alt.energy.renewable

On Mar 12, 5:27 am, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> Fran wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 4:09 am, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> >> Fran wrote:
>
> >>> Everybody is in the 'our' group. It's part of the commons. Some of
> >>> 'us' are clearly spruiking some commercial interest or another. That's
> >>> spamming, but it doesn'rt exclude spammers from being amongst 'us' or
> >>> spoiling the commons.
> >> So it starts by making a distinction between the 'us'.
>
> >>> Consider a communal house. I've lived in a few. Let's say someone is
> >>> slack cleaning up their mess in the kitchen. One might say at a house
> >>> meeting "when will the inconsiderate stop messing up our kitchen after
> >>> they've eaten?"
> >> Now there is governance, a deciding body. The body decides to admonish
> >> the 'violator'. It is a punishment.
>
> > Not necessarily. Perhaps those who violate will take the hint without
> > sanction.
>
> Come on Fran. Either there is enforcement or there isn't. What you are
> doing is akin to being a little pregnant.
>

The nuance is important, because even on the commons, there were local
rules about how one used them.

> >>> It implies a common interest, which is not necessarily the same as
> >>> ownership.
> >> If there is governance, there is rule and rights to property. You need
> >> permission to post on 'my' blog.
>
> > Indeed, which means that your blog is not part of the commons. Yet the
> > general access given to unmoderated newsgroups makes them part of the
> > commons.
>
> Exactly. So thier posting is legitimate. And when you say, 'When will
> the shills for the Global Polluters Club stop spamming our news groups
> with disinformation?', then you are only expressing your personal
> opinion in an interesting way?
>


Yes ... it's rhetorical -- a direct parody of the tone taken in the
initial post by the OP that conveys my sentiment and allows me to
develop a rationale for it.

> > There is a kind of governance of course. In some states of
> > the US laws about cyber bullying and stalking are being developed. One
> > can, in theory be sued for defamation. Criminal use of the medium is
> > also possible in areas like national security, pornography etc.
>
> Then usenet is _not_ a common in the classical sense.
>
>

I don't see why not. What is targeted is behaviour. Even in one's
private space, the arm of the law applies. I can't use my home to
engage in criminal conduct and expect indemnity from prosecution. In
most cases, I have as much and as little indemnity as if my acts are
in a public place. (there are some exceptions for acts that are
specified as criminal when conducted in public but not in private, but
the point stands).

> >>> What about public roads? Are they 'our roads'? Does our imply shared
> >>> space or owned space?
> >> The use of the road is a privilege. The road is owned by the state.
>
> > Yet anyone can use them. Pedestrians, even non-citizens don't trespass
> > by their presence.
>
> Try j-walking to test what happens to 'unfettered' freedom.
>

That's true. Usage is regulated, but subject to adherence to the
various legal constraints, one may do what one likes on a public road.
In most states of Australia, one may cross a road wherever one likes
unless there is a marked crossing within 100 metres. In practice, this
constraint is scarcely, if ever, policed.

>
>
> >> The
> >> state enforces 'proper' use. The road is not a 'common' in the old
> >> meaning of the term.
>
> > Yet conceptually, the distinctions are moot. I need not have a licence
> > to walk or ride a bicycle on public roads.
>
> The distinction is clear. You can not drive on the road without
> 'permission'.
>

Well you can ride your bike. No licence needed. You don't even need a
helmet. Bicycle riders can ignore traffic control signals too. They
can ride on footpaths. They are supposed to use cycle ways where they
exist.

>
>
>
> >>>> Ownership requires enforcement. And that
> >>>> clearly contradicts, 'common'. Go figure.....
> >>> Not necessarily, unless one wants to include in enforcement, social
> >>> pressure, taboo and so forth. The laws against littering are rarely
> >>> enforced, but many people observe them anyway, especially if they
> >>> think others are watching because they don't like the idea of
> >>> embarrassment. There's no law about how close behind somebody one may
> >>> stand at an ATM, but almost everybody stays at least 6 feet back
> >>> because closer would seem threatening. People shush their kids in
> >>> theatres, hold lift doors for people running and negotiate changes in
> >>> laned traffic according to cultural convention. Neither rules nor
> >>> enforcement are always necessary.
> >> It is nice when folks cooperate and are polite. But if someone starts
> >> stepping on toes, there will be enforcement.
>
> > Perhaps, ultimately, but in many cases 'enforcement' is informal.
>
> It can and does, and that is the point.
> >
> >>> So too it is with this place. I'd like the spammers to stop. I can't
> >>> stop them though and don't wink at coercion. I do believe that when
> >>> the financial interests of the global polluters club are dissipated,
> >>> that almost all of this anti-biofuel anti-AGW spamming will stop.
> >> I wish AGW were really our biggest concern.
>
> > The health of the biosphere is a top order concern...
>
> It is for you. And I wrote about fisheries, air, and farming going on a
> decade ago in other venues. But I have come to realize that humans can
> not be 'tamed'. Do you have a car?

Yes. There are two in our household.

> And I'm not out to ask an obfuscating
> question so much as to make a point. I'm sure you do your best. But I'm
> also sure you use more energy than the average East Indian. Correct me
> if I'm wrong.
>

Doubtless. The average East Indian lives in circumstances that I find
to be well below what is minimally necessary for human welfare. I live
quite a bit above it.

> >> As far as biofuels from
> >> crops, I think it is a sham. And I think that because of what the
> >> numbers say.
>
> > Well I don't believe biofuels are the whole answer by any means.
> > Plainly, we humans have to start finding ways to consume less each.
> > Biofuels could be a transitional technology, bridging the growing gap
> > between crude oil availability and demand for it.
>
> Look at the numbers and put crop fuels into context. Look at the cost of
> food lately.
>

It has nothing to do with biofuels, and much to do with the structures
through which food is marketed..

> > They are, along with a number
> > of other measures, a 'keeping wolf from the door' technology.
>
> Real world, we will not be replacing oil with alternatives at any rate
> that has meaning. When the decline gets going we are talking 1,2,3
> million barrels a day per year. Economic growth in the world will be
> impossible. Our economic system is ill fit for this epoch.
>


I share much of your concern here. The International Energy Agency has
basically conceded that paeak oil will arrive by 2012. Australia, for
example will probably have about 25 million people by then, on current
projecttions, and yet we are a net oil importer. Given that most of
the growth in this population will be in the major cities -- we're
already heavily urbanised and that those living in rural areas will
continue moving back to the cities, all else being the same as it is
now, our per capita oil consumption should increase by more than the
population increase. That being so, unless we change how much oil we
are using now sharply downwards in per capita terms, or find new
sources of oil, Australia will be a lot more dependent on imported
fuel in 2020 than now, and yet the price is likely to continue rising.
Even optimistically assuming that production levels are maintained,
the rising crude oil price will encourage fuel exporters to cushion
their own populations, discouraging them from reducing consumption,
while all other countries in a simlar or worse position than Australia
demand ever more. You don't have to be a genius to work out that's not
going anywhere good, whatever one thinks of AGW.

I'm not throwing in the towel though. Australia has masses of highly
insolated land, and masses of sub-potable water. We also have
something called 'the great artesian basin' sitting underneath most of
that desert. In parts of the NT and Western Queensland we have real
problems with introduced plant species which we are spending money
poisoning, but which could be harvested instead. We have significant
problems with agricultural run offs causing algal blooms. And of
course along the north east coast we have significant established
sugar canefields fed by tropical and sub tropical rains. That sugar is
currently being sold into protected markets. Any biofuels we made from
these assets could be sold into *unprotected* markets in Europe and
south east asia. No forests have to be ripped down, no food removed or
water courses contaminated to do this. Our capacity is huge and
perhaps best of all, it would fit well into stopping the drift to the
cities, and the subsequent urban sprawl. If Australia, for example,
got a move on with this, then it could easily be producing the
equivalent of its entire oil needs by 2020 and then some -- even
without Bass Strait. Australia probably has enough land with access to
water that is marginal in terms of regular cropping but which would
fit biomass to supply most of East Asia with algae and other biomass-
derived oil and alcohol fuels. That could put a huge dent in new
emissions and ease the transition to new transport energy
technologies.

> >> Fran,
> >> I'd like to see a sane world. Years ago I pointed out that we would soon
> >> use up the spare capacity of Saudi Arabia and there would be no more.
>
> > Right now the morlochs are thinking of burrowing into the sea floor in
> > the Arctic for more. It's claimed that there are more "Saudi Arabia's"
> > there and with extended ice melt ...
>
> Claims are not proven reserves. If there is much oil there it will take
> many years just to see even 1mb/d. It will have little impact on the
> declines that will come.
>

yes but they will tear the place up finding out.

> >> The idea was generally treated as a canard. "Limits to Growth" was held
> >> up as evidence to my fallacy.
>
> >>http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3551
>
> >> I've talked about how our financial system was becoming very fragile and
> >> would be incapable adjusting to the 'limit'. Here we are. The fed needs
> >> to support the bubbles on one hand but is face with resource inflation.
> >> An impossible conundrum.
>
> >> We can talk about crop fuels and nuclear and solar. But they will be
> >> part of a world much different than this for those who survive.
>
> > The world must change. It's not sustainable.
>
> I don't think there is a choice in the matter. It is how we change that
> is yet to unfold.
>

Agreed. But biofuels derived from feedstocks such as algae, waste
biomass, c4 pathway prairie grasses and (possibly) sugar cane are an
important element in transitioning to new transport energy.

Much else needs to be done. Population growth must be staunched. China
and a number of other countries are doing that, but it needs to be
ubiquitous. Cities need to be redesigned to reduce commuting distances
and times and to concentrate more people into smaller spaces so as to
make more effective use of public transport. The number of people per
sq metre in dwellings needs to rise, so that the cost of heating and
cooling per person declines and new more efficient provision needs to
be made for this, and for the supply of water.

Lots of stuff ... so little time.

Fran