Quite right, what we need is new energy technology / sources technology in he medium term.

The liberal facists prefer to try and bully us into behaving as they say.

I'm away to switch all the lights on.

...quite wrong. Going to bed after midnight and then getting up at six on a saturday morning to start posting at ATW, goes beyond the pale. ;-)

I trust there'll be sneaky cameras focussed on all homes of the climate change doom-mongers during this stunt.

The liberal facists prefer to try and bully us into behaving as they say.

what bullying? its completely voluntary. not only that but you actually save money while taking part. infact if you do it all year round and not just one day you will save a significant amount, help the environment and reduce the need to kill foriegners.

David,

Eco-fascists? Didn't you notice the word "ask" in that Wiki entry? As a general rule fascists don't ask, they order.

I think the law of unintended consequences might see mini baby boom resulting from this.

LOL @ Henry :0)

Daytripper

Well said. We need to get off our addiction to fossil fuels as sson as possible.

"...reduce the need to kill foriegners" -- what patehtic moral bullying, you should be ashamed.

Another data point that shows that if the case for mitigation is made, asking will not work. Regulation will be needed in order to stop the freeloaders from passing the costs of their childishness onto the rest of us.

I like the concept of this Earth Hour. And I've been trying my best to minimize my personal consumption for many years.

This is one issue where "libs" and "conservatives" should find great common ground on, on environmental grounds ( and forget the stupid MMGW--even if it is hyped, as I suspect it is, we do have very serious environmental issues that no honest man can deny, and that would exist regardless of planetary temperature )

Also, as stated.for economic and security reasons. Every light unnecessarily left on is a beacon of hope for Cesar Chavez, a belligerent Russia and the Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia.

Turn off the light and keep a penny out of their pockets!!

Phantom,

César Chávez died in 1993. [BIO]

Perhaps you were thinking of this guy.

Well said Phantom.

Rightworld needs to get away from its knee-jerk reaction against every initiave taken to protect the environment and reduce the waste of limited energy resources.

Reduce, reuse, recycle should be the slogan of everyone, irrespective of political convictions.

Hey, Phantom, Monday is César Chávez Day!

[I will not revise my comment to include something about the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act of 1974. I really won't. I promise.]

[Anyway, it probably happened before the Phantom was born, so it doesn't count anyway.]

Alan

Yes, I was thinking of the Venezuelan caudillo.

Not the union leader!

---

This should be the number one issue for the right. Conservation means energy security. We're pissing away our children's inheritance with the money going into the pocket of those who want to kill and subvert.

No American president in my lifetime has exerted forceful, effective leadership on the issue of conservation and developing better technology in the energy and conservation area. Including the somnambulent GW Bush.

History will judge him very harshly on this issue.America would have responded well to leadership on this issue. We didn't get any.

(Ethanol is a step backwards, and does not count )

Alan, I am leaving the computer now. Stay away from that time machine.

No American president in my lifetime has exerted forceful, effective leadership on the issue of conservation and developing better technology in the energy and conservation area. Including the somnambulent GW Bush.

thats a direct consequence of who lies behind your nations politics. its no accident.

if i was living in america, id be looking at moving to an urban area with lots of amenities within walking distance. suburbia is a major issue when it comes to energy security. thats where all the oil is getting burnt up.

To be fair to Dubya, at least he admitted that the USA has a problem when he talked about its "addiction" to oil. Ethanol will not be the solution, but it has at least started a trend away from total dependence on oil.

Daytripper,

What energy saving "amenities" of our urban areas do you have in mind?

Peter,

We enacted a perfectly rational 55 mile per hour national speed limit 35 years ago that saved lives and gasoline for decades until oilmen like Bush and his friends "lobbied" (i.e., bought votes) to get it repealed.

Alan

What is the speed limit now? I should know because I drove in Cape Cod last summer, but ...

Peter,

The national limit was eliminated, and it is now up to the states to set their own. Interstate highways with divided roadways are 65 mph in New York for example. Regular roads in New York have a maximum speed of 55 in non-congested areas. Other states go up to 75. Here's a complete listing.

Thanks Alan.

It looks like most of the red states are also the high speed states. A socioligist could no doubt explain this.

Peter

You don't need a sociologist. It is a known fact that Ted Kennedy and his family spend more time driving in the blue stats so everyone has to be more careful.

--thats a direct consequence of who lies behind your nations politics.--

Well, maybe. To some extent--the US oil companies keep fighting effective mileage standards,to their own ultimate ruin.

But I wouldn't overexaggerate the political influence thing.

I don't think that Exxon and its friends are squelching new technologies. In the world of today,with various economic centers, such thought would be silly.

If America went to EU levels of energy use, as modified for a bigger country, we'd be a long way to solving the problem.

No presidents have led in any significant way on the energy/conservation issue --not a one-- and that's largely because the American people have been too stupid to understand the gravity of the environmental/resource/geopolitical problem.

Look around any American highway and see all the single passenger big cars/SUVs/small trucks. Try to tell (most of) the American people that there's any advantage to not doing that, to taking mass transit for example, and you immediately run into resistance. They don't want it.

We'll get better technology, but it may come later, well into an economic twilight that is substantially caused by our lack of an energy strategy.

Again, as has been noted by the NY Times op-ed writer, President Bush had the perfect window on this issue after September 11, 2001. If he asked for sacrifice on that issue, at that time, the country would have responded with incredible enthusiasm.

A "Manhattan Project" on energy could easily have done concurrently with the Afghan War, and I'll bet the EU and Japan would have raced to get on board to help fund that effort.

It never happened. Another window of opportunity lost.

America does not need a conspiracy of anybody to keep us from doing smart things. The pig-stupidity of much of the population helps keep us moribund, and being led by one bad President after another aids in the effort. And if we should get a good President, the 535 criminals in the Congress will help keep him in line.

Ethanol for all. Thats the solution. Yeah.

Maybe if all of the eco-bullies permanently turn off their electricity, stop driving cars, give up computers and telephones, and heating,start raising their food, hand washing their clothes, and chopping wood for heat - maybe, just maybe, the rest of us can get on with life. Who knows? we might even find some alternate, effective energy sources.

Patty

No one has to do that. And you know that.

We have frauds like Al Gore and John Edwards setting bad examples while preaching to the rest of us, but no one has to give up modern things.

There is so much low-hanging fruit, so much fat in this area, that we could cut energy use very significantly while still having a fantastic life. And a safer world.

The conservatives need to lead, follow, or get out of the way. Right now, they're obstructionist on every conservation and most environmental issues--they're set to be run over if they don't change. I'll help run them over if President McCain does not lead.

What energy saving "amenities" of our urban areas do you have in mind?

all of them alan. ie the ones that suburban america drives everywhere to get to.

I don't think that Exxon and its friends are squelching new technologies.

they dont have to. between them and the car industry they sewed it all up 80 odd years ago. none of them have a particular interest in changing until the market forces them too. there is no corporate political will to effect major change because no CEO is going to be the first to put his neck on the line for radical change, when he can just increase his margins and collect his bonus after bumping the shares up during his tenure. europe on the other hand never had great access to oil which explains why it went the efficiency route much earlier.

If America went to EU levels of energy use, as modified for a bigger country, we'd be a long way to solving the problem.

absolutely, but if you think that big oil would allow that to happen you are gravely mistake. they will use any measure deemed necessary to protect thier interests. if you think big oil has no real power in the US, wait till their backs are against the wall.

No presidents have led in any significant way on the energy/conservation issue --not a one-- and that's largely because the American people have been too stupid to understand the gravity of the environmental/resource/geopolitical problem.

thats because the big business power in washington will not allow the debate to move beyond platitudes. its not stupidity its just ignorance. because nobody is telling them otherwise.

Look around any American highway and see all the single passenger big cars/SUVs/small trucks. Try to tell (most of) the American people that there's any advantage to not doing that, to taking mass transit for example, and you immediately run into resistance. They don't want it.

no doubt because theyve been effectively told that their 'freedoms' are intertwined with having a big car with which you can go anywhere (in reality walmart and the movies). mass transit is a social solution, which i imagine to alot americans means communism.

We'll get better technology, but it may come later, well into an economic twilight that is substantially caused by our lack of an energy strategy.

not until the market forces their hand. the cynic that i am can see them running it into the ground rather than make major change. the decision makers dont care. they will be well insulated from any major impact.

Again, as has been noted by the NY Times op-ed writer, President Bush had the perfect window on this issue after September 11, 2001. If he asked for sacrifice on that issue, at that time, the country would have responded with incredible enthusiasm.

except they cant see beyond the green stuff. why waste it on a massive project and slow return? when you can reap the benefits right now. and looking at it from their position 4000 dead US service men and women and a shed load of taxpayers money is a very small price to pay.

A "Manhattan Project" on energy could easily have done concurrently with the Afghan War, and I'll bet the EU and Japan would have raced to get on board to help fund that effort.

solving the transport issue is the single biggest thing that could be done to change it all, but it wont happen until the last penny has been extracted from the current gig.

America does not need a conspiracy of anybody to keep us from doing smart things. The pig-stupidity of much of the population helps keep us moribund, and being led by one bad President after another aids in the effort. And if we should get a good President, the 535 criminals in the Congress will help keep him in line.

its not about 'conpiracies'. there's no puppet master. its the system itself. its rotten, and it will eat itself alive rather than upset the status quo. its the nature of the beast. its up to the people now, washington seemingly abandoned you years ago. dont expect answers from there. but if the people do it for themselve, then the politicians will inevitably follow. just like every other major shift in your contries history, such as civil rights etc.

bit of a diatribe sorry.

DT,

I must learn to be less obscure.

What energy saving "amenities" of our urban areas do you have in mind?

all of them alan. ie the ones that suburban america drives everywhere to get to.

DT

I disagree with a lot of the things you say, but agree with many.

And if America won't lead, then Europe and Japan should.

Agree that the transport thing is Priority No. One. If there were massive and intelligent investment in the most congested areas for mass transit, incl light rail and European style high speed rail between cities in the Northeast then we'd get somewhere.

As respects R&D, It would break my heart to see America get left behind on something so fundamentally important, but if there are no leaders in this country,then we must seek them elsewhere.

We have a chance to dig ourselves out of a hole and starve the country's enemies, and yet we pass it up and drive five miles in a SUV to pick up a quart of milk.

My immediate observation of urban areas across America is that all the amenities that used to be there have moved to the suburbs to be closer to the people with the cars.

that surely isnt the case absolutely everywhere. id be looking for somewhere that had most amenities within walking distance. personally, when in america, i found the need to drive everywhere more of a restriction of my personal freedom. my company caved in allowed me to buy a bike instead of hiring a car. i got some strange looks in boca raton let me tell you.

daytripper

If you're in NYC someday, give me a shout. I'd like to buy you a drink.

Good night all!

As respects R&D, It would break my heart to see America get left behind on something so fundamentally important, but if there are no leaders in this country,then we must seek them elsewhere.

its not just things like transport where you are being (deliberately) left behind. the same is happening to your internet. US telcos are not building out networks, and thus creating bottlenecks. the US has dropped way down the world internet connection rankings. conveniently the telcos do have a solution. tiered services. lazy ass corporatism is destroying your country.

We have a chance to dig ourselves out of a hole and starve the country's enemies, and yet we pass it up and drive five miles in a SUV to pick up a quart of milk.

thats the bit i couldnt get my head round. i could see the cinema from my hotel room window, but couldnt actually reach it on foot.

If you're in NYC someday, give me a shout. I'd like to buy you a drink.

ill hold you to that. infact i need someone to get me a new original grey harlem hoody, my old one is knackered.

DT,

Just about absolutely everywhere, yes. I think there might still be an amenity or two in New York or Chicago, but everywhere else, no. Sorry. Wait, maybe San Francisco too. That makes 3 urban areas WITH amenities versus 300 WITHOUT. Again, sorry.

Just about absolutely everywhere, yes. I think there might still be an amenity or two in New York or Chicago, but everywhere else, no. Sorry. Wait, maybe San Francisco too. That makes 3 urban areas WITH amenities versus 300 WITHOUT. Again, sorry.

ill stay put then. im blessed in south belfast.

DT,

A friend of my wife's was visiting us from Durham, England. She needed to go to the post office. We got in the car and I drove her the 5 miles. She asked if we were still in the same town, and I told her we were. She said we would have passed through three towns in that space and passed as many post offices.

Now, if what I hear is true, the UK is closing those post offices and becoming more like us. Oh, BTW, we have no public transport to speak of (except the airport) and our trains are always late and often derailed.

Yes, you are right, do NOT go west young man.

Phantom,

"we pass it up and drive five miles in a SUV to pick up a quart of milk"

You're right about public transport of course, however interestingly sometimes it's actually more green to drive rather than walk:

If you walk 1.5 miles, Mr. Goodall calculates, and replace those calories by drinking about a cup of milk, the greenhouse emissions connected with that milk (like methane from the dairy farm and carbon dioxide from the delivery truck) are just about equal to the emissions from a typical car making the same trip. And if there were two of you making the trip, then the car would definitely be the more planet-friendly way to go.

Similarly cycling is arguably not as green as supposed because cyclists tend to live longer and use more energy accordingly.

What people aren't really noticing is that more oil calories go into the production of our food than we actually get from our food. We eat oil, and we eat a lot of oil. This is a problem because there really is no such thing as a free lunch.

Similarly cycling is arguably not as green as supposed because cyclists tend to live longer and use more energy accordingly.

first he wants to rob grieving parents of their right to break a contract and now he advocates passive depopulation through lazyness.

What people aren't really noticing is that more oil calories go into the production of our food than we actually get from our food. We eat oil, and we eat a lot of oil.

which is why we in Britian are dangerously exposed to oil shortages and/or high prices. we are at the end of the pipelines. moving food off oil dependancy is probably as high a priority as transport. though transport does count for a significant portion of foods oil calories.

watch this

DT,

"first he wants to rob grieving parents of their right to break a contract and now he advocates passive depopulation through lazyness."

LOL!

Interesting video judging by the start of it anyway

it is. they showed it at QFT cinema in belfast, which i went to even tho id seen the doco before. they had a BBC radio ulster debate after it. very interesting evening.

i was too shy to ask my question of whether the panel think our government is using Global Warming as cover for any looming energy crisis?

DT, Phantom

I agree with most of what you have posted. But you're wrong about the priority beiong transport. The priority has to be to de-carbonise the generation of electricity, which is responsible for soemthing like 80% of CO2 emissions. That's where the manhattan project is needed. Transport is an important and growing source of emissions. But electricity has to be the priority in the short term.

And before the anti-AGW crowd object, there is no dispute that CO2 emissions are leading to serious acidification of the oceans, with potentially disastrous consequences for the marine food chain, including us. So even if the AGW hypothesis is wrong, we need to be acting fast to reduce those emissions, never mind the fact that fossil fuels are running out.

Alan

With the rapid ascent of electronic bill payment and the demise of personal letters, there will be lots of post offices closing all over the world. Pity.

Peter

Well, a lot of electricity is generated by coal, which is not in short supply, but I get the point.

And there is so much low-hanging fruit there, it is unbelievable--in major office buildings here, at night and over the weekend, it is not rare to see 40 lights on inside individual offices, on each floor. Because no one bothers to turn them off. And that light generates heat which adds to the A/C energy need in summertime.

Multiply that by all the floors in all the office buildings in America. And I am sure that there is some of that in other countries.

There is just an astonishing lack of leadership in this country on this issue. What leadership there is can be found on the local level( Bloomberg in NYC,Schwartzenegger in California ) only--there is none on a national level.

I agree with most of what you have posted. But you're wrong about the priority beiong transport. The priority has to be to de-carbonise the generation of electricity, which is responsible for soemthing like 80% of CO2 emissions.

im with phantom. we just need to use less, in the near term. alot less. and its completely doable without having major effects on anyones lifestyle. with a reduction in requirement lower rated supplies may also become attractive, like tide and wind. youre right tho, we need a manhattan project on solar. also places that are sunny like the US need to harness the sun for other purposes like direct heating of water, further reducing power requirements.