Dibs on shooting Liam!

He'll feed an entire family!

let's see ...

edit1: this is painful to watch ..

edit2: about the money, ive heard a lot about this lately. i never thought about the mechanics of it but at least since the time i started to question things in life, i had a gut feeling not to trust anything a bank tells me. those people are wealthy. where does all this wealth come from? if someone gets money, it always means someone else loses money. in the case of the banks, it's us, all of us, losing our money
plus, the privately owned federal reserve is the nail in the coffin. you now have about all the US' money in private hands. these hands also have immense influence in the media, and of course politically. there are enough quotes from high(est) ranking politicians to make one reasonably believe these people, the bankers, control the whole US government, meaning both political parties
good collection of quotes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzlTjhGxr7Y

edit3: okay, am now nearly at the end. nearly all the money stuff is good. im now at energy, and i have to say i disagree a little. hydrogen not energy efficient? what about using solar power (which is very efficient) to create hydrogen? what about nuclear power? wasnt even on the chart. we could use solar, wind, or nuclear power for electricity, to split water, which is a virtually unlimited resource, into hydrogen and oxygen, solving some problems for transport and industry

edit4: am through with it. some good stuff at the end, some things simplified and dumbed down a little. but overall, you cant help but agree with him to some extent. passed the link around too, a little. learned some stuff out of this, maybe will enjoy cars more now that it's probably the last few years to drive them for the fun of it. ah yeah and all of you, dont support the US rocket shield currently being put up in europe. the US *will* fcuk up, try every last bit to save their asses, and if we're (or russia) gonna do something about it, they will nuke us. US out of europe!

hydrogen's not cost efficient

Which solar power?
Photovoltaic? The typical PV is like 12% efficient. Call that efficient? (Granted, Pvs in laboratories reach 40% efficiency, but I guess these are a bit too expensive.)
Solar thermal? The big plants aren't any more efficient than the typical PV. A solar dish with a stirling engine reaches 30% efficiency. Efficient?

And then you want to create hydrogen. Electrolysis results in an energy loss. Storage will result in an energy loss (depending on how you store the hydrogen, for how long, etc.; this is a big problem). Creating electricity from hydrogen in an FC (or creating mechanical energy in a combustion engine ;)) will result in an energy loss, depending on which tech you use, how complex it is (super-charger?; water-management is a problem with lt-pemfc), etc.

thought they'd max out at 25% even in labs.
anyway, point is that sun won't go down anytime soon, while we might run out of most other shit on this planet sooner or later (including silicium though) so I guess solar power is the way to go.

wiki says even the theoretical max is 29% so you're probbly right.

Point is I think that figure is not really that relevant, because we aren't really running out of sunlight. Only out of space to place them.
I believe the more importatant numbers are cost efficiency and the amount of energy you get versus the amount you need to construct it and ressources you use, etc.

anyway i don't think we will ever run out of silicon because of the production of solar cells. it makes up a huge part of the earth's crust. think sand ;)

according to fraunhofer institute in freiburg, space is not a problem at all as long as we get the energy saved/transported good enough. iirc they talked about 6 areas of 360x360km² to cover global energy demand, and if you put those to a good extend around the equator (and africa in particular), they're like tiny stamps on the map (they're not that big considering the giant areas in deserts etc.). energy transport could be done with superconductors, and according to their calculations all this is definitely within reach with current technology developments and economic performances. their research is mostly not going towards better efficiency any more, but somewhat acceptable efficiency with really crap quality modules so you can produce them cheap and in huge amounts (with only little high quality silicium) .once again it is mostly political will and instability/lack of governence that hinders this project.

good to know there are possibilities, even with today's technology

Setting up PVs in Africa is all nice etc., but again the storage and transport would be problematic.
Superconductors are usually just considered for short duration energy storage, just like flywheels. Furthermore they need cooling. If they're too small, you'll need more energy for cooling than you could store. If they're too big, they simply will not be economical compared to other energy storages.

They use multiple materials for different wave lengths resulting in a higher yield. I think the maximum reached in lab was 42%.

doesn't really matter too much btw, not like we're running out of sunlight anytime soon.

Well, I think so too. Sun energy (and others) must be used to solve the energy problem. But these can't replace base/medium load power plants. Either the sun is shining or it is not, either the wind is blowing (and within the right speeds) or it is not. Therefore we need an energy storage. And even though there are different technologies for small and long term storage, none seems to convince. At least not today.

All I wanted to point out with my post above is: solar power is not efficient.
The efficiency doesn't really seem crucial, but it might be in an environment where there simply isn't too much space or where the radiation just isn't as high as e.g. Spain.

photovoltaic

my line of thought: it's renewable. and basically, you have initial cost for the hardware, then it's free, except minimal cost for water. i'd have a hydrogen powered car (with a combustion engine, so that it IS still a car). and at home i'd have my hydrogen station that is powered by the sun, and nothing else. depending on how much i drive, this should work out.. i suppose even a small (half a m² or so) photovoltaic system should output a liter or more per day. storage (under pressure?) and getting the hydrogen into the car (pump??) should use some energy again, this could also be covered by photovoltaic cells, or normal electricity from the house network

i wouldnt care about the initial cost, since the follow up costs would be minimal and, most importantly, i'd have a energy source that'd never run out and i would be practically independent from anybody. cut off my water, i'll dig a hole! block out the sun, and well, we're fucked anyways


aquashark, wipeout: do you think that "no we cant do that and i here's a million reasons why" attitude will get us somewhere?

I didn't say 'no, we can't do that'. You stated solar power is efficient. Which is just not true.
Btw, I think you need something bigger if you really want to be independent. A year tends to be a bit longer than spring and summer. And you might want to heat your house in the winter.

I'd rather get a proper battery as an energy storage and use a BEV. Seems better to me (and I say that even though I study combustion engines :P).
In the chemical industry a fuel cell vehicle might make sense. In some parts hydrogen is a waste product.

zeitgeist: addendum has about the same stuff.

Where would we ever find a party

- that unselfishly cares about all of the "E"'s
- understands science behind them
- gets someone to vote for them

The current political field isn't centralized what is important, it's centralized around 1970's grudges between now middle-aged men.

Labour protects the consumefest, their jobs and current strandard of living in a symbiosis with the capitalist-'conservatives', who benefit because their products are consumed and banks are giving more loans.

Greens don't touch nuclear power and usually sneak all sorts of lesbian art exhibition and protect the stray dogs funds from the backdoor to start a new spendfest while taxing the middle-class to death so no-one votes for them.

Incentives. Not going to come out of today's field.

the right policies and their consequences (according to say these videos) are not exactly popular and will result in quite a drastic change in the western world, and not to our better. so why would anyone vote for it unless he's really convinced by all this?

Not changing subject, but putting it out there as an example about individual benefit -

Even though being more of a subject between employer and employee, one carrot for making an individual choice could be more sparetime. Our productivity has increased, but people still work long hours, get work-fatigue'd and spend less time with their families. buy more useless crap, or would you rather spend more time off work?

If EU would take as it job to invest in renewable energy rather than building more gas pipes from Russia to pollute the eastern sea, would that really change a regular citizen's life one way or another? It could even spark a new industry and more jobs.

I watched a documentary about this town in Germany which was planned with the whole idea of being eco-friendly and goverment even subsidized solar panel-ownership. Is the town much worse to live than anywhere else? You could even save in your energy bill in the long run.

If you take the train instead of buying an expensive car, is it really that horrible? you don't have to heat your car, juggle through the traffic jams and find a parking space.

Of course everything is subjective, but I don't think it's all fire and brimstone, everything's got two sides.

I was more talking about scenarios where we in the western world have to live with only a fraction of today's level of consumption level, which will obviously feel shite compared to what we got today.

You're a pretty sad case if you actually feel like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countrie..._footprint
By a quick look all european countries have footprints ranging from 4 all the way up to 8, and ecological reserve doesn't look to healthy either. So how do you think will this work when all the newly developing countries catch up to our consumption levels? Did you really think for a split second that the whole or even the most of our world could live on similar levels than say Europe with a population of 6 to 12 billion people? I'm not feeling sad, but I'm not bullshitting myself either.

I'm not bullshitting anyone, even a small child understands the arising problems. Unless compromises are made, what is the option, genocidal war?

It is not an option for me, but it is definitely an option. Why even ask lol?

Noted should be, that consumption of natural resources is a means of production. Therefore it isn't a direct reflection of commodities received by households or standard of living, it just tells us the amount of natural resources spent. Switzerland's ecological footprint is about the half of USA's.

Also we should note the structure of consumption. Commodities aren't evenly harmful. Let's look at pollution for example: On individual level the worst polluters are food, housing and cars.
http://www.environment.fi/download.asp?contentid=49430&lan=fi

Political decisions include consumption rights, taxation, subsidies and things alike. EU subsidizes agriculture, big companies, even the fucking Queen of England. How on earth does this benefit the regular person? What I've gathered from the news and people EU's environmental taxes and consumption rights don't have any regulating force, because they've been either set poorly, or prized too cheap.

That is all correct and true but doesn't mean we're less fucked (I'm not depressed, I'm just putting it as it is). Even now we already have a footprint of 2.7 (world) and we have plenty of huge economies say in Asia, possibly doubling their GDP within only a decade or a few years more. Now that could be just me but I don't see how getting a bit more efficient or productive will let us keep the consumption levels and living standards and cut the resource need into say a fifth meanwhile. Because otherwise, it's going downhill.

Well regular citizens could cut it down to ~2 per capita, by 'energy-recervisizing' their homes and eating less meat and using public transportation. I got 2.15 from wwf-meter, and 2.5 from the other. I think more developed countries' age-diversity is increasingly skewed towards more old people, so I guess with combined effort of having less people, less consumption and more energy-efficiency reaching 1 could be possible, another thing being how realistic.

http://independent.footprint.wwf.org.uk
http://www.ecologicalfootprint.com/

Yeah but how likely is it really to have less people when population is exploding? And the whole consumption thingy is a question of convincing people and get them to accept it. Energy-efficiency is definitely in reach I think, but I'm not sure about the other two and in particular the first one.

But does Europe have to solve World's all problems? If we are able to achieve sustainability, I guess atleast we could be able to live our way of living.

I don't think so, Europe is not an isolated economic system in this world. Developments anywhere on the world will more or less affect us, we compete with everyone more or less.

I thought we were, to a large extent. EU has customs and most of the trade is largely inside single countries and between Union countries. most of the foreign investments go to specific countries like Ireland. Besides, Renewable energy would make a good trade product.

what sustainability are you talking about? we live the way we live just because crapload of other people don't live so well.

or are you suggesting we pull all our investments from say, China?

No, we live so well because we are so productive. In the times of my grandparents, Finland was still a developing sweatshop-country. I suggest we to atleast take baby-steps towards sustainability. Foreign invests are actually loss of money in the system, making us poorer, because the economics of nation differ from those of private household's.

we are productive? ask someone if he's interested in making nike sneakers for 5c/hour.

My grandparents both worked at a sweatshop, yes. If not theirs, their parents or grandparents had to endure the living standard alike to those in China, Indonesia, Singapore today. To learn: Basics of economics and some history lessons, my dear friend.

your point being?

That our wealth didn't transpire out of nothing or was some divine gift, other than that of our hard work.

http://ideachannel.tv/

Watch! It even has that Terminator guy!

oh our hard work? so I guess those shoes you're wearing are a product of finnish hard work and not some 10yr old in china sewing them for next to nothing?

Yeah because they're working for Nike just because their beloved workers party is giving them too much salary and career possibilities, too much.

so that makes it all right? exploiting the crap out of someone just because we all while we promote european values and sustainability?

Far be it from american shoe manufacturer giving people options. I wonder why people sew those sneakers? Because it's a better option than farming or government jobs.

What you're giving us is outdated myths from oldschool marxists' wet dreams where the evil capitalist exploiting the poor workers, but when they open their eyes everything privately owned generally grants better pay & even better working conditions.

According to a documentary by Johan Norberg the average monthly wages in China:
Nike's factory worker : 54 dollars
Chinese government: 19 dollars

If you're so deeply interested about charity, why don't you donate your computer to them instead of bothering me with your stupidity.

yep, good old sustainability. :))))

I read this article yesterday and just say they also put it on the interwebs. I think you'll find it interesting.

http://www.geo.de/GEO/kultur/gesellschaft/59218.html

sry vernon, didn't come in English :(

Good read, I liked the analysis and key points bit in the end best. But did you notice how they said that the high income households with general high consumption are more relevant than smaller households improving their lifestyle a bit? To me that just underlines what I said about lower living standards/consumption levels earlier, we can't live big but still sustainable. At least I can't see how, it's just way too much to fix it with small things.

yes I did.

Also that people who really try to lead a sustainable life often fail to do so if they have a general high standard.

so basically, reducing your living space by half, only one pc and never traveling is the best you can do, regardless of how hard you try :(

aka #21 :)

yes and no.

The notable part is, imo, that the lower class is more or less doing it right without even trying

that leaves questions, even though I haven't read the article.

- Usually 'lower class' (working poor doesn't exist in Nordic countries) eats more and unhealthier, suffering from higher obesity levels than 'the rich'. I would assume they also consume more of the cheap products from afar rather than the expensive organic-nature stuff.

- What consists of 'higher standard'? If I don't want to buy ugly Ikea or dressmann, it doesn't mean I need to buy more pieces of the furniture or clothing. Usually higher prized goods are also of higher quality, meaning they don't need to be replaced as often.

- One of the reasons why typical Finns move away from the cities and live far away in their 'giant mansions' is because the flats are packed with all the fighting drunkard-couples, teen-discos, drug-dealers, loud immigrants, unemployed, etc. Living in the country is often a means to just live a normal life in peace, not some elitist-smug thing.

Also I wonder If I live with somebody, does this mean our combined levels in the meter are over 4? I mean, atleast the housing should be reduced.

well, our discussion is about a part of the article were a scientist tested the behaviour of 24 people who say about themselves that they try to lead a sustainable life.
And he calculated their footstep and it turned out that some of them were actually above the German average.

The reason for that is most importantly that those trying to live sustainable tend to be richer than the average

Thus they can afford having more stuff in general than poor people (doesn't matter if it holds 50% longer if you have twice the amount. They can go on vacation to distant places three times a year, and they have larger living space (per person). plus many live in houses rather than flats which is tententially more inefficiant (depending on insulation etc).
And as soon as you move far away from your workplace or kid's schools and so on you have already lost.


And yes organic food and other things play a role, but not as much as you would think, because many still don't want to reduce their meat consumption. And richer people also tend to enjoy eating more exotic stuff which is also imported from for away.

There are really many factors in this so I guess you try to do a babelfish.

Anyway the conclusion the auther of that test gives, is:

The daily choices such as food have almost no meaning compared to long-term choices like size, type and location of the place you live.


last but not least:
the wwf study did want you to add how many people live together with you (were you referring to that?) but that doesn't really matter because in all honestly those studies are inaccurate at best if not completely misleading. For example drying all you clothes in a machine takes enourmous amount of energy while having a dish washer actually saves energy! (at least in comparison to European dish washing habits)
Imo those test are only good because they give people a warning that something is wrong and give them ideas on how to improve their life style.

What I'm trying to bring up is the notion about the possible conclusions that might be drawn when deciding public policies. In a nutshell: Un-eco-friendliness isn't intrinsic feature of income disparity, it's the ends of poor eco-regulation and lack of eco-friendly consuming options.

If being rich is measurable by living large, my singleparent mother who is a store clerk modestly above the minimum wage, is a rich person. Adjusted living costs in Helsinki flats are more expensive than those of New York's. When city flats are more expensive than our 'hillbillies' mansions, something in this equation isn't quite right.

we are talking about averages.

And this changes the conclusion because...?

because on average richer people have bigger and more detached houses. Correct yes / no?

so your mom is completely irrelevant in this matter, especially because noone said anywhere that big house means rich, but rather a rich person more likely has a rich house.

Almost forgot how much I dislike your way of arguing.

Calm down, buddy. I didn't deny what you're saying - I was pursuing the discussion how the conclusion should reflect in public policies. Says so in my first sentence. What I'm merely pinpointing is the fact that by inciting and emphasizing only the classism part of it we might end up with wrong way of fixing it, like just tightening the income-tax, when the problem is in the amount and type of commodities used.

I actually don't think you should draw any public policies from that article.
You can't simply force someone to move or have a smaller house.

I believe it's a good source of knowledge for people whowant to change something and don't know what to focus on.
And I'll go even further and say that this is somewhat focused on Germany and can't be directly applied to most other countries, because e.g. they have warmer or colder climate.

I think those green cities like Freiburg could be a starting point, and listening to people's needs if they can be satisfied in less-consuming way. I do think especially young people care, and should have given better example.

Freiburg rules.

Are you saying your mom pays more for her flat than some rich guy who has a mansion and acres of land? Then by all means, go live in a mansion. ^^

No, what I'm bringing up is the facts about your beloved worker's parties policies. When it comes to them, oops, somehow the environment just seems to be something to be forgotten. When it comes to the jobs, oops, they will turn the blind eye to factories and worst polluters. And when it comes to students' subsidies, oops, that is something to vote against too.

shoes? :>

just did wwf and I ended up with 1.87
then again it suggests I should rather walk than use other means of transports, when all I ever take is a bus or train when really needed, else I already walk or go by bike. o_ö

2,06

but it didn't let me check triple glazing nor the fact that I don't need much heating and still get 21° :(

also air travel probably broke my back :/

I never go by plane so ezpez

can't say that I'm jealous ;)

too poor to travel :(

awww :(

I heard someone was in Sweden though ;)

And flight to some destinations are actually cheaper than driving.

Travel costs to Sweden, total: 44 EUR.

You travelled by mail? ;)

:D



train :<

"We need independent individuals who can feed back into the harmony of the whole...

...What we need now is a gathering of individual units that can regulate the range of their equality!"

^And this came from a f*cking cartoonist.

Fuck the world

fuck koOma

and fuck you too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 etc

I LOVE koOma.. we're gonna have sex tonight

Omg its really you Milan?

koOma is amused.