Re: so you discount the 80%efficiency gain? -- The Environmental Lounge

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

Subject: Re: so you discount the 80%efficiency gain?

Author:
Duncan7

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 21:48:55 01/24/08 Thu
In reply to: sci guy 's message, "so you discount the 80%efficiency gain?" on 15:41:37 01/24/08 Thu

Who says kyoto targets are correct? I certainly don't and your way to optimistic in your efficiency numbers and what the US would do about imported oil. But here's the disclaimer. i'm not certain mans role in "climate change" is that big a deal. I just don't like pollution for pollutions sake. So you can take that for what it's worth. At this point in my life I really don't care how or why you do what you do. I'm concerned with what I do and i've already taken the best possible care of what I do.

>Typical. If EVERY user of energy (cars, heating
>systems, cooking etc) were only using 20% of the
>energy they use now, the US wouldn't have to import
>oil anymore, and it's greenhouse gas emissions would
>be well below Kyoto's targets.
>
>bandaid solution? Perhaps, but a bandaid that size is
>pretty damn good.
>
>
>
>
>>That's also a good point, but depending on location
>>summers are alot shorter then winters. Around here,
>>heat is probably used twice as much as A/C, but even
>>so the more sunlight you allow into your home the more
>>passive heat you generate. The bottom line is if you
>>want to reduce carbon emissions you don't depend on
>>non renewable energy sources and you don't depend on
>>politicians and liberals to solve the problem. It's
>>not the type of lighting you use it's the source of
>>energy that powers them. Everything else is bandaid BS
>>and a waste of time and money.
>>
>>>>Most law makers (or liberals in general) can't see
>>the
>>>>whole picture and to an extent this article points
>>>>that out, but to be fair in the summer time the
>>>>opposite would be true. The same lights would cause
>>>>your ac to run more. I'll stick with my renewable
>>>>sources and run whatever the hell I want.
>>>
>>>
>>>In the summer time here, the drive in movies do not
>>>start till almost 10 pm mid summer. sun rise is at
>>>5am. I hardly ever use lights in the summer.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
BUT Mainland China will beat us	DE	13:55:21 01/31/08 Thu
Re: BUT Mainland China will beat us -- Duncan7, 22:56:23 02/01/08 Fri
And THIS D guy is exactly what...	DE	12:34:49 02/01/08 Fri