I’m Paying More for Electricity and Loving It.
Initially I was a little apprehensive about buying an all-electric loft. I was so used to furnaces and hot water tanks being heated by gas. Also, I had never had a place with an electric range — all had been gas. Another concern was the cost, although with natural gas rates increasing, that was less of a concern.
Last week I received my first full 30-day electric bill, $37.74. The period was for 11/20 to 12/20 so it included Thanksgiving when I had friends over and we were using the oven and burners quite a bit.
Here is the breakout of the bill, most likely it looks a bit different than yours:
- Actual power: 407 kWh, $30.12
- St. Louis City Municipal Charge, $1.26
- “PURE POWER”, $6.11
- St. Louis City Municipal Charge, $0.25
Let’s start from the top and work our way down. The actual use is pretty straightforward. By keeping lights off, using efficient lighting in places, and air drying clothing has made a big difference. I even turned off the light for the ice/water in the door on the freezer. The fact the heat has not been on at all makes a huge difference. Don’t worry, I’m not sitting in the dark freezing, my place manages to stay a comfy 71º-72º without any heat.
My place, at 1,576sf, is in the middle of most lofts and bigger than the house I grew up in but nearly 1,000sf smaller than what I just moved out of. I have only 30ft of exterior wall — mostly inefficient brick and large (but insulated) windows. Thus, the units around me help insulate my place to the elements. Hopefully this theory will still apply next summer, although I’m certain I will ‘need’ to run the A/C then.
Next we have the $1.26 for the “St. Louis City Muni Chg.” Is this is a tax? If it were a tax I presume it would say it was a tax, but it says a charge instead. I’m not certain how this is calculated and if the money goes into the city’s general revenues or a special fund, anyone know?
This brings us to $6.11 for “PURE POWER.” From AmerenUE’s Pure Power homepage:
By choosing to enroll in Pure Power, you agree to pay just a penny and a half more per kilowatthour to support clean energy. AmerenUE then purchases Green-e Certified® renewable energy certificates (RECs) from new regional wind and other renewable energy facilities equal to your electric demand. Green-e certification guarantees that electricity from these renewable resources is delivered to the Midwest power pool. Electricity produced by renewables helps offset the generation of electricity from other, non-renewable sources.
Pure Power allows you to have a positive environmental and economic impact in the region. The average residential customer who enrolls for a year will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 19,500 pounds―the same carbon reduction provided by about 7 acres of forest for a year or not driving a car for almost 2 years.
Sweet! To me this is a small price to pay. Of course, if my bill were a lot higher I may not feel the same. By keeping my energy use low, I can continue to afford these renewable credits. The more of you that do this, the more facilities such as wind farms we will see. I should note that I have no relationship with Ameren other than as a customer.
And now for that last quarter. Another “charge” from the city. Now, I don’t mind the quarter because it is, well, only a quarter. But how much does the city get from a tax/charge on these renewable credits that the public is voluntarily subjecting themselves to? This, of course, depends upon how many customers voluntarily decide to join the Pure Power program. Here is an example where I’d like to see some earmarking: this revenue should go into a fund to help the city reduce its own energy consumption by updating equipment in municipal buildings, adding a green roof on the courthouse, installing solar panels and/or a wind turbine to city hall, etc. The city can’t do it alone but this small “charge” might a significant fund.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. If it’s a percentage charge (which it appears to be) going to the city, it’s a tax/fee. In Denver, it was called a franchise fee, which the utility paid the city for the right to use city right-of-way for their poles.
.
I agree completely with your sentiments on renewable energy.
Oh yes, it is a tax.
Go to:
http://stlouis.missouri.org/government/budget08/02SummaryandOverview.pdf
Then scroll to page 50 for this:
“Franchise Tax Revenues from franchise taxes are forecast at $53.7 million. Because a large majority of these revenues are based on the gross receipts of utility companies, they are to a great extent dependent on changes in weather patterns and to a lesser extent on the actions of State regulatory agencies that have the authority to approve or disallow rate changes. An expected decline in revenues based on telecommunications company receipts will be more than offset by price increases already in place for natural gas and electricity.”
If you go back to the Budget Division homepage:
http://stlouis.missouri.org/government/budget.htm
You can find data for the past 10 years of revenues. Typically these explanations, with detailed tables and sometimes graphs, are in the “Summary and Overview” section of the City Budget.
Not to be cynical, but how do you know that money is going for the renewable energy like they say? I have a hard time trusting programs like these before I’ll pay for them. Is there any accountability/oversight?
The PURE-POWER surcharge looks like a local manifestation of carbon trading credits, for which I would recommend some skepticism about what Ameren is telling you. Carbon trading, while a good idea for providing economic incentive to engage renewable energy sources w/o burdening the power industry too much with expensive upgrade and retrofits, still runs the risk of becoming venue where utilities can engineer token gestures toward renewable energy. The power industry *has* to be burdened with the task of moving the bulk of its capacity to renewable sources, since it will have to be a difficult, painful, and profit-margin-unfriendly enterprise to be meaningful.
Just compare it to the the situation with locally-grown and/or organic foods. They’ve become entrenched in a niche market since people are willing to pay higher prices and/or shop at exclusive retail stores.
Besides, what about the fact that natural gas, a *very clean-burning* resource compared to any conventional electric generation from fossil fuels, is being priced artificially high by the local monopoly? How does the effect of increased power consumption from people forced to use electric space heaters (who probably have little interest in voluntary rate increases) compare to the small carbon offsets implemented in the PURE-POWER program?
Nevertheless, the PURE-POWER program is clearly a good start. But it has to only be a start, not a distraction.
I am still on the “pure power” fence. But if I was paying for it I would be demanding some sort of accountability. Some way of knowing “for sure” that my money was going to the right place. Perhaps a tour in the spring / summer of the wind farm? A quarterly “pure power” newsletter. Something beyond a quick initial “feel good” then a bill each month reminding you that maybe…just maybe you were suckered into a false “green tax”.
Hoping I and other’s are wrong! At least Albarici has an active wind mill. It is pretty safe to say it is working successfully since it is one of 9 “Green Certified” buildings in the nation (maybe world).
Happy New Year!
Other states, like California, have taken a different tack, mandating utilities provide increasing amounts of sustainably-produced power. The result is that utilities are, among other things, paying homeowners to install solar panels on their homes and are buying back the excess power. It’s also created a growing market for wind-generated energy. This appears to be more symbolic, plus it involves having the customer pay a premium to participate, instead of spreading the capital cost over all customers. Maybe it should be the other way around, where you have to pay a premium for coal-fired power?!
As Joe Frank points out, utility taxes are technically charged to the utility then the utility passes on the cost to the consumer. Many municipalities charge this tax.
Two things:
I signed up for the clean power without doing much research, largely because it is endorsed by the Missouri Coalition for the Environment.
Also the California program another correspondent cited (which is clearly superior to what Ameren has instituted) reminded me of something: Back in the early 1970s, when the PSC held hearings about whether to allow what was then UE to build the Callaway nuclear power plant, Barry Commoner testified that if UE instead bought every customer a more efficient air conditioner, it would cost less money and save more electricity than the nuke would produce.
St. Petersburg, Jan 17 (RIA Novosti) Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activity, generally believed to trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause of global warming, according to a prominent Russian scientist.
Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an increase in the sun’s activity.
His view contradicts the international scientific consensus that climate change occurs due to the emission of greenhouse gases generated by industrial activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
‘Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity,’ Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/070117/43/6b7zr.html
Or, you can just go here: http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/10/09/arguments-from-global-warming-skeptics-debunked/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skepticalscience.com%2Fargument.php&frame=true
Oh, I get it now. If you accept that man has caused global warming, then you are correct. If you question whether man has caused global warming, then you’re a skeptic.
By the way john w, have you read any of the arguments or, are you familiar with any of the contradictions that question this whole industry called global warming?
This is more to this than a bumper sticker.
I’ve been considering subscribing to Pure Power, but the Husband is adamantly opposed to giving Ameren any more money. He doesn’t trust them any further than we can throw our check to them …
~
but on the solar energy front, we’ve been keeping an eye on this …. http://www.nanosolar.com/
Justmyview- I often wonder about the mechanics of a typical jet engine and how it could be possible to propel a passenger airplane of many tons in weight into the air, and then then to sustain lengthy flight. The impetus to overtake the force of gravity alone is amazing, and just about anyone would admire the engineering achievement of the jet engine I believe. Though I wonder about the mechanics of the engine, and there are encyclopedic volumes of information in libraries or online about the jet engine and how it works, I admit I’ve never actually taken the time to read any of it. I just place my trust in overwhelming confidence of institutionalized science, and without forethought purchase a ticket whenever I intend to fly. While there have been many air disasters as a result of the failure of the jet engine to perform as designed, the failures are clearly not on the order of the basic science of the jet engine itself, but rather of miscalculations in designs of specific engine parts or engine types. This, to me, is reassuring that the scientific convention is reasoned and therefore reliable. I choose not to enroll in engineering school in order to become educated enough about the science of the jet engine to challenge convention. I’ll just take the scientific convention of the jet engine for what it is, because after all, the convention has led to its institution as a science. Have I read all the arguments that counter the conventional thought on global warming? No, of course not, and likely neither have you. Have I read ANY of the arguments? Sure I have. I read the one you posted here in this string, along with several others highlighted in the link I provided. Could I thoroughly I read all the arguments that counter conventional thought? Sure I could, just like I could take the time to finally read some thorough explanation as to how the jet engine actually works if I wanted. I choose not to enroll in meteoroligical science [school?] in order to become educated enough about the science of global warming to challenge convention. I’ll just take the scientific convention of global warming for what it is, because after all, the convention is leading quite convincingly, IN MY OPINION, toward its institution as a science. Justmyview, leaving political alignments out of the discussion, I believe the conventional thought regarding global warming is convincing enough to agree with, though you clearly are not so convinced. This is just fine with me, but I would appreciate it if you would allow others who do not share your views to express their opinions without being labeled as “lemmings”, or incapable of independent thought. Challenging arguments is a two-way street, and it’s a bit hypocritical to think that only the contrarian viewpoint on suburban sprawl or global warming is correct, while accusing those who disagree with you (and, at least in these cases, agree with the conventional view) of outright dismissal of dissenting opinions or having bumper sticker mentality. I can empathize with being in a position vastly in the minority (and yes, Justmyview, at least on these points you are), because I have been there before, so I can understand how frustrating it can be. If you can post a scientifically-backed argument countering the conventional thought on either suburban sprawl or global warming, I can post 10 more that support the convention. I can understand you wanting to more thoroughly examine arguments in favor or to the contrary of convention more than I would, because you are seeking anything that appears to support your minority position. Have I read all available positions from all scientists on all sides regarding global warming? No, I have not. I’ll just say that, like with the science of the jet engine (or food safety science, or medical science, or building science, etc), I feel I can be a bit more intellectually disinterested about this one because of the legions of those educated enough to know what needs to be known give me that luxury.
Steve: I go along with everything you said and I agree that we can be better caretakers of the place we live. I also think we can be smarter about it.
There is a hysteria sweeping the planet called global warming and a stampede to save the planet – regardless of the validity of the arguments or the benefits of such actions. There is a cost/benefit ratio that should be considered before decisions are made yet this isn’t happening. What’s happening is that everyone is running in circles proclaiming steps in the right direction.
What direction should we be going? The article I cited refutes the whole premise of your Pure Power idea. Shouldn’t the debate be settled before we go off what might be considered the deep end? Shouldn’t science use scientific principals to help us decide?
At the moment, one side is using ‘concensus’ as proof and the other side is being ignored despite scientific evidence to the contrary. As the world was ‘flat’ in the 15th century, today the world is ‘warming’. The parallel is clear: neither had (have) sound scientific support and neither would (will) allow debate. In mideaval times, people were executed for disagreeing and in modern times it’s not only politically incorrect, it’s political suicide.
Regarding the use of fossil fuels I agree we need to lose some of the dependence we have on oil but not because of global warming – for safety reasons and for health reasons – people are dying because of it and we’re breathing it, not to mention the problems with terrorists, governments, political parties etc. because of it.
We agree on lots of things Steve but I’m not buying the global warming package just because a lot of people agree with each other.
john w:
If I understand you correctly you’re saying…
1. You recognize that there is debate on both sides of the issue.
2. You find the issue important enough to take a side in the debate.
3. Despite it’s importance and impact on the world, you’re buying into one side of the debate though you lack the intellectual understanding of the issue.
4. You not only buy into that which you do not understand but you’re prepared to argue your decision and to base that argument on a “luxury” that “legions of those educated enough” argue it.
5. You are willing to ignore “legions of those educated enough” that offer contradictory evidence.
Did I understand you correctly?
How about a philosophical question: If Saint Louis weather is too complex to predict accurately how can you make the leap to universal weather and buy into it with “luxury”.
Steve:
Again, I agree with your motives but I disagree with the idea that we should jump on that train because on the surface it helps send us move in the right direction.
World wide decisions that will cost countless man hours & raw materials based on an idea that is far from decided can be a colossol waste of time and money. This world has great needs – I’d like us to be smarter about solving them.
There’s that word. [b] Feel. [/b] Thanks for being so honest.
There is nothing wrong with feelings except that they come from an emotional part of our brain. As we all know, those of us that have tasted the love of a good woman, emotion doesn’t always translate into wise decision making.
If the debate is not settled regarding global warming, and I will agree that it is not, any reasonable person can see that there is plenty of sound scientific support for the conventional thought on global warming. It is comparable to the pre-Colombian “world is flat” fallacy in hardly any way other than argumentative convenience, which is to say, that the comparison is not expected to be challenged when used in casual conversation. With the scientific advances and technological tools at our disposal currently, we can confidently say what the surface topography of other planets is like, or confidently say what the causes of deadly diseases are. Though we have yet to cure cancer completely, or send humans to explore other planets, clearly we are convincingly on our way to understanding how to achieve both. We’ve been able to isolate and identify the nature of cancer at the cellular level, and provide many sufferers with the ability to at least continue their lives with the disease in forced remission. We’ve built spacecraft capable of catapulting humans beyond the orbit of Earth and to safely land on the moon, and provided those humans with the life supporting equipment to defy uninhabitable atmospheric conditions and explore the lunar surface. It’s in this context of scientific capability and confidence that we now have scientists studying and formulating reasoned positions on global warming, and not the limited scientific knowledge more primitive tools of the pre-Colombian world.
First off, John, get back to work.
Secondly, Justmyview, there certainly is debate. Just like there is debate on creationism (or intelligent design) vs. evolution and that cigarettes cause cancer. It’s not credible debate, but it is still debate.
“SLP — OK, let’s suppose the world is flat and that man has not and is not causing global warming.”
Ironic, in that both of those notions represent the “consensus science” of the day. Seems to me that Global Warmism and organized religion are having more and more in common these days, as they both require a leap of faith. Why, it was only 25 short years ago that I recall the consensus science alarmists predicting Nuclear Winter. My, how times do change.
john w: The comparison is made for comparison purposes. Challenge it if you like but the comparison is valid regardless of whether the conversation is casual or not.
The success in science that you speak of a direct result of using accepted scientific methods which, in the global warming arena, have been bypassed. Science has proven to itself time and again to use the accepted method or walk on shifting sand.
You may ‘feel’ that the global warming argument makes sense and thus choose to accept it as truth, but a truth of this magnitude should not be
decided on feelings.
It’s time for an open dialogue on global warming within the scientific community and the stampede to solve supposed problems with supposed solutions needs to slow down.
It’s not a liberal or conservative issue. It’s not a Democrat or Republican issue, it’s not a USA or everyone else issue, it is a human issue and it needs to be dealt with by reasonable people with open minds using scientific methods.
You godda problem wi dat?
The comparison is NOT valid as I have just pointed out to you. I WILL challenge it, and I WILL remind you of the simplicity of the reasoning behind my insistence that the comparison is invalid. The success in science that I point out illustrates a level of scientifically-based understanding of our physical world that is contemporary, and clearly surpasses by many times the level of scientifically-based understanding of the physical world as presumably understood by many in the pre-Colombian age. It’s this contemporary level of scientifically-based understanding of our physical world that is the context of global warming science and its reasoning, and if we can launch rockets carrying humans to other bodies in outer space and safely return them, and if we can use the technology we use to aid in the medical advancements we’ve made, we can certainly understand the multiple layers of our planet’s stratosphere enough to reach scientific consensus in convincing numbers. It is my FEELING that, along with the other scientic discoveries and achievements mentioned, the scientific findings regarding global warming are convincing enough to take action. What in the world makes you think there hasn’t been an open dialog on global warming thus far? What exactly is your definition of open dialog? In what way has the dialog been closed? It’s not as if this issue just sprung up in some secret left wing think tank somewhere, where the only scientists allowed into the dialog chamber had “Hi, my name is Chuck, and I’m a liberal” stickers on their lapels, and all the rest were refused entry. Do you believe the “junk science” was cooked up to look official, and then unleashed on an unwitting populace to deceive? How open does the dialog need to be for you to be satisfied? I FEEL, and am of the reasoned opinion that there has been more than open dialog regarding this issue, and that every non-progressive scientist available received the same invitation to be part of the dialog as any other scientist. Your refusal to accept the fact that a vast majority of scientists have reached a consensus is a problem, I can see, but I really don’t know how the dialog can be any more open than it already is. You just can’t accept the consensus, and that is your problem. I FEEL that the sun will appear to rise in the east tomorrow morning, and that tomorrow is going to be Saturday. Is that a reasonable enough expectation, or should I wait to see the results instead of just going on feeling? If you can please explain to me how the vast majority of scientists who comprise the global warming consensus are not reasonable people with open minds, then explain it. You godda problem wi dat?
Hey Justmyview, looks like you & I agree on something this time. I don’t believe man has caused all of the global warming. Some of it yes, but the majority of it has been happening naturally over centuries. Those icebergs have been slowly melting all along on their own. We may have speeded it up a bit but very little I bet. And if anyone is guilty of too much emissions it’s China, they have all the factories we used to have. Here in the good ol USA, too much blame is put on Mr. John Q Public and if there’s any blame to lay here it should be at the big companies and corporations. I work for a company where the utility costs mean nothing. Whatever the bills are they just pay em. They don’t care, it’s chicken feed compared to what the monthly profits are. But that doesnt mean they shouldn’t conserve. The govt. here needs to crack down on big companies and make them be more conservative.
There’s a lot to respond to in your comments john w. Let me start with your “Do you believe the “junk science†was cooked up to look official, and then unleashed on an unwitting populace to deceive?”
As a matter of fact, I do and for good reason. I recall reading one of many articles in the Wall Street Journal about 25 years ago about government funding of research – specifically, environmental research. This article discussed the methods used by the government to get the research results they wanted to hear. Basically it worked this way – agree and support the ideas of the congressional committee in charge of distributing grants or forget about getting a grant. Here’s the kicker – the head of that committee was none other than the man that INVENTED THE INTERNET – Al Gore.
Al Gore would not fund research unless it supported his ideas. I presume that Al had made up his mind and he wanted to prove that he was right. I suspect, there was financial motive on his part. Everyone on the government tit in the scientific community was well aware of these requirements for funding and provided everything he wanted while he provided the scientists with the money.
Yes, there is enough junk science to cause great alarm and a great distrust in any scientific issues that are in bed with the government. If truth be said, I’d bet the majority of those with an opinion on this topic have had it shaped by politics as opposed to science.
I’ll get back to your other comments another day.
Have a nice night.
…and I thought the tinfoil hats were supposed to be worn by those on the left. Al Gore never said he invented the internet, but I see you are content to ape the same bumper sticker slogans that so many lemmings have aped before. I thought you were the king of independent thought.
john w:
Your response is “tin hats” and then defending Al Gore???
Lets address Al Gore first – Al Gore quote, given during a Wolf Blitzer interview in 1999, “ During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet. ” Google it, I’m not making this up.
Now, lets address the tin hats – do they work?
Justmyview- this is becoming fun…
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://www.sethf.com/gore/
http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/history/inventednet.html
http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/
http://archive.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/10/05/gore_internet/
Now in response to the meat of your position regarding junk science, er.. global warming. Could we call it Warmism, as in Catholicism since both are based on a belief system.
Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 or that by consensus the sun is 93 million miles away. Nobody talks like that because consensus is for politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant.
Here are some interesting examples of consensus (taken verbatim from a 2003 CalTech Lecture):
In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.
Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.
The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
…which brings us back to where this all started. I believe, based upon the reasoned opinions of the vast majority of scientists who care to opine on the matter of global warming, climate change, “warmism”, or whatever derogatory term you wish to apply to denigrate its presence in this discussion thread, that the consensus view is convincing enough to take action, and that the minority view of the skeptics like yourself tends will remain, unfortunately, quite the politically devisive instrument. You seem awfully desperate to prove that all that wish to take corrective action, based upon a convincing bevy of reasoned scientists using scientific reasoning to reach consensus. Apparently, the examples you present (which are impressive, BTW), are used in hopes of proving, once and for all, that global warming is just silliness, and that all of the scientists, from all over the world, that comprise the consensus are just partisan operatives colluding with Al Gore. If the science is not solid enough, and we’re then left with only consensus, should we simply stop all scientific research that works toward a proof? I ask this because it seems, for all that I have seen, that a vast and growing number of voices are in favor of the consensus view, not a diminishing number of voices. I do not believe that man is the sole cause, nor the chief cause of global warming, but rather that global warming exists as a threat and that the behavior of man has undeniably aggravated and accelerated its pace. I’m willing to accept the fact that our current way of life is not sustainable and must change for the good of this planet, however you seem desperately resistant to change, and, quite frankly, are ginning up the same sort of “junk science” hysteria among the skeptics that you claim the consensus has caused throughout the world. I’m not going to bother to dig up some instances of an as-of-yet not scientifically proven consensus being vindicated by recounted events in time, as you have, because I feel that there will be long litany that will qualify. While your examples are impressive, and they are, they stand like all other exceptions in stark contrast to the expected and commonplace. I believe the consensus of scientific opinion is compelling enough to take action, and so I will. I don’t know how else to say it. You may feel that I am a fool for believing what I believe, and wanting to change what I believe should be changed, and that’s apparently the way it is going to remain.
OK john w, so you’ve made up your mind and all the data in the world won’t change it. Then why are we having this conversation? Why are you arguing with me? I am well informed, intelligent, and am expressing (with support) an opposing opinion that is legitimate and widespread. You, on the other hand have admitted to not understanding the issue but challenging my intelligence based on your feelings. I had hoped for a legitimate debate on a topic of serious importance and I got a stubborn, intellectually lazy, uninformed lemming. By the way, lemmings stubbornly believe in consensus too.
Actually I believe there is near 100 per cent agreement that global warming is happening, that glaciers are melting, that temperatures are rising world wide. The cause of the warming is the question, is it man made or natural?
Of course man has devastated his environment on a local level for centuries, St. Louis and many cities around the world were black with pollution in the fifties, China deforested most of it’s land in ancient times, chemicals have polluted streams and lakes all over the world and in the United States there is still numerous superfund sites needed to be cleaned up. Check it out http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
Man has been very hard on the environment. That brings us to global warming. Could the millions of cars and planes and the thousands and thousands of factories be disrupting the atmosphere and causing global warming?
Irregardless of the cause, and the science aside, it makes perfect sense to build a more sustainable environment that is pollution free.
The real problem is if humans are in fact causing global warming and nothing is done, earth could become uninhabitable if the atmosphere is destroyed.
So it makes perfect sense to curtail pollution while moving towards a higher quality, more sustainable life, and if in fact global warming does slow down or reverse, we will then know that in fact human activity is a cause of global warming. If not, then we will have cleaner air and eliminate the possibility of other negative effects of atmospheric pollution.
A look at the superfund site demonstrates clearly the shortsighted stupidity of the human race.
man… this is taking on a life of its own! Yes, Justmyview, I have made up my mind. I have made up my mind to take action on the views as expressed by a consensus of scientists who feel, based upon an enormous amount of evidence available to them, that the globe is warming, and that man is playing a role in this unfortunate effect. Why are we having this conversation? We are having this conversation because you apparently won’t take vast majority of views forming a consensus as anything more than silliness that should end up on bumper stickers for skeptics to ridicule. You just don’t accept the majority view of scientists. You don’t accept that there is a throng of people who are not scientists, and have the preoccupation of their daily lives that demand attention, that are willing to believe there might just be something to what a vast majority of scientists are propounding. The scientists have an incalculable amount of geologic, environmental and atmospheric information available to them to analyze and then inform their critical decisions. Many hundreds of scientists have analyzed the geologic, environmental and atmospheric information, and a vast majority those scientists have reached decisions that are similar enough to form a consensus on the issue. Justmyview, your opinion IS legitimate and widespread, but I’m afraid my opinion is also legitimate and much, much more widespread than your opinion. My opinion is held by the majority. Your opinion is held by the minority. You seem to be indicating that I know nothing about this subject, while you know a sufficient amount to state a defensible position, at least according to your last post. I don’t know why you would feel this has not been a legitimate debate on the issue, unless you feel that it is not legitimate until every last one of the current majority slam on their argumentative brakes, swing 180 degress around, and fall in line with the current minority. If, after reading all of my posts in this and other discussion threads, you truly, TRULY believe (not ‘feel’, of course, but a more scientifically reasoned ‘believe’) that I am intellectually lazy and am a lemming then I have to FEEL that you, at least here in this blog, cannot continue a discussion or debate without insults and dismissals of viewpoints that differ from yours. I don’t recall ever making any personally insulting comments about you, nor do I recall ever simply dismissing your view as crackpot nonsense. You have a position. I have a position. My position is held by the majority. Your position is held by the minority. As a majority position holder, I have the luxury of knowing that resources in defense of my position will not be few or far away. As a minority position holder you have debated fiercely and formidably with an impressive arsenal of exceptions to the commonplace [rule]. After reading our exchanges, I cannot come to the conclusion that the discussion has been nothing other than you stating well-reasoned facts, and me stating nothing more that what I feel. I never once admitted to not understanding the issue, but rather admitted that I don’t hold the scientific expertise nor do I have the time to actually read every bit of evidence in favor or not in favor of the consensus view. I believe 100% of educated, intelligent people will admit as much, as a civilization that is truly civil is not only based on mathematically irrefutable fact alone, but trust as well. When I visit the dentist, and he tells me that I need a certain procedure, I suppose I could seek a countervailing medical opinion just to test the strength of my dentist’s medical opinion prior to subjecting to the prescribed procedure, but instead I just trust his expertise. I have a feeling that he knows, based upon his experience through scientific research and practice, that his opinion can be trusted. It is this trust in him that his dental practice succeeds. Has my dentist made any errors in judgement, though the judgement was based upon what the typical course of action that would be advocated by a consensus of dentists, that resulted in harm to a patient? I don’t know, but it’s always possible. I am not a dentist. I do not have the energy, financial resources or time to attend dental school to become an educated expert on dentistry. It is in this absence of dental practice education that I put my trust in someone who does have the practice and education, who is of course my dentist. It is in the absence of climatological, meteorological, geoligical, atmospherical, cosmological, or outer spatial education, practice, or expertise that I put my trust in the community of scientists that does have these qualifications, and ths is of course the vast majority of scientists who comprise the consensus opinion on global warming.
If my defense of my position constitutes stubbornness in your estimation, then I suppose I’ll remain stubborn and not just turn 180 degrees into alignment with your position. I don’t know what else I can offer, other than I’ll be happy to be in the majority, leave you to the minority, and see that no boulders appear to have budged.
Yea john w, blah blah blah, …
Please don’t forget the repeated stupidity of mankind. The superfund site is evidence. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
Steve describes in his condo experiences the core of a new urban policy with condos, two family, four families and row housing built to help conserve energy.
It is a different form from the far flung, remote housing of the suburbs.
What is the truth? What is the direction?
Time will tell.
GMichaud- What you describe is just the sort of housing, along with the attendant commercial compontent that our city truly needs. The benefits are manifold, and if we could have a more authentic richness than what New Town at St. Charles offers in the city rather than in the county, we would be headed in the right direction. While there is clearly a market for the Disneyesque town out in the county, the truth is that there is a desire for mixed-use form-based development in our largely vacant core. I hope that this is the direction, and that time will tell us sooner than later.
It’s not just StL or just America….
Most American tourists spend their time visiting historic city centers, so they may be unaware that suburbs now constitute the bulk of European metropolitan areas, just as they do in America. We marvel at the efficiency of European mass transit, but since 1950, transit ridership has remained flat, while the use of private automobiles has skyrocketed. Just as in America. “As cities across Europe have become more affluent in the last decades of the twentieth century,” Bruegmann writes, “they have witnessed a continuing decline in population densities in the historic core, a quickening of the pace of suburban and exurban development, a sharp rise in automobile ownership and use, and the proliferation of subdivisions of single-family houses and suburban shopping centers.” Despite some of the most stringent anti-sprawl regulations in the world and high gas prices, the population of the City of Paris has declined by almost a third since 1921, while its suburbs have grown. Over the last 15 years, the city of Milan has lost about 600,000 people to its metropolitan fringes, while Barcelona, considered by many a model compact city, has developed extensive suburbs and has experienced the largest population loss of any European city in the last 25 years. Greater London, too, continues to sprawl, resulting in a population density of 12,000 persons per square mile, about half that of New York City.
The point is not that London, any more than Barcelona or Paris, is a city in decline (although the demographics of European city centers have changed and are now home to wealthier and older inhabitants, just like some American cities). Central urban densities are dropping because household sizes are smaller and affluent people occupy more space. Like Americans, Europeans have opted for decentralization. To a great extent, this dispersal is driven by a desire for home-ownership. “Polls consistently confirm that most Europeans, like most Americans, and indeed MOST PEOPLE WORLDWIDE, WOULD PREFER TO LIVE IN SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES on their own piece of land rather than in apartment buildings,” Bruegmann writes. So strong is this preference that certain European countries such as Ireland and the United Kingdom now have higher single-family house occupancy rates than the United States, while others, such as Holland, Belgium, and Norway, are comparable. Half of all French households now live in houses.
It appears that all cities—at least all cities in the industrialized Western world—have experienced a dispersal of population from the center to a lower-density periphery. In other words, sprawl is universal. Why is this significant? “Most American anti-sprawl reformers today believe that sprawl is a recent and peculiarly American phenomenon caused by specific technological innovations like the automobile and by government policies like single-use zoning or the mortgage-interest deduction on the federal income tax,” Bruegmann writes. “It is important for them to believe this because if sprawl turned out to be a long-standing feature of urban development worldwide, it would suggest that stopping it involves something much more fundamental than correcting some poor American land-use policy.”
I think I prefer Kunstler’s view…
http://www.kunstler.com/Mags_Bruegmann.html
A couple of points, the nature of sprawl in America is much different than in Europe. In cities in Europe there is a layer of mass transit, including trains serving areas outside the central core. In American sprawl is auto based, crippling the possible use of mass transit in the future. (Not to mention walking, bicycles etc). When I was in London, I stayed in Fulwell, well ouside central London, but it was still a walking community with trains to core of London.
In any case the real question is what type of sprawl is sustainable over the long term? I cited the Stockholm example where they sent trains out like fingers on a hand in the fifties to focus sprawl and help make it more sustainable.
The organization of human settlements is going to become a serious concern as resources become scarce. But as the Stockholm example points out, there are ways to allow for sprawl without jeopardizing the future.
Right now America builds communities based on what developers imagine will make them the most money. Capitalism has failed to address the larger questions of civilization.
As such even if global warming does not turn out to be a disaster then it is possible that serious energy shortages will cause major problems or that the sprawling infrastructure will become impossible to maintain financially. (That is already happening with the roads and sewer system in the St. Louis region)
So we either wait for a complete collapse to occur before addressing these problems, or begin to consider new ideas and implement new solutions.
What is the old saying? “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?”
Guess I missed a lot over the weekend.
To quote: OK john w, so you’ve made up your mind and all the data in the world won’t change it.
That’s the whole point, JMV, you don’t have ‘all the data in the world’ no matter how you wish it to be so. The IPCC concludes that “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Very likely meaning a greater than 90% probability.
There is climate change, the degree of which can not be accounted for by natural variation alone. And the IPPC concludes that there is a 90% probability that it is man made.
Is there still debate and research? Certainly. Are there errors and flaws in the IPCC report and process? Certainly. Is there a vast conspiracy within the IPCC process to ignore the mountains of data disproving man made climate change? No. Are there mountains of data disproving man made climate change? No.
The volume of the debate is political, not scientific.