ocnblu

The dog did it!

33 posts in this topic

Did you guys see that article about a study that revealed that DOGS and their associated needs (for example, growing food for them, etc.) cause more pollution than the world's automobiles?

I love dogs, they are the most loyal, loving pet a man can have, but this study just highlights how ridiculous the car haters have gotten, and how hypocritical the "climate change OMG" movement really is.

woof!

Edited by ocnblu
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cars are relatively clean; the biggest polluters are idling ships and freight trucks at the ports. Airplanes are pretty bad too.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, as anyone who is an architect can tell you, 85% of greenhouse gases come from BUILDINGS.

Yet, for some reason, we target individual consumers... Hmm, it's almost as if it's a means to CONTROL..

Oh wait, you guys know all about my being a conflict theorist and my ideas on how the green movement is a tool for regulation instead of the 'happy, sweet, environmental savior' that they want you to think it is, right?

Good.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power generation in the US is a HUGE polluter as well, and if the plants are small enough they don't even have to meet federal regulations. If every tree hugger really wanted to save the world they could just stop using anything electric...see how they like that

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would like to learn more on exactly how buildings emit 'greenhouse gases'. Is this only taking in the intial product/material production, or does it also include existing buildings & their HVA/C system output ?

-- -- -- -- --

I like animals fine, have lived w/ a number, but I think in general the practice gets abused to a degree. I see MANY owners who keep dogs out in the yard 24/7 - that's not a 'companion', that's captivity. There's no point to it. Our cat was put down in '07 after 16 years, and I have no desire to replace him with any sort of indoor pet, likely ever. I do not care to be beholden to an animal at this point in my life. But the number of animals out there is staggering, yes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you guys see that article about a study that revealed that DOGS and their associated needs (for example, growing food for them, etc.) cause more pollution than the world's automobiles?

I love dogs, they are the most loyal, loving pet a man can have, but this study just highlights how ridiculous the car haters have gotten, and how hypocritical the "climate change OMG" movement really is.

woof!

While reducing carbon in cars is desirable, the real crux for me is getting us off of foreign fuels. I don't care how my car is powered as long as it's clean, relatively inexpensive, the money doesn't go to some middle east country that would like to kill us, and the performance is within expectations. We can do all of that using biofuels.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crap most pet owners feed their dogs and cats comes from animal scraps, which would otherwise be thrown away. A medium sized dog doesn't eat 360 pounds of filet mignon a year; it eats maybe 360 pounds of "animal byproduct" instead.

I worked at a place near an animal rendering plant... and let me tell you it absolutely STINKS. They take in animal carcasses from nearby slaughterhouses, dead pets/zoo animals/roadkill, and supermarket food waste, which they mince and boil in a vat at 280F. The fat is siphoned off (beef tallow, lard, glycerin, stearic acid, etc), while the protein is dehydrated into meat and bone meal. Yummo.

As a result I'd argue that Fido and Rover's dinners hardly make a dent on overall GHG emissions, because what they eat would otherwise be wasted.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would like to learn more on exactly how buildings emit 'greenhouse gases'. Is this only taking in the intial product/material production, or does it also include existing buildings & their HVA/C system output ?

Energy usage... the GHGs are traced back to the power plant.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, as anyone who is an architect can tell you, 85% of greenhouse gases come from BUILDINGS.

Yet, for some reason, we target individual consumers... Hmm, it's almost as if it's a means to CONTROL..

Oh wait, you guys know all about my being a conflict theorist and my ideas on how the green movement is a tool for regulation instead of the 'happy, sweet, environmental savior' that they want you to think it is, right?

Good.

That's what LEED building certification is for. Green building is finally starting to spread to the rest of the country, though California was in on it back in the 1960s with Richard Neutra's Hall of Records building in the downtown Civic Center.

http://www.aiacc.org/site/docs/neutra.pdf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a result I'd argue that Fido and Rover's dinners hardly make a dent on overall GHG emissions, because what they eat would otherwise be wasted.

I'm not so sure of this... Without the dog food market, they would just dress up the scraps and sell them as stuff like Slim Jims... to a whole new third world market.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would like to learn more on exactly how buildings emit 'greenhouse gases'. Is this only taking in the intial product/material production, or does it also include existing buildings & their HVA/C system output ?

-- -- -- -- --

I like animals fine, have lived w/ a number, but I think in general the practice gets abused to a degree. I see MANY owners who keep dogs out in the yard 24/7 - that's not a 'companion', that's captivity. There's no point to it. Our cat was put down in '07 after 16 years, and I have no desire to replace him with any sort of indoor pet, likely ever. I do not care to be beholden to an animal at this point in my life. But the number of animals out there is staggering, yes.

Do a load calculation on a modern resteraunt, both for HVAC/Refrig as well as electrical. Amazing mount of energy useage...and I love to eat out.

While I am of a more liberal stripe, I think what will really change things is when the cost of energy goes up.

And yes, people who leave dogs out 24/7 in "captivity" should be shot.

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crap most pet owners feed their dogs and cats comes from animal scraps, which would otherwise be thrown away. A medium sized dog doesn't eat 360 pounds of filet mignon a year; it eats maybe 360 pounds of "animal byproduct" instead.

I worked at a place near an animal rendering plant... and let me tell you it absolutely STINKS. They take in animal carcasses from nearby slaughterhouses, dead pets/zoo animals/roadkill, and supermarket food waste, which they mince and boil in a vat at 280F. The fat is siphoned off (beef tallow, lard, glycerin, stearic acid, etc), while the protein is dehydrated into meat and bone meal. Yummo.

As a result I'd argue that Fido and Rover's dinners hardly make a dent on overall GHG emissions, because what they eat would otherwise be wasted.

We have a rendering plant on the South side of Columbus that I drive past on the way home...that place STINKS!

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I've taken notice of recently while out driving in the middle of the night.

Some commercial/ retail businesses are completely lit up all night long: parking lots & signage, too. Complete waste of energy- these should be minimally lit & dimmed while at it. This cannot be prohibitively expensive to retro-fit for, and there's no reason to keep everything lit- the businesses that are darkened or very minimally lit are NOT going to be statistically any more prone to vandalism or break-ins.

Why this is not targeted urgently, I have no idea, but the practice is rampant.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I've taken notice of recently while out driving in the middle of the night.

Some commercial/ retail businesses are completely lit up all night long: parking lots & signage, too. Complete waste of energy- these should be minimally lit & dimmed while at it. This cannot be prohibitively expensive to retro-fit for, and there's no reason to keep everything lit- the businesses that are darkened or very minimally lit are NOT going to be statistically any more prone to vandalism or break-ins.

Why this is not targeted urgently, I have no idea, but the practice is rampant.

Amazingly, this is a very cheap retro fit. A time clock and a set of electrical contactors can make things go dim for a few hundred dollards, installed.

We have customers that leave the lighting on all day and all night...which makes NO sense at all.

However, at $65 an hour for Bucket Truck service, plus the cost of lamps, ballasts etc...plus my markup...being stupid helps my bottom line.

This is where I part company with "conservatives" because I think simple, effective regulation of light pollution/energy wastage could save us a huge amount of energy.

Plus, lets be honest...I like looking at the stars at night.

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would like to learn more on exactly how buildings emit 'greenhouse gases'. Is this only taking in the intial product/material production, or does it also include existing buildings & their HVA/C system output ?

-- -- -- -- --

I like animals fine, have lived w/ a number, but I think in general the practice gets abused to a degree. I see MANY owners who keep dogs out in the yard 24/7 - that's not a 'companion', that's captivity. There's no point to it. Our cat was put down in '07 after 16 years, and I have no desire to replace him with any sort of indoor pet, likely ever. I do not care to be beholden to an animal at this point in my life. But the number of animals out there is staggering, yes.

I haven't seen that 85% figure before, but I do know that 51% of US energy consumption is from heating, cooling, and powering buildings.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"This is where I part company with "conservatives" because I think simple, effective regulation of light pollution/energy wastage could save us a huge amount of energy."<<

I have never heard a proclaimed conservative advocating blazing lights 24/7.

'Conservatively' speaking; regulation of commercial lighting should be of little to no issue. There already are a host of local ordinances to comply with. Having a shopping mall dim it's parking lot lights to -say- 35% at night and -say- completely off or cycle on/off from 2AM on... something on that order- is not unreasonable in anyone's book.

But you cannot legislate private property lighting nor should you try. Stick with conservation education there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on how you define conservative...

To me, commonsense ordinances like this are the real meat and potatos of gov't....

Anyhooo...

At least we agree on this.

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what LEED building certification is for. Green building is finally starting to spread to the rest of the country, though California was in on it back in the 1960s with Richard Neutra's Hall of Records building in the downtown Civic Center.

http://www.aiacc.org/site/docs/neutra.pdf

LEED is getting better, but it's still a bit of a joke.

Case in point: The previous version awarded ONE point for renovating an entire building for a renewed purpose. Yet it awarded TWO points for putting a a bike rack out in front of a new (READ: likely unneeded) 'ground up' building.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what LEED building certification is for. Green building is finally starting to spread to the rest of the country, though California was in on it back in the 1960s with Richard Neutra's Hall of Records building in the downtown Civic Center.

http://www.aiacc.org...docs/neutra.pdf

One step away from getting LEED AP.

LEED is getting better, but it's still a bit of a joke.

Case in point: The previous version awarded ONE point for renovating an entire building for a renewed purpose. Yet it awarded TWO points for putting a a bike rack out in front of a new (READ: likely unneeded) 'ground up' building.

It is still in infancy. Some drastic changes are needed to bring more control on it. Civil Engineers are just gathering the momentum.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, as anyone who is an architect can tell you, 85% of greenhouse gases come from BUILDINGS.

Yet, for some reason, we target individual consumers... Hmm, it's almost as if it's a means to CONTROL..

Oh wait, you guys know all about my being a conflict theorist and my ideas on how the green movement is a tool for regulation instead of the 'happy, sweet, environmental savior' that they want you to think it is, right?

Good.

they tell you its from buildings so they can fuel their own leftist agenda to remodel and make sustainable a bunch of decrepit old buildings....because they never figured out how to make any kind of living from designing new buildings to meet typical market demand. they can't make it doing what they should be doing so they are in essence creating a set of 'reasons' to expand their services beyond basic process because they aren't bright enough to figure out how to make a decent living doing just that.

volcanoes are climates worst enemy i thought.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LEED is getting better, but it's still a bit of a joke.

Case in point: The previous version awarded ONE point for renovating an entire building for a renewed purpose. Yet it awarded TWO points for putting a a bike rack out in front of a new (READ: likely unneeded) 'ground up' building.

LEED in concept is admirable but the whole BS has been commericalized and turned into marketing rhetoric. And I can tell you, generally the purseholders will pursue only the 'cheap' LEED points.....which is fair. In my opinion, if you are a big green building banger, than YOU come up with the $$$$$$$ to pay for all the really expensive stuff.

In my opinion, the govt should be providing tax incentives to develop energy efficient tech for buildings so the companies can offer and amortize the costs on an attractive scale so it becomes commonplace through market forces. NOT legislation.

The huge windmill I am stuck looking at now everyday as i drive home, really makes me wish they would add more ordinances to keep them out of populated residential areas.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do a load calculation on a modern resteraunt, both for HVAC/Refrig as well as electrical. Amazing mount of energy useage...and I love to eat out.

While I am of a more liberal stripe, I think what will really change things is when the cost of energy goes up.

And yes, people who leave dogs out 24/7 in "captivity" should be shot.

Chris

restaurant = power usage and heat generation. if there are two things we should use energy and fuel for, food and drink would seem to be high on the list.

most buildings are in cooling mode most of the time anyways. a lot of this is due to the fact that humans themselves create heat. the interior environment becomes harmful if proper heat, and humidity are not maintained. if you imagine the heat added by cooking food, that needs to be exhausted.

i don't think we have done near enough with solar and geothermal, although solar is simply not cost effective at this point and this is why the US needs to have tax incentives to fund our companies to become global leaders in this. Geothermal is efficient in that energy exhange through fluids is very efficient.

buildings also degrade if proper interior environment is not maintained. better to spend on that then replacing degraded facilities.

with all that stimulus money, instead of ppumping AIG, and instead of throwing a ton at a useless health care policy, some tax incetnives and research money to keep the leading edge in electric power generation, solar, alt fuels, and incentives for green building as opposed to a contrived rating system would make a lot more sense.

there is so much rhetoric about global warming from so many, it would be refreshing if these people lined up the plans and funding to make actual progress as opposed to trying to manipulate people's behavior.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would assume with little doubt that geothermal in urban areas is impractical due to the footprint required- it's a suburban/rural tech for the most part.

>>"they tell you its from buildings so they can fuel their own leftist agenda to remodel and make sustainable a bunch of decrepit old buildings....because they never figured out how to make any kind of living from designing new buildings to meet typical market demand. they can't make it doing what they should be doing..."<<

Market was hit very hard (even here in NJ), so I have little doubt many are looking to create 'new demand' however possible to keep businesses from closing/ radically downsizing. Again: the theory sounds reasonable given honest education & market-driven demand... but pushing to legislate based largely on falsified data & junk science....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...