Trouble at CAT (Period properties of the future)

[Flyfisher]

The point is that a space ship ride is probably the most energy intensive activity known to man. So if energy wasting is the problem, this one is top of the league!

It certainly needs a lot of energy to crawl out of our gravity well into orbit (which Branson's craft can't actually achieve anyway), but can we be optimistic and think of the potential benefits before judging it to be a complete waste of that energy?

I know it's difficult to ascribe specific things to mankind's space endeavours, but I'm sure we'd all agree that they've given our technologies a pretty good boost (that and waging wars, sadly) and who knows what spin-offs might result? Artificial photosynthesis would be handy for a start.

As for it not being in our nature to perform favours for people not yet born, I'm afraid I agree with Joce's earlier point that it's not even in our nature to perform favours for those who are already living, never mind those not yet born. A gross generalisation, of course, but why else are millions of people around the world starving while we stockpile food (and body weight)?

 

[JoceAndChris]

"Which puts folk like us, who care for old buildings that they might remain to become older, the sort of folk who might just have it in our natures to perform favours for people that aren't born yet."

You have such a positive way of looking at things Biff.

Many could argue that we who dwell in draughty period properties are not the least bit helpful to the environment (how about those 8 grand fuel bills on "Country House Resue" lately), and, with the typical focus on expensive repair and appropriate furnishings and fixings, amongst the most indulged and privileged members of society. I'm sure anyone reading our curtain-making, which-shade-of-paint chatter in a poor country would not think us the kind of people to perform favours for those we don't know, but rather the kind of people to spend exorbitant sums on things that in the grand scheme of things are probably not very important.

I look forward to reading McEwan's latest, though my last experience of him was of sixth formers ripping "Atonement" into little pieces.

 

[biffvernon]

but can we be optimistic and think of the potential benefits before judging it to be a complete waste of that energy?

Oh I'm actually really keen on space science and think we should spend more on it. But I think that manned space flight is a complete waste of effort at present. You get vastly more science from unmanned space missions. For sure, one day, if we get through the AGW stuff, we will need to leave Earth before the Sun goes all Red Giant on us, but we've a fair few million years to go for that.

 

[biffvernon]

with the typical focus on expensive repair and appropriate furnishings and fixings, amongst the most indulged and privileged members of society.

Expensive doesn't have to mean carbon intensive. I spent today making a handrail for a staircase out of a bit of yew that I had salvaged from a neighbour's hedge pruning job a few years ago (a lot of 30 foot high yew trees). A day's labour, an expensive handrail, very little CO2 added to the atmosphere but a few kilograms of carbon safely sequestered in a privileged person's house.

 

[Flyfisher]

Expensive doesn't have to mean carbon intensive. . . . . A day's labour, an expensive handrail, very little CO2 added to the atmosphere

Perhaps, depending on how did the lucky customer earned the money to pay for the expensive handrail. The more money involved, the more energy involved, the more carbon involved (until we wean ourselves off fossil fuels).

 

[biffvernon]

Yes, there's a very close correlation between money and energy in an economy that is so heavily dependant on oil. I try to ensure my customers are professional string quartet players.

 

[JohnB]

Yes, there's a very close correlation between money and energy in an economy that is so heavily dependant on oil. I try to ensure my customers are professional string quartet players.

But how do their audience earn the money to buy the tickets :wink:
Unfortunately we all have to live in the world as it is, however much we want to change it. Biff has to earn more money than he could otherwise live on, and it's a vicious circle.

 

[Flyfisher]

Exactly. It's all very well for rock stars, for example, to blab on about saving the planet and 'going green' but they are sitting at the top of a multi-million pound business empire that consumes huge amounts of energy. If they really wanted to 'go green' they could record their music at home and release it free on the web rather than insist on their fans spending vast sums (=consume energy) on buying their stuff and attending multi-million pound international tours.

Oh, I forgot. They probably offset all their carbon usage, so that's alright then. :roll:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/07/14/pulling-yourself-off-the-ground-by-your-whiskers/

 

[biffvernon]

None of which stops us from reducing the carbon intensity of whatever industry we are involved in. Just because the economy is addicted to oil does not meant that the habit can't be kicked.

By the way, it's not just global warming, but also ocean acidification that we need to top:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100330092821.htm

 

[biffvernon]

Chris Huntigford has a useful contribution on Lovelock in the grauniad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/01/james-lovelock-climate-change-pessimism

 

[Flyfisher]

Just because the economy is addicted to oil does not meant that the habit can't be kicked.

In theory, perhaps, but probably not in practice until we've burned the very last drop:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8596692.stm

 

[Flyfisher]

Chris Huntigford has a useful contribution on Lovelock in the grauniad:

I wonder if he has misunderstood Lovelock's comments about people being too stupid to prevent climate change? I say this because he seems to mount a defence on the based on our unlimited human ingenuity when solving difficult problems. Fair enough.

However, I've never interpreted Lovelock's position being that we're too stupid to figure out a solution, only that we're too stupid to implement one.

Let's face it, there's precious little real, hard, tough decisions being enacted by any governments around the world that stand any sort of chance of getting us back below 350ppm CO2. The best thing I remember reading around Copenhagen was that China agreed to limit their rate of increasing CO2 emissions. Can someone please explain how that is going to help prevent climate change?

Intellectually too stupid? I don't think so. Socially too stupid? It's increasingly looking that way.

 

[biffvernon]

Yes, we obviously are more intelligent than yeast, we just don't behave more intelligently.