alt.energy.renewable

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 enforcment or there isn't. What you are
doing is akin to being a little pregnent.

>>> 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 legitalate. 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?

> 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.
>
>>> 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.

>
>> 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'.

>>>> 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? 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.

>> 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.

> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

Best, Dan.