is too dry to hijack anything but maybe a box of crackers! :) I'm not saying he's 100% correct on everything he says, but he's just deadpan earnest. A conspiracy with Al Gore at the helm would be like suspecting Maria Theresa of spying on foreign nations!

Hmm, well as a citizen of the US, I hate all coinage. The dollar being so weak only makes them worth that much less. So I prefer to use plastic to pay for stuff.

 

There's a certain psychological barrier to spending large amounts of money when you're using cash, however...

Aw, comeon Jay, what if they put you on the 500-dollar gold piece?;):P And that would rarely depreciate!:laugh3: People would be lining up at the banks to get theirs: "two golden Jays; that'll be one grand, please!";)

 

If we end the fiscal madness of unlimited foreign wars, and running up the debt, maybe the dollar would be worth it's weight in gold again??

Yes, plastic is like that! Easy. And it probably lubricates the economy's gears, but I feel the same way. If we had to plunk down a treasure chest just to buy that new car or house, it would 'feel' like we're spending a lot!;)

(yea, what would that be like? here's the box with $300,000 for that home.. careful, and don't drop it on your feet - it weighs 4 ton!:laugh3:)

Maybe the mint ain't green, but it could be better. Even so, it might happen as a penny-pinching measure..:laugh3: (bad pun, but I just had to).

Make the penny obsolete, and change the saying to :"a dime for your thoughts.." Put Lincoln on the dime, Roosevelt on the quarter, Washington on the half-dollar, Kennedy on the dollar, and Sacagawea on a new 5-dollar coin!

:rolleyes:Ahem.. back to our regularly scheduled program, already in progress..

Now, a green economy needs honest, educated, ethical referees. What are the best options, in your opinion??

And, Al Gore is too dry to hijack anything but maybe a box of crackers! :) I'm not saying he's 100% correct on everything he says, but he's just deadpan earnest. A conspiracy with Al Gore at the helm would be like suspecting Maria Theresa of spying on foreign nations!

 

31,000 scientist have studied and come out with results there no evidence man is changing temperature on the earth.

In fact when scientist use science to exam the idea of man made global warming new studies prove that it's false. I just follow the science, don't get mad.

 

Al Gore is using his made up science to make MILLIONS..proven fact and to push his socialist leaning agenda. Science hijacked like this should make people angry.

 

Al Gore's movie has been proven wrong using science, he knew this, but who is science to come in the way of Gore making millions and getting his political views accepted by millions? I hate it when people don't think for themselves or check the facts just take what people tell them at face value, even though that person stands to make millions from their lies.

PS. Gore and his global warming science haters are hijacking the green movement away from important things. We should be focusing on pollution that causes cancer or pollutes water, or saving animals and plants....real scientific issues of the utmost importance.

 

I like science and to see people spit on it for personal or political gain while taking our focus on issue's that are dangerous to me and my planet, pisses me off.

What Green means

 

Hmm.. From what I understand, most scientists working on climate science consider it highly likely that mankind has affected global temperatures; and not just recently (like in the past 100 years), but for thousands of years, due to burning lands for grazing and clearing forests for planting crops.

I do agree on the dangers we face from pollutants in the environment, and yes, those are major concerns of mine as well! Which is why I am proposing a Green Economy!

Towards a Green, Healthy Economy: Common elements & efficiency are key.

... Which doesn't mean to eliminate the use of certain plastics, metals, etc., but does mean minimizing their use if they embody serious risks. Replacement materials should have safe decomposition properties, and vastly greater safety in their manufacture and use.

Some specifics:

>replacing polystyrene foam products with, for example, foamed polymerized lignin for use in insulation board, cups, etc.

> using aluminum wire to replace copper in most applications, with the best connectors science has to offer

>minimizing the uses of gold, relying more on heavy plating and coating for jewelery than solid gold, thereby reducing the impact of gold mining to a manageable level. Safest practices only.

>Improving human health by preventive measures as a first order of business, including more organic foods (because they reduce pesticide risks, and have better active vitamin contents, etc.), access to trails and sidewalks where ever possible, and more positive outlets for activities to strengthen people's lives; plus reduced stress on the working classes to reduce stress-induced illnesses.

 

lol Chuck, I'm not sure I'd want my face on a gold coin as I'm no mercantile! Gold is a shiny, overvalued element useful only for its industrial applications, as far as I'm concerned. :D

 

Lincoln and Roosevelt on coins? I rank them among our worst presidents, but that's a discussion for another thread (maybe).

 

I think if you want to predict the future the best way to do it is to just "follow the money". Not enough effort has been put into understanding the result of getting energy independence. I'm not saying it's not a valuable goal, but consider for a moment how a solar-based economy would work. Energy output would be rather predictable (and if futures on solar power were traded, they wouldn't have a long-term upward trend because they would be based on near-term weather predictions). Also you've eliminated the terrorist/rogue state influences. So the supply/demand curve would become the key indicator here.

 

It's quite possible a solar economy might undervalue energy because they view it as a "free" thing, and that would cause demand to go up to unnaturally high levels. I could foresee the government stepping in to ration electricity use or limit the purchase of land for solar farms. Property taxes might go up (which might not be a bad thing, as several economists have speculated that a land-tax is most equitable since there is a fixed amount of the stuff).

>Improving human health by preventive measures as a first order of business, including more organic foods (because they reduce pesticide risks, and have better active vitamin contents, etc.), access to trails and sidewalks where ever possible, and more positive outlets for activities to strengthen people's lives; plus reduced stress on the working classes to reduce stress-induced illnesses.

 

I couldn't agree more!

 

Prevention is the future (along with stem cell technology). Every American home already includes a dining room, so it should become fashionable to also have a gym room!

 

I switched to eating whole grain bread two years ago, and I'm never going back to white bread. Just doing that one thing has made me feel healthier and gain weight (which I needed to do).

 

As for stress, I think we should look to the Eastern cultures to see how to cope. Office buildings should have tall ceilings and be lit with as much natural light as possible - huge windows and skylights. Computer screens should be large so you can view them from a distance and still read easily. Public buildings should feature modern architecture and lots of lush landscaping, as it's been shown this helps calm people.

 

I think if I were put in charge of the correctional facilities I'd play classical music for 2 hours every day over the jailhouse intercom - as dopey as it sounds, I firmly believe it stimulates the mind and could reduce inmate-on-inmate crime.

Hey, thanks!

Gosh, I'm falling asleep here :sleeping2: Catchyalater!;)

Goodnight!:cool:

Hey! Back from hiatus!

Yes, exercise is not only curative, but enjoyable! I am inclined to believe that the best is for us to get outside to get our exercise! Best to have safe, pleasant places to go out and bike, run, ski, roller-blade, etc. all within easy reach of one's front door. Plus, it gets us immersed in nature and place, out of the cooped-up indoor world (fine in inclement weather though - good point there! an exercise room would come in handy!).

Probably best to have less stress in our world as well - expanding medical coverage would have a genuine placebo effect, since the stress from worrying about lack of coverage causes a certain amount of the health issues we face!

Yes, I'm with you there Jay! The carb rushes we got for years were definitely not good for our health, so whole grain anything is good stuff! I like whole wheat as well, and buckwheat pancakes in the AM. Fruits, veggies, vitamin D, healthy, lean meats/nuts/eggs, and exercise all make a difference. Probably the most important single thing though is a positive attitude, which I myself have a ways to go on..

 

Yes!! In terms of how a building environment affects health, I agree completely on that one!! The Eastern cultures really do have this figured out, and I agree - calming surroundings, even small waterfalls and green trees and bushes can really make the sense of feeling comfortable yet productive within an environment a good thing. Bonsai gardens within a building do create a wonderful sense of serenity..

 

 

And those ideas on calming inmates in jail - probably it would help to play calming music for an hour or two!! Music is powerful, and often underrated as a means to change people's moods. I recall one program (prison's in Texas??) where they had been brining in pets (shelter dogs and cats) for the inmates to care for. It was amazing how effective it was at calming the inmates, and getting them to improve their ability for expressing empathy & compassion. A lot of the inmates wind up there from gang-related activities, so they adjust well to having the chance for some humbling companionship; perhaps cost-cutting measures have done away with some of these programs, but I'm not sure - haven't kept up on them!

Perhaps a redesign of the way we lay out shopping and access could be improved. Something as simple as bike paths to and from store areas, and walk paths, would make many auto trips unnecessary, and we could all get a little more exercise then too..

Have a good night, and TTYL.:pleased:

 

Hmm.. From what I understand, most scientists working on climate science consider it highly likely that mankind has affected global temperatures; and not just recently (like in the past 100 years), but for thousands of years, due to burning lands for grazing and clearing forests for planting crops.

I do agree on the dangers we face from pollutants in the environment, and yes, those are major concerns of mine as well! Which is why I am proposing a Green Economy!

Towards a Green, Healthy Economy: Common elements & efficiency are key.

... Which doesn't mean to eliminate the use of certain plastics, metals, etc., but does mean minimizing their use if they embody serious risks. Replacement materials should have safe decomposition properties, and vastly greater safety in their manufacture and use.

Some specifics:

>replacing polystyrene foam products with, for example, foamed polymerized lignin for use in insulation board, cups, etc.

> using aluminum wire to replace copper in most applications, with the best connectors science has to offer

>minimizing the uses of gold, relying more on heavy plating and coating for jewelery than solid gold, thereby reducing the impact of gold mining to a manageable level. Safest practices only.

>Improving human health by preventive measures as a first order of business, including more organic foods (because they reduce pesticide risks, and have better active vitamin contents, etc.), access to trails and sidewalks where ever possible, and more positive outlets for activities to strengthen people's lives; plus reduced stress on the working classes to reduce stress-induced illnesses.

 

 

Global warmest are one of the biggest threat to environmentalist. In fact many scientist think global warming is a good things. More harm comes to the environment and people when global cooling happens.

 

Solar activity has been show to have more affect on climate then human activity. All the hard science and research is there to show were not doing this.

 

There is not any good science to prove global warming is man made, while many scientific studies show we aren't doing it.

 

I've pointed out before, C02 rises FOLLOW global temperature rise. If you look back on the 1900's and see the rise and fall of greenhouse gas's and temperature it shows we have not caused it.

CO2 rises follow temperature rises, but when several equations are combined, what we often see is not the whole picture. Considering that there are complex feed-back loops involved, it's probably not that simple. As temperature rises, CO2 levels will naturally rise, since more greenhouse gases are given off by the exposed land, and the increased activity of soil bacteria in breaking down organic matter; also, the scaling back of plant photosynthesis due to higher temperatures. Cause and effect may not be so apparent. True, solar activity has an enormous effect, as well as the wobble of the Earth.

Global Warming at the present appears to be man-made, as from what I've been reading in Scientific American, we are, through our activities, masking a cooling trend. If there's no sound science behind it, then how and why would anyone be publishing peer-reviewed articles on the subject? Yes, many things are debatable, but to assert that there's no hard scientific evidence is being too dismissive of the research work being done. I am aware that there is debate about the whole series of processes at work, but often it's a matter of approach and focus, where putting the puzzle pieces together is the biggest challenge.

One thing that sticks in my mind, is the simple fact that we humans have been removing vast quantities of stored carbon from the crust, and moving that into the air, water, and biotic portion of the world. What % has been transferred, and how large an impact this is having seem reasonable start points, but the fact remains that we have done this. Also, systems do have tipping points, and the Earth's climate systems are no exceptions. So, if our activities are sufficiently large enough to push the scales in the other direction, we could be in for some undesirable consequences.

Naturally, the Earth's wobble, solar activity levels, and giant volcanic eruptions can and will change the climate dramatically as well; but to discount our activities as insignificant is missing the point - we have been having affecting climate for thousands of years, and we continue to do so.

I'm sorry but by no means has man affected climate for thousands of years. 500 years ago, nothing humans did or produced affected climate, we had no ways to.

 

Bottom Line is CO2 isn't even proven to cause global warming. We have taken theories not proven and made them into facts to fit our views and or agenda.

I have a difficult time believing there isn't an impact on the environment from burning as much fossil fuel as we do. And we know burning fossil fuels generally makes for dirtier air (regardless of CO2). So it's a noble goal to want to reduce the emissions.

 

I just don't believe it's a life-or-death problem like so many people want us to believe. This isn't healthy, especially for young children to hear, as they aren't meant to feel guilt and stress over something that is so out of their control. But this is generally the way governments express their control over citizens:

 

1. Invent a problem.

 

2. Make the problem seem pressing, vitally important, affecting everyone. Something only elected officials with the power of the law can solve.

 

3. Campaign on solving the problem. Obtain power.

 

4. Implement new taxes, or threaten to, making businesses ingratiate themselves to your political party in order to avoid further punishment. Turn people against their employers.

 

McBama: "Government is your guardian. There are terrorists around every corner. The wealthy capitalists are holding you back, taking more than they deserve. Life is so unfair, let me help you."

Jay, I feel the same way. (It's like denying that the earth revolves around the sun at this point.) Just the very basic fact that we have taken massive quantities of carbonaceous matter from the Earth's crust (coal, oil, gas, etc.), and combined that with oxygen from the atmosphere/biosphere is simply self-evident.

However, there does appear to be a problem, based on credible scientific evidence. The exact extent of the problem, how much we must change to avoid undesirable consequences, and what measures are most effective is debatable. It also seems likely that by staving off an ice age, we may have in fact improved our survival by burning a certain amount of this stored carbon.

What is unique about the current situation is perhaps that by increasing the levels of CO2 during a cooling period as we have done, we have changed the normal cyclical nature of climate on the planet. This makes it harder to predict the outcomes based on past experiences. Plus, given the very high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, there exists the possibility of exceeding a "tipping point" where a sort of positive feed-back loop may warm the planet rapidly, until it reaches a new equilibrium. Bill thinks this to be around 350 PPM CO2, and we're currently coasting along at 387 PPM. The changes required to bring us down to 350PPM are not that significant, and in many ways will make our economy more efficient, and our quality of life improve because we will have the comfortable homes we desire without drafts and noisy machinery running, and autos that cost us less to fuel with whatever we so desire.

But yes, campaigns are based on marketing hype to a large extent - "we must fight the..." It's melodramatic, and in many ways insincere the way politicians use a problem as a tool to control.

What would be better, would be to combine all the risk factors into a reasonable assessment, and present it that way to the American people.

Economic Security

 

I finally got a larger view of the conflict in Georgia (late, but in earnest), and not surprisingly, it's about control of a pipeline delivering a portion of Europe's energy needs, and naturally, the current Russian heads want to assert their influence so that Europe has to kowtow to the demands of Russia's power brokers.

This is why I, and by no small measure alone in this, am proposing we shift to a Green Economy. Simply put, 92% of our energy needs are lost in waste and inefficiency, and depending on a few strategic resources coming from very few places is asking for trouble.

Moving towards a Green Economy and a common-elements economy would make dependence based on resources less of an issue, and less and less could any one group control the very survival of any other group or nation, simply by threatening to cut off the supply of some limited resource. To be interdependent with trade over non-essential things is one thing, but reliant on critical resources quite another.. (well, obviously Swiss Cheese is important, as is English Cheddar, or Edam and Gouda from Holland, or String Cheese from America, but it's just not the same as having you country's energy supply cut off in the middle of winter! Brrr!! Putin could have that sort of chilling effect, and lest we forget, once a KGB officer, always a KGB officer..

So, this is yet another reason to move towards Green. Natasha and Boris can be trouble to Europe's Rocky and Bullwinkle, if you remember those cartoons!:laugh3:

 

Green glues. Green plastics. I've been searching high and low for eco-friendly, human-friendly building materials, since I may have to restructure a roof. So far, I did discover an article on the use of soy flour glues for laminated beams (ironically developed in the 50's, and now being re-examined as a safer method). Foamboard is one material that is un-green in every sense, except for not outgassing significantly, and excellent insulating properties. But, it embodies the use of carbon monoxide, phosgene gas, benzene, etc. in the manufacture, and if it catches fire, may release some cyanide compounds. So, I'm trying to steer clear of it, but it would be nice to find a waterproof insulating board that's safe. I thought one could be made of re-polymerized lignin, foamed with nitrogen gas, but that's just a guess - any ideas???

Here's an update on carbon nanotube supercapactor technologies, which are getting closer to replacing batteries:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/nov07/5636

 

&

 

 

http://www.treehugger.com/mt/mt-comments-22042008/fcgi

Jay, I feel the same way. (It's like denying that the earth revolves around the sun at this point.) Just the very basic fact that we have taken massive quantities of carbonaceous matter from the Earth's crust (coal, oil, gas, etc.), and combined that with oxygen from the atmosphere/biosphere is simply self-evident.

However, there does appear to be a problem, based on credible scientific evidence. The exact extent of the problem, how much we must change to avoid undesirable consequences, and what measures are most effective is debatable. It also seems likely that by staving off an ice age, we may have in fact improved our survival by burning a certain amount of this stored carbon.

What is unique about the current situation is perhaps that by increasing the levels of CO2 during a cooling period as we have done, we have changed the normal cyclical nature of climate on the planet. This makes it harder to predict the outcomes based on past experiences. Plus, given the very high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, there exists the possibility of exceeding a "tipping point" where a sort of positive feed-back loop may warm the planet rapidly, until it reaches a new equilibrium. Bill thinks this to be around 350 PPM CO2, and we're currently coasting along at 387 PPM. The changes required to bring us down to 350PPM are not that significant, and in many ways will make our economy more efficient, and our quality of life improve because we will have the comfortable homes we desire without drafts and noisy machinery running, and autos that cost us less to fuel with whatever we so desire.

But yes, campaigns are based on marketing hype to a large extent - "we must fight the..." It's melodramatic, and in many ways insincere the way politicians use a problem as a tool to control.

What would be better, would be to combine all the risk factors into a reasonable assessment, and present it that way to the American people.

 

It's not even proven C02 is bad for the atmosphere, in fact many studies show it's good. We should not make decisions based on a fad, but on facts and research.

It's not even proven C02 is bad for the atmosphere, in fact many studies show it's good. We should not make decisions based on a fad, but on facts and research.

Point well taken - CO2 is a normal component of the atmosphere. What I am trying to convey is that by the combustion of a large quantity of carbonaceous matter stored in the Earth's crust (via oil, coal, gas, oil sands, etc.), we are, without a doubt, changing the balance of CO2 in the biotic portion of the Earth (oceans, land surfaces, etc.). The degree to which this affects the planet's climate systems appears to be a subject of debate, but it seems self-evident that the mass balance between crustally-stored carbon and biotic zone carbon has been altered.

 

Here's something I ran across on energy storage:

Energy Densities of Selected Storage Mediums, MJ/L:

34.60 .. .. .. .. .. Gasoline

24.00 .. .. .. .. .. Ethanol

10.10 .. .. .. .. .. Liquid Hydrogen

5.67 .. .. .. .. EE Stor's Ultracapacitors

4.70 .. .. .. .. .. Compressed Hydrogen

0.90 .. .. .. .. Lithium Ion Batteries

0.17 .. .. .. .. Lead Acid Batteries

:smug: