Leaked, a plan to teach climate change denial

[cme1201]

Feb 16, 2012 15:08:29 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Feb 16, 2012 15:04:54 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Depends on the batteries.

What batteries? You get to hand crank that biatch!

ha

[EVT1]

Sorry- I should have specified- it's a shake light.

[Deleted]

"Seriously- gonna go after LEDs? I think you are not getting the efficiency part of this."

I was speaking in favor of LEDs. They shine in the direction that light is needed rather than in all directions. That's a good thing. LED efficacy is improving quickly, so I may be behind the times on that one. But a year or two ago, they were not more efficient than a good HID in terms of lm/W. But if you figure more of the HID's light is wasted, you still had an LED fixture with lower wattage.

The difference is even better outdoors compared to the amber colored HPS lights. Even though the HPS light is much more efficient (lm/W), the white light appears brighter than the amber, so to the eyes, a dimmer light is actually brighter. The $ savings still isn't there yet except maybe on the two coasts and Hawaii.

[cme1201]

Feb 16, 2012 15:26:26 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Sorry- I should have specified- it's a shake light.

Then I would never be in a cave to begin with!

[Deleted]

Feb 16, 2012 15:29:11 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

"Seriously- gonna go after LEDs? I think you are not getting the efficiency part of this."

I was speaking in favor of LEDs. They shine in the direction that light is needed rather than in all directions. That's a good thing. LED efficacy is improving quickly, so I may be behind the times on that one. But a year or two ago, they were not more efficient than a good HID in terms of lm/W. But if you figure more of the HID's light is wasted, you still had an LED fixture with lower wattage.

The difference is even better outdoors compared to the amber colored HPS lights. Even though the HPS light is much more efficient (lm/W), the white light appears brighter than the amber, so to the eyes, a dimmer light is actually brighter. The $ savings still isn't there yet except maybe on the two coasts and Hawaii.

Don't mind EVT1, he doesn't care about the content of your post as much as the politics of your stance.

[Deleted]

Have you guys heard about that new book, "The Conundrum"?

Nothing singes the psyche of an eco-conscious do-gooder quite like being rebuked by another eco-conscious do-gooder. In The Conundrum, which catalogs the hypocrisies and paradoxes of living green, the scolder is David Owen. His progressive bona fides are robust. In the 1970s, Owen moved with his new wife to Manhattan, a place he has described as a “utopian environmentalist community” because without a clothes dryer, a car, or even a lawn, their ecological footprint was minuscule. He writes frequently about the environment for the New Yorker, once arguing in its pages that an upside to the global economic crisis was that it decreased emissions. That he also writes for Golf Digest is confusing if not disqualifying.

The tough-love upbraiding in The Conundrum seems mostly directed at hybrid-driving, energy- efficient-lightbulb-screwing locavores convinced that such practices will set the world on a path to green salvation. Owen’s book brings deflating news: Most supposedly sustainable products and eco-living strategies are, he writes, “irrelevant or make the real problems worse.”

Owen’s logic is backed up by an economic principle known as the “rebound effect”: Advances in energy efficiency lower the cost of a given activity, which causes people to engage in that activity more, canceling out not only savings but also environmental benefits. Owen keeps a 1940s aluminum beer can on his desk. It weighs five times more than today’s can of Bud Light. Efficiency gains made beer cans cheaper to produce, transport, and dispose of. The cost of popping a brew declined so that more people can do it, using up more aluminum, not less.

www.businessweek.com/magazine/book-review-the-conundrum-by-david-owen-02092012.html

I think it's going on my reading list.

[vandalshandle]

I don't think that anyone is trying to say that there is a solution to the environmental issues that we have. All we can do, is all we can do. Back in the 1950's, my 100 HP V-8 1950 Ford got about 16 mpg, and was only built to last about 4-6 years. Today, my 300 HP Cadillac gets 26 MPG, and is already 12 years old. That did not change because Detroit wanted to change things. It changed because they were forced to, by competition, and government regulation, and I call that a good thing. My first new car was a 1965 Falcon, which was a piece of junk that I managed to unload on some poor sucker for $150 in 1971. No, it had never been wrecked. It was just a worthless piece of crud, designed to last for the 3 year car payments, and then off to the crusher.

[EVT1]

Hmmm- I guess when LEDs get real cheap I'm gonna light my house up like XMAS 365 days a year.

That's funky logic- maybe to some degree he has a point, say if gas went down to 50 cents people would drive more- or would they just not cut back as much- I know I'm not going to drive an extra hundred miles a week no matter what it costs. Beer though? People drink more because it is cheaper to make a beer can? I think he had way too many. Maybe when I get that new energy star fridge I can stare inside with the door open more often.....

[Deleted]

Beer might not be the best analogy. A better one would be someone going out and buying a higher efficiency furnace or A/C. They see how much their bills drop, and then they're less careful about not wasting energy.

Your gas analogy would be when a person buys a new, more fuel efficient car.

Also, apology accepted.