What does green really mean?
stevenplane
| Posted in Energy, Heating & Insulation on
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
The team offers expert advice on building an affordable new home that follows building-science best practices.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
Depends. Are you talking pigments or light?
Yellow and blue make green.
I'm sorry to be a smart ####, but the subject is better answered in the post above..
We haven't established whether this is pigments or light yet.
God is REAL, unless explicitly declared INTEGER
blue and yellow after hookin' up
Green is any use of an enery efficiency enhancement that results in a net present value of the the difference between the original stream of payments minus the subsequent lower stream of payments during its useful life that is greater than the present cost of implementation minus the cost of the alternatives and greater than all guaranteed investments over the same time period.
Otherwise, it's all just "feel good" stuff.
A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
Edited 1/10/2009 1:02 pm by Hackinatit
Are you a lawyer?
:-)
I'm going to cut from Riversong's post (by the same title) and paste it here.
**********************
<<Green is interdependence (diametrically opposite the American suburban paradigm).
To the degree that the design/build process is one of perceiving, acknowledging and creating coherence or wholeness, it is green.
To the degree that it is an imposition of our own ego, it is not.
To the degree that it is a manifestation of the mechanistic paradigm – it is not.
It requires seeing, understanding, and a translation – through our hands – into the craft of forging an authentic vision of the living earth into a space for human habitation.
If you work with your hands, you’re a laborer.
If you work with your hands and mind, you’re a craftsperson.
If you work with your hands, mind and soul, you’re an artist
- manifesting love (or harmony) in material form.>>
Later in the same post;
<<Green or ecological architecture is a process of reconnecting to the web of life. A process, not a product. And this, I believe, is the root of the confusion over what constitutes green design and building.
Green building has more to do with relationships between the designer, builder and home-dweller; among the crew; between material, method & mindset; than it does with a specific structural or physical outcome.
Just as healthy food must be prepared with love and reverence, a healthy (or green) house must be designed and built with a sacred appreciation of the field of consciousness that it manifests.
Ecology is all about relationships. To be ecological – or green – is to shift from parts to whole, from objects to relationships, from structure to pattern.>>
And;
<<A green house does not have to be zero net energy or zero waste, but it has to be part of a community which produces the energy it consumes and recycles all its wastes.
To be green, a design must (literally) incorporate the social, political, economic, and ecological relationships it participates in – those interactions with other homes, with places and modalities of employment, with local governance, with schools, markets, transportation routes, forests, fields, farms and recreation.>>
***********************************************
What we are being given here is part (a small but essential part) of the philosophical foundations of a highly reliable design approach.
This is as good a point of departure as anything I've seen.
All I would add for right now is this quote from John Muir;
When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe."
- John Muir,
My First Summer
in the Sierra,
1911
[edit -- that should have been "Reply To All" -- I don't want to think I'm just talking to myself here. <G>]When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe."
- John Muir,As I mentioned earlier, Riversong's reply in the thread by the same name was excellent. It didn't generate the discussion I'd hoped for, so I'll take the liberty of restricting your original question; rather than ask, "what is green," let's ask "what is green building?"Here's a tightly curtailed and unedited point of departure from some of my lecture notes;Green building is about recognizing that our industry has ecological consequences, and building in such a way that minimizes the undesirable effects and maximizes the beneficial results, not only for humans, but also for the environment.
Green building is:
an activity,
a design philosophy,
a body of knowledge,
an attitude,
a set of technical skills,
the intelligent use of appropriate materials,
a continually evolving process.What Are The Components Of Green Building?
Resource Conservation
Site house properly
Minimize excavation / sitework / disturbance , pay attention to local hydrology
Solar access / shade
Views
Prevailing winds
(Preserve natural beautyBuild appropriate size for;
Intended Use
Minimum sensible size
How much do you need
How much do you want
How much are you willing to pay for
What is the maximum benefit that can be derived?Cost Reduction / Value Engineering
Money is a resource. It’s the original green. Saving money is a green thing to do.Waste Reduction
Why Is Waste Expensive? You pay to buy the material, you pay to turn it into waste, you pay to pick it up, you pay to haul it off, you pay to dump it, and nobody gets anything for it.Recycle / ReusePlan Ahead / Design -- this is where the real savings are.Disposal of the project at the end of its useful life -- what does this cost in environmental terms, or in terms of cash expense?Frugality is green. I have been on several jobs where the client had plenty of money, no design constraints, and lots of imagination. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Every builder’s dream. Actually, those projects tend not to go so well. Wasted time, wasted effort, wasted materials, scheduling and coordination conflicts, frustrated tradesmen, client difficulties when they do finally understand the cost, it goes on and on. By the end of the project, the estimated costs were at least doubled, the clients were at least mildly distraught, and everybody working there just wanted to be done and gone.Conversely, one of my best projects I ever had a well-defined vision, carefully selected materials, an ambitious but realistic schedule, and a modest budget. We were able to incorporate significant or innovative examples of every green-building principle into a beautiful, comfortable, durable, energy-efficient home and complete the job at about 10% below market.Adaptability
If this place needs to be remodeled or added on to, how can we best anticipate this?Plumbing stub-outs
Electrical service
Load Paths / additional floors above
Property line setbacks
Foundation designMaterials and Methods
This is the popular part, and strangely, the most difficult.
Just because you use “green†products, that doesn’t mean you’ve built a green project.Wall systems is where everyone tends to focus. This is OK, but don’t let it override good judgement.
(a) Wall systems account for about 10% of the job cost.
(b) They can drive the project cost inappropriately.Straw bale example:
(a) It’s not always practically recyclable
(b) It isn’t a waste product if you have to truck it 500 miles
(c) Is it penny-wise and pound-foolish?
(d) Can you really do it yourself?Care for Surrounding Eco-System
a) Wildlife Habitat
(1) Food/shelter
(2) Breeding
(3) Genetic conductivity
(4) Safety
(5) Biological Conductivityb) Water -- How are we using it and what is happening as a result?
(1) Water in
(2) Water use
(3) Water outWaste water is a BIG part of green building.Care for Wider Ecosystem – Regional and Global ConsequencesOK, that's a tiny little start.
Edited 1/17/2009 8:02 pm by Catskinner
The one issue that was missed is durability.
I've been in homes that were built in Tuscany that are hundreds years old and remain suitable for the intended purpose. 800 years after they were built. In all likelyhood they will remain suitable for housing for many times that..
I'm sure they aren't the oldest continually occupied homes on the planet either..
Homes that durable simply must be good for the planet..
OOPS. <G>Yes, of course, durability.
I appreciate that durability and longevity can be a green attributes but are not necessarily so. Many indigenous peoples lived in temporary dwellings that were very green. These range from the ephemeral huts of nomadic groups such as the Kalahari Bushmen, the West Coast longhouses of the Haida that although elaborate were only occupied for on average less than ten years before being abandoned, to the ever changing mud-brick cities of North Africa that slowly have subsided into the plains.All these were green because they supported their culture's abilities to exist without damaging their surrounding regions ecologies, using appropriate resources that were easily returned to the environment when they had outlived their usefulness - and which may or may not have been durable or lasted a long time.
Great point, thank you.As I've mentioned <G>, the only responsible answer to "Is it green?" is "It depends."<<All these were green because they supported their culture's abilities to exist without damaging their surrounding regions ecologies, using appropriate resources that were easily returned to the environment when they had outlived their usefulness - and which may or may not have been durable or lasted a long time.>>Dead on.
Good exaples of extremes. However you will note that they all occured in tropical or temperate climates. The stone homes that have survived for 800 years or more in the Tuscan region of Italy and the Provance region of France are guilty of consuming virtually denuding the landscape of trees as firewood was sought to heat them during their winters..
In northern climates the additonal consideration of heating/cooling becomes more energy consumptive and there is a greater return on the value of insulation..
None of which is perfect to the enviornment.. Newspaper ground up would appear to be such a solution. However, it is required to be chemically treated. In addition the creation of newspaper in the first place is the nations second worst pollutor behind oil. Finally, less and less newsprint is being generated as the nation switches methods from getting it's media source to more electronic means.
If you note the numbers of newspapers in bankruptcy that should provide you with confirmation of that statement..
So cellulose is not as green as it first appears.. and we know the weakness of Fiberglass and foam.
Therefore we should look at additional qualities of each in order to make a selection.. Effectiveness and durability there is no alternative to foam.
"Good exaples of extremes. However you will note that they all occured in tropical or temperate climates."For northern examples substitute Igloos, yurts and longhouses.
Come on, lay off the foam on this one. You may as well champion screws and shellac.
Edited 1/18/2009 11:22 am ET by fingersandtoes
I made my case for foam.
It's based on solid logic not empirical hatred of the pertochemical industry..
Creation of paper is the nations second worst pollutor It's not coincidence that all paper mills are near abundant water sources..
That's like saying that recycled foam is somehow better than new foam..
Newspaper ground up would appear to be such a solution. However, it is required to be chemically treated.
With a plentiful, non-toxic, environmentally-benign natural substance.
In addition the creation of newspaper in the first place is the nations second worst pollutor behind oil.
Which makes its recycling that much more of an imperative as long as we're still consuming paper.
So cellulose is not as green as it first appears.. and we know the weakness of Fiberglass and foam.
So cellulose, by every single measure, remains the greenest of all the insulation options - with the possible exception of straw bale.
Effectiveness and durability there is no alternative to foam.
There are many alternatives to foam, which remains the most environmentally destructive of all the options.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Interesting that the brand of ICF's I used earn the EPA's Energy star (and this was before the Bush adminsitration got in there and destriyed the real intent of the EPA)
IN addition unlike your claim they do not release any HCFC's or CFC's in the manufacturing there is no off gassing, Fumes, odors, toxins or formaldehyde. process. Forms are recycleable.. Concrete is recycleable!
Meanwhile you are defending the second highest pollutor industry in America.. with a product that you admit decompses easily. Much easier than the 10,000 years in a land fill you claim foam will last..
I can show you well made homes that are 800 to 1000 years old.. will your ground up paper last long enough to be an effective insulation for that period of time?
That's sorta like saying I'm a little less preganat than you are..
That's sorta like saying I'm a little less preganat than you are..
No, you're a lot more "preganat" than I am.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Many indigenous peoples lived in temporary dwellings that were very green.
A very important point. The only reason we need to stress durability is because our houses are so enormous, so resource-intensive, so complex and so costly.
The greenest house is one that quickly returns to the earth and leaves not a trace behind. As long as it's outlived the time it requires the earth to replenish what it was made from, it is durable enough to be sustainable.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
That would be true if we all lived in temperate climates and there wasn't a need to get resources from far away..
Since we need to provide heat in our homes and keeping that heat inside becomes critical, even life threatening we must look beyond the simplistic..
Since we need to provide heat in our homes and keeping that heat inside becomes critical, even life threatening we must look beyond the simplistic..
Absolutely. The real problem is those damn Eskimos, living in real cold climates, with their enormous and wasteful McIgloos.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Absolutely. The real problem is those damn Eskimos, living in real cold climates, with their enormous and wasteful McIgloos.
Riversong...now that's some good humor!
To allow them to continue to do so we have to allow hunting of whales.. now that is not considered green by anybody..
To allow them to continue to do so we have to allow hunting of whales.. now that is not considered green by anybody..
What an idiotic statement. Small tribes of indigenous peoples don't drive species to extinction. There's nothing more green than native people surviving from the gifts of their local environment.
The insanity of some of the large global "conservation" groups is that they are "preserving" wildlands by forcing the native populations out - the very peoples who preserved those lands for tens of thousands of years.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
What an idiotic statement. Small tribes of indigenous peoples don't drive species to extinction. There's nothing more green than native people surviving from the gifts of their local environment.
As much as it might pain me to say it my red friend I was thinking the same thing about whale hunting when I read the original post.
Hunting of whales isn't bad (except for maybe the whale). OVERHUNTING of whales is bad.
I think a purposeful plan and collaboration, of maintenance
with the homeowner is a necessary ingredient. We are stuck in a system where working on your house is
viewed as a miserable chore.
It's expensive,possibly dangerous, and often beyond the
occupants ability. Time for the yearly Lime Wash to come back.
For sure, if that is what the homeowner wants, then yes, it is a part of it.
For sure, if that is what the homeowner wants, then yes, it is a part of it. I'm envisioning a more proactive approach. The Tesla marketing model has a lot to offer. Yes it's environmentally friendly, but they are selling a sports car! .
It's sexy..
Well, a "Green" house has some sex appeal too.
It performs better, in both the heating and cooling seasons.
Better use of natural light.
Tends to be quieter inside.
Natural materials are healthier yes, but also have a strong
esthetic appeal.
.
Then, there is the actual interest people take in how
it is built and functions.
Once your involved with the materials you are more susceptible to
the idea of maintaining them.
.
.
As opposed to a cooky cutter product. One that you just
want to do what it's supposed to and never think about again.
Except to be upset when it needs attention.
Edited 1/18/2009 11:04 am ET by Henley
Well, a "Green" house has some sex appeal too.
Careful, you're applying Bernays' Madison avenue manipulation to what should be about livability, function, efficiency and durability.
Sexy is skin deep. It's designed to draw the eye, and what's behind the skin can be pure junk or high quality - it doesn't really matter as long is it sucks in the buyer.
Before Edward Bernays introduced subliminal and overt sex to advertising, car manufacturers (and others) would advertise the quality and useful features of their products.
If we "advertise" at all, it should be the old-fashioned way. Draw people to our houses because they're good, not because they're "sexy". Sexy often adds unnecessary expense, size and waste.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
While I share you aversion to commercialism, I'm
not afraid offer higher ideals and higher performance
in an attractive wrapping. If your creating a want for something unnecessary then
that's manipulation. If your showing a positive picture of a superior, problem
solving necessity that's honest commerce.
If we "advertise" at all, it should be the old-fashioned way. Draw people to our houses because they're good, not because they're "sexy".
Couldn't agree more.
Sexy often adds unnecessary expense, size and waste.
While this is often [unfortunately] true, I feel good design will provide functionality and an economical solution without waste. Good design doesn't have to be large.
Green building is
Also a marketing strategy.
If it isn't attractive to consumers we're going no where.
"Green building is Also a marketing strategy. If it isn't attractive to consumers we're going no where."
I could not agree more.
"Harcore enviromentalist" types seem always to want to change everyone's way of thinking to theirs rather than finding ways to integrate various ideas for the common good.
I maintain that enviromentalists can't get what they want without the capitalists (me) but capitalists have, do, and will continue to thrive without the enviromentalists.
A smart capitalist doesn't want to see valuable resources disappear any more than the enviromentalist does. Why should it matter that the capitalist wants the resource saved for profit and the enviromentalist wants it saved for Gaia?
We both want it saved...lets work together.
I am a capitalist and an environmentalist. <G>
A smart capitalist doesn't want to see valuable resources disappear any more than the enviromentalist does.
But only so that the capitalist can exploit it another day.
Why should it matter that the capitalist wants the resource saved for profit and the enviromentalist wants it saved for Gaia?
Because selfishness is neither green nor sustainable nor healthy for people or the environment.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
No doubt.
Green building is Also a marketing strategy. If it isn't attractive to consumers we're going no where.
Marketing is the antithesis of green. The entire marketing industry is designed for one purpose: to create needs we didn't know we had. All modern marketing is based on the work of Edward Bernays (1891-1995), the nephew of Sigmund Freud, who used his uncle's theories to manipulate the masses for the benefit of corporate profits.
If we want to promote green, our job is to create the examples which will help people realize what's really important, what's really necessary, and that less is better.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Marketing is a tool like any other.
I'll grab any tool that is effective for the chore at hand. Don't forget marketing is based in communication. So a tool
that utilizes communication is extremely usefully when trying
to reach numbers of people. Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good.
Don't forget marketing is based in communication.
Marketing, as we engage in it today, is based entirely on miscommunication: deliberate overt and covert manipulation of desires for someone else's gain.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Marketing is based on miscommunication?
Only the bad stuff.. Which properly regulated shouldn't be allowed.. The farmer selling his fruits and vegitables at the roadside stand is doing marketing.. The sawmill displaying lumber is doing marketing..
Contractors building homes are doing marketing..
Please don't overgeneralize like you tend to do..
what is green building
Different take here, but 'really green' would be the hovels near dumps built by the indigent.
Durability of housing in the good ol' USA with the emphasis on 'highest and best use', meaning what will generate the highest tax base, is a oxymoron.
I build my sheds to last maybe 30 years, as figure some developer (if not the GKs) will tear everything down for the next generation of overpriced McMansions.
Thus, a 'green shed' means 99% recycled, which usually means everything except the nails and some electrical. Flattened car hoods for roof, torn down pallets for building materials, old sidewalk pieces for foundation, garage sale 'free pile' doors and windows, etc.
IMO, the marketing of 'green' is just another gambit to separate folks from greenbacks.
<<IMO, the marketing of 'green' is just another gambit to separate folks from greenbacks.>>It certainly can be. The NAHB has diluted the concept badly, some other trade associations have done worse, and the overwhelming majority of the builders I see calling themselves "green" have no idea what they are talking about, they just know it sells jobs.OTOH, if we don't sell the job, we can't guild the house. It's a fine line. I do not advertise my company as green, it's just something we happen to have been doing for a while, and there are components of the process that we happen to be very good at.I used to represent the company as green, but when the hype caught on it just seemed embarrassing. Now I just depend on word of mouth and listening carefully to the customer so I can give them the best value for their dollar. As I pointed out earlier, I am a capitalist and an environmentalist, and I trust that to work in everyone's benefit if I do my job properly.
"I used to represent the company as green, but when the hype caught on it just seemed embarrassing. Now I just depend on word of mouth and listening carefully to the customer so I can give them the best value for their dollar. As I pointed out earlier, I am a capitalist and an environmentalist, and I trust that to work in everyone's benefit if I do my job properly."I was talking to an HVAC contractor about some options for heating. He made some comments about being green.I said I don't give a damm about being green and I could hear the gasp in his voice.I said that I am looking for solutions that save energy and are reasonably priced..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
Oh, to have been the unobserved observer on that one. <G>I think I've similarly surprised and perhaps even mildly offended a few people that way, myself. When people start with all of the . . . I don't know what to call it, it isn't BS to them, but it sure sounds like it to me . . . all of the beliefs that matter to them, I guess they're checking to see if I share their beliefs.As if that were a bona fide occupational qualification, or even a legitimate set of criteria for selection.No doubt, a lot of greenies tend to be what you'd describe as liberal, I am not. I'm a simple-minded redneck who happens to care about the environment and doing a good job. That's all. I don't do the whole politically correct thing.I have told potential customers a few times, "Look, it's lovely if someone shares your politics, but it's a whole lot better if they know what the ____ they are doing."So far I'd say this has gotten me more jobs than it has lost for me.
Money is a resource. It’s the original green.
This mythology is probably the biggest obstacle to authentic green building or green living. Money is nothing in itself. At best, it's a medium of exchange for real resources. At present it has only negative value, since all modern fiat money is created by the creation of debt by private bankers. The only value that money has is for the bankers who created it as an entry on the asset side of their balance sheets.
Waste water is a BIG part of green building.
I think what you mean is that waste water is a big part of non-green building and use. In a green building nothing, particularly something as precious as water, would be wasted.
30% of the water consumed in a home pushes sh-t out of sight and makes a toxic brew by mixing it with ####. Separately, humanure an #### are excellent soil amendments and fertilizers.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I was really hoping we could stick with building materials and methods a little longer. Maybe we can get back to that after we get politics and economics out of our system. Sheesh, ya' go away for a few hours and 40 posts show up, all arguing about (what else) politics. <G><<Money is nothing in itself. At best, it's a medium of exchange for real resources. >>That much, I have to of course agree with. Left, right, or center, in any economic system in history, value is ultimately traceable back to raw materials, labor, or some combination thereof. Money ( a representation of that value) is a mutually-agreed upon abstraction, a convenient medium of exchange -- and, perhaps to your point, particularly useful for the accumulation of wealth.<<<<Waste water is a BIG part of green building.>>>><<I think what you mean is that waste water is a big part of non-green building and use. In a green building nothing, particularly something as precious as water, would be wasted.>>That is a perfectly acceptable way to re-phrase it, yes. I was thinking about the treatment and re-use of what we ordinarily term "waste" water, but certainly there are few things more precious than clean water, and I agree, it should never be regarded as waste.Good point.<<30% of the water consumed in a home pushes sh-t out of sight and makes a toxic brew by mixing it with ####. Separately, humanure an #### are excellent soil amendments and fertilizers. >>Sure, as long as you manage runoff and pay very careful attention to trophic concentration. We have no disagreement there. Our population is long past the point of regarding anything as "waste" or "inconsequential."For a simple-minded redneck, I have the great good fortune of hanging out and sometimes even working with some truly great environmental scientists. One of them was telling me that she could determine when Spring Break was over at the local university by sampling the waste stream at the local sewage treatment plant. The hormone levels from birth control pills would spike so hard at the end of the break she could tell when the student population had returned.I know you already know this, but for anyone reading along, those chemicals do not get treated. They go back into the river.There is no "away."
Doubling the budget.
Family.....They're always there when they need you.
What it sure aint is having a $25,000 electric bill and saying you are 'green' because you buy offset credits!.
Green in the best sense would be the old fashioned 'do not waste anything, reuse everything you can'.
For instance:
Septic systems where soil conditions permit vs. mega billion dollar treatment plants.
No garbage pickup for anybody with more than an acre* - : recycle ALL glass, metal, plastics/rubber, electronics, auto fluids, paper/cardboard (anything with your name on it is used for starting fireplace to burn larger yard waste); reuse to max extent; feed pile in the yard for the critters, the food scraps left after one day go onto the compost pile; separate greywater system for garden, which is over the septic field; etc., etc.
Heat pumps vs. oil or NG for heating
Yard waste cut for firewood or smaller than 1" chipped or composted
etc, etc.
*e.g. an extreme example....needed to 'get rid of' old queen mattress, so put it out in the back. It took 10 years but the birds picked it clean for nesting material, the bare springs then went to the steel salvage yard, the wood frame had rotted to dirt.
"Green" is an absolutely meaningless bit of feel-good, politically motivated marketing hype, intended to persuade us to allow nameless, unaccountable "experts" to micro-manage our lives. The primary means of furthering this desire to rule over us is fear, fear of some awesome catastrophe that will happen if we don't surrender NOW.
Wood is 'green' because its' "natural" and "renewable."
Concrete is 'green' because it "saves" all those trees.
Oil is 'greener' than coal (less pollution), but both are greener than (pollution free) nuclear.
LEED is a fancy name for an arcane process used by some unidentifiable party to mandate arbitrary changes in our methods and designs. You have a better chance of getting an explanation of your credit score than your LEED score.
Judging by the cynicism and sarcasm of many of the other replies, I think this "green" stuff is being imposed .... with a religious fervor ... and is not accepted by those at the 'grass roots.'
Well, your a cheery little ray sunshine aren't ya ?
Well, my mother does call me "sun."
As for 'waste not," the best arbiter of that is the market. Time has value, materials have value, work has value. Just what are these thigs worth? The price tag is your best answer.
Nor is there any substitute for good design. The problem is, "good design" becomes less likely the farther the designer is removed from the user.
Many years ago, Akio Morita observed his partner carrying a bulky tape recorder with him, so as to listen to music. He had his firm -Sony- look into streamlining that arrangement, setting off a revoultion (walkman, Ipod, etc) that continues today.
Contrast that to the "whiz kid" weapons development teams in the MacNamara defense department. Their spawn (F-111, M-551 Sheridan, etc.) had extremely problematic development .... simply because decisions were being made in offices far away, by uninvolved "experts."
In a similar vein, I'd love to see architects live and work in their designs. I suspect that there might have been some major errors (like housing projects) nipped in the bud. Sick buildings? Somehow I suspect the "designer" is a committee that meets far away.
It's simply amazing how insulation issues are focused on when fuel is dear, or how the price of lumber affects the use of block construction. The dollar itself is by far the most responsive, accurate 'regulator' out there .... not some politically savvy eccentric brooding in his straw bale house!
You want to let some sun shine in, you'll stop this arcane LEED nonsense right in its' tracks, now. Ditto for any of the other "green" initiatives. The folks pushing that agenda have never been shy about advocating every manner of centrally planned misery - and every place where their kind has held sway is an environmental nightmare.
There's a reason the brain is in the head - rather than the hips or the heart.
There is merit in what you said.
Economics play a very important role in all building let alone
green building. I'm not one to support Government interference either.
So, how do you see balancing environmental issues with
profit margins?
Keep in mind waiting for the forest to be depleted isn't a
sustainable option. Along with a myriad of other resources
that require some foresight to be managed properly.
Ever notice that we never run out of the things we are allowed to own? That's a market at work. "Free" stuff, however, has a way of getting depleted.
Government is bad enough ... but government delegating authority to unaccountable bodies that lack even basic governmental safeguards is a sure recipe for disaster.
Accounting for the "environment" is pretty hard under any circumstances, lacking usable definitions of terms. We are not even able to assert that the present state of things is the 'ideal' to be 'preserved.'
Balancing profit margins? When did profit become a bad thing, to be limited at all?
It seems that everyone is claiming a right to tell a man what to do with his property - while denying that man the very same right. That's simply wrong.
Again, I agree with the overall philosophy of free markets.
while also completely agreeing the Government is at best ill-equiped to
dictate how society should develop. History has many examples of the pursuit of profits overshadowing
potential and real problems.
Depleting available resources is a fairly obvious one. So, that's where my question comes from-
How do we balance environmental needs with the need for profits? Unfortunately the Gov. is the mechanism set up for such things,so
some legislation is probably part of it. To me the"Green" marketing scheme is another. All were talking about
in reality is building efficiently, durably, and healthily (not a real word I think). Basically, raising the bar on residential homes. I know the label is silly and often misused, but the intention
and outcome is (or at least could be) quite positive.
Let me speak a bit clearer.
You don't "balance" anything with the market; you can only interfere with the operation of the market. Such interference almost always has a bad effect. By saying "almost," I'm being nice; I am not aware of any exercise in controlling markets that has not ended in disaster.
Nor can you ever attain a result you desire if you can't define that result. "Green" is a catch phrase for all manner of sweet desires - none of which have been quantified or defined.
Don't think, for a moment, that this stuff is limited to residential homes. It is certain to reach into every aspect of our lives, at work, at play, wherever we are, whatever we do. Sort of like the way the anti-smoking crowd has acted over time.
There is a major part of the "green" movement that imagines a world of apartment blocks and city busses for the rest of us. To their logic, this is how we should live, obediently going to work in the designated sections of their 'planned unit developments.' How well does this work?
Well, the market has provided us the answers. This utopian scheme works so poorly, millions of folks exert themselves to achieve a dream of a detached home and a nice car. People wound not take this economic hit, if they did not receive a comparable benefit in return.
Depleting resources? Deplete away. It's simply amazing how 'depletion' is self regulating, as the prices rise, and alternatives are sought. We somehow managed to find substitutes for whale oil - and without governmental help! That's the magic of markets.
Nor is there ever a 'depletion' of a resource when someone is allowed to own it. There's never a shortage of cows or hay .... unless the government steps in and creates one!
Intentions are irrelevant. There's a reason we say that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Just because something makes you 'feel good' doesn't mean it makes any sense. The "Wizard of Oz" made me feel good - but I still use the airlines when I fly (and have NEVER owned a pair of ruby red slippers!)
If history has taught us anything, it is to get out of the way of the market. You don't "balance" it with anything; you can only distort it - to your ultimate loss. Especially when your goal remains undefined.
While I appreciate you clarifying
your views for me, it's not nessassary. I fully understand the philosophy of "Laissez Faire" economics.
It's one thing to support a free market place (as I do) and
quit another to suggest- the market has provided us the answers The market is a self serving machine. It's sole purpose is to create
profit. Now profit in and of itself can be a positive factor for society,but that is not it's true goal. It will strive for profitability regardless of societal needs. Depleting resources? Deplete away. It's simply amazing how 'depletion' is self regulating, as the prices rise, and alternatives are sought. We somehow managed to find substitutes for whale oil - and without governmental help! That's the magic of markets. An excellent example of the failure of markets to foresee the
devastation and depletion of it's raw materials.
Whale populations are depleted to this day, with several species
on the verge of extinction. The marketplace has little to know foresight. It is by and large a reactionary process.
Long term conservation does not go over well in the boardroom.If history has taught us anything, it is to get out of the way of the market. History can be interpreted differently by different people, but in
all honesty- Are you aware of the current state of affairs? On a side note there is no recognised economic philosophy that advocates
no regulation. If there are no rules business can not function.
Edited 1/19/2009 6:49 pm ET by Henley
Failure of markets? I think not.
Whatever the current state of the whales may be ... it certainly has nothing to do with either ladies' corsets or lamp oil - major whale product users that today use entirely different materials. The market responded, making available superior alternatives.
Long term conservation certaily sells in lumber company boardrooms - where they plant multiples of every tree that they harvest. Again, the only place this hasn't worked as well as hoped have been where government has stepped in, and precluded the firms from benefitting from their stewardship. Ditto for every farm out there .... that farmer is most certainly interested in long term conservation of his corn and cattle!
While one may feel unease at the very chaotic operation of the market, our way has vastly out-performed many places that were just as rich in resources - and hobbled by central planning. A free market responds much quicker than a planned one, and errors are quickly righted.
Yet this "green" nonsense is a step in exactly the wrong direction ... toward more second-guessing of the plans of the individual. It is simply insane to expect success form a proven failure.
The current state of affairs? Can it really be all that bad? Bad, say, compared to the "Black Death," the collapse of Rome, or even the turn of the century flu epidemics? I think not. Rather, you're falling for the fear-mongering tactics of those who would presume to rule us. Why else would there be such persistent doom-saying, citing things whose very existance is open to question?
I'm not buying into it. No one is in a better position to make decisions on my behalf than I.
Interesting conversation, thanks. So, I'll continue but lets keep it lighthearted. I can't understand you perception of the whale analogy.
Fact-they were hunted near to extinction.Fact they have never recovered (not in a significant way). How does this support the idea the market place is able to avert
catastrophe?
How is it a success story? The lumber industry has reforestation programs because of Gov. mandates. Plus the entire reforestation system is questionable at best. At
least in the manner generally being practiced. Perhaps you feel that "Green" something being imposed on you,
rather then a movement trying to find solutions to problem not
being addressed otherwise.
Higher insulation levels are pretty acceptable mandate.
Limiting of toxic materials in ones home, is rather well
excepted also. My point is, look beyond your reaction , and view what is being
proposed. Your point on the current state of affairs is one I fully
support.
It is however indicative of free markets left to run amuck.
It is simply insane to expect success form a proven failure.
Couldn't agree more. Capitalism based on greed has shown itself beyond any doubt to be a proven failure.
No one is in a better position to make decisions on my behalf than I.
Sure, if you care only about yourself and no one or nothing else. But thats in direct violation of the "social compact" which is the foudnation of society and the concept of the CommonWealth.
No one prospers unless we all prosper. We are, in fact, our brother's keeper.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/19/2009 8:31 pm ET by Riversong
Now it is clear .... communism hidden behind environmental cant. Like a watermelon" 'green' on the outside, 'red' on the inside.
OK, so the "green" movement is but a front for failed Marxists. to further their ideals of central planning. Fair enough; let's have the debate in the open.
Oh, that's right, we did. We succeeded, the "Marxist" modeled countries went bust. Or was that wall built to keep envious West Germans out of the "Workers' paradise?"
I'd say capitalism has been vindicated.
the "Marxist" modeled countries went bust.
Cuba is rated by the New Economy Foundation of London as the world's sixth most successful nation in turning natural resources into the health and happiness of its citizens. The US rated 150th, down between Lithuania and Rwanda.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Well, that certainly accounts for the flotilla of improvised rafts, whose refugges flee Miami for the greener pasturea of Havana!
Or, for that matter ... in the real world ... all those Hatian refugees who sail right past Cuba, in their attempts to reach Miami!
Well, that certainly accounts for the flotilla of improvised rafts
You're, of course, referring to Mariel Boatlift in which Cubans who didn't want to be in Cuba were graciously allowed by Castro to leave for Miami.
And the almost 3,000 we sent back because they were convicted criminals (just the kind of people you'd think would make fine Americans).
And the 18,000 Cuban refugees we put in indefinite confinement (concentration camps) where they've been rioting for their freedom and rights since the early 80s.
Yup, we showed them Cubans good ole American hospitality. Then we restricted immigration from Cuba so we wouldn't get too many of them freedom-lovin' folks.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
If history has taught us anything, it is to get out of the way of the market.
Yup. Like we did with the banking, financial and investment markets. That did a world of good.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Hey it wasn't me!
I even did the color thing. :)
and have NEVER owned a pair of ruby red slippers!
Ah, now I see your problem. You've been so deprived of what really has value that you transfer your desires to the fiction of Good Mother Market.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
You seem to argue that the government isn't us.. it's them.
Well we select the government we want. and the people in the government come from us.. there isn't a subspecies of children born as government.
The people running the government is the people of this country. Those that vote and those that skip that duty and abidcate the right to vote to the nameless them.. Pick a subject whatever you are interested in and get involved..
You can get involved either from the inside or the outside and make changes..
Maybe the powerlessness feeling you get comes from belonging to a party who let you vote but don't allow you any real participation. They take your concerns and destort it into benefitting the few over the many..
Look at the republican party for example. They've been in power now for 8 years and sole power for nearly 6 years.. They've passed a lot of laws and rules
How many have addressed your personal interests and How many have benefitted a few really wealthy people more?
Excuse me ... I'm confused here ....
Sure. there has been a republican president .... but both houses of Congress have been dominated by another party for his entire presidency. Isn't Congress where the laws originate? Hasn't that been the case for decades - except for a two year period in the mid-90's?
Nor do I speak of government as "us" vs. "them." I do counter the assertions of those who believe that government is the solution. Why give more, and more demanding tasks to an incmpoetent employee? It seems that the primary function of the federal government is to secure the borders and deliver the mail - neither of which seems to done very well.
Feeling powerless? Not at all. Why else would I speak up, exert my influence to halt, even reverse, another party's elitist nonsense? The idea is uproot these weeds before they become trees.
As for ther "wealthy' (like 'green,' there's another of those fuzzy undefinable terms) .. why would I object to anothers' prosperity? Am I supposed to somehow derive pleasure from anothers' misery? The more wealth, the better, in my book.
As for selecting the government we want ... well, a case can be made that we did decide what we wanted when we adopted our Constitution ..... and I fail to find any basis in that document for foreign aid, local charity, retirement plans, education, energy, or environmental regulation within it. Yet, the "green" movement wants to go a step further:
They want to unshackle themselves from the limits of rules and regulations, or any form of accountability. They want to sit far away, out of reach, and assign 'points' as they see fit, telling everyone else how to build. Unlike your typical politician, they are not subject to either recall or election, nor responsive to petition.
The more I look at it, the more this 'green' nonsense has all the hallmarks of a religious passion .... and. as such, is certain to go down the same path of every past wave of religious fervor.
One might say that this discussion needs to be in the Woodshed .... but for the fact that this 'green' silliness has a direct bearing on how we build houses - both the materials we use, and how we run the job. That the editors of "Fine Homebuilding" seem to be actively endorsing the 'green' movement makes it all the more topical of a discussion.
After all, who can be against being 'green?" Well, it's not about teaching the birds sweeter songs to sing. Like motherhood, we're all in favor of that! The issue is the use of our desires to con us into letting some self-appointed expert become our Fuhrer. Well, I wouldn't want to live in that world - not even in the halls of the 'annointed.'
Well you apparently aren't aware that for 6 of the past 8 years your party held the house, senate, and presidency. Go ahead, look it up. I'll wait..
So if they didn't make things right during that period they wanted things the way they are..
In addition your president had the power to veto any law he didn't like for the past 8 years.
It may surprise you that democrats like wealth. I'm a democrat. I work very hard to live in the wealthy community I do.
The differance as far as I can see seems to be that we are willing to take a long term look at things as opposed to the short term look that republicans do..
Look at your favorite objection. The idea of Green.. It's just another way of saying the same thing that your grandparents taught you.. Waste not want not..
As to your objection to the constitution. the brillance of that document is that it was intended as a flexible document subject to change and revision as the need arises..
They themselves wrote the Bill of Rights,, the first modification of the document itself..,
Your republican party is responsible for unshakling themselves from the very needed rules and regulations that Kept America free of depression since Hoovers last one..
They did it by deregulating the banking industry.. (look at how well that turned out).
The very basis for the existing bailout of wall street is the law your president passed in 2002
It seems that your party likes to bail out the rich and powerful but offer no help to middle class like you or I.. So When bankers got in trouble your president insisted that 700 billion dollars be used but if you can't make your house payment the government wants you to be responsible for the rest of your life..
The very basis for the existing bailout of wall street is the law your president passed in 2002
You must mean the repeal of Glass-Steigall by the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, signed by Bill Clinton.
As Ralph Nader and Jeffrey St. Clair both correctly noted: there's not a dime's worth of difference.
What's the first thing Barack "Mr. Change" Obama does, before he even takes the office: convinces a reluctant Congress to release the remaining $350 B payola to the Wall Street crooks.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/19/2009 8:20 pm ET by Riversong
NO!
First, I have never, ever, presented myself as the member of any party. It is incorrect to assume that I am a Republican. Call me a "Groucho marxist;" I'd not want to be in any party that would have me as a member!
As for anyone being "my president," or "my congressman," such is correct only in that they are accountable to me ... not the other way around. And, if the new crew fails to measure up, I'll fire them too!
I seem to recall the republicans losing the senate when Jim Jeffords made the switch back in ... was it 98? Nor have the Republicans had the house since that brief 2-year "Gingrich" revolution. There were the decades of Democrat plurality before those hiccups.
I have no objection to the Constitution. Quite the opposite. My objection is to the sundry area into which government has intruded - without the authority to do so. Flexible? Absolutely. There's even an ammendment process within it - something that ought to be used if change is desired.
If you're referring to our current situation, it was the failure of regulation .... that is, the obstruction of regulation by Democrats in Congress .... that led to the Fanny mae / Freddie mac collapse. Far from any sort of 'de-regulation." Even so, the 'central planning' that mandated irresponsible lending created the very problem.
I never doubted that Democrats liked wealth ... specifically, THEIR wealth. Even more than wealth, they seem to love to rule over others. That a draft dodger would sigh an extension of the draft system, or that a tax cheat would present himself as fit to be Secretary of the Treasury, only make me sceptical as to their commitment to "saving the planet." I strongly suspect that you won't find any wind farms (one of the greenies' pet projects) within sight of the Kennedy compound.
<grin> wrong attribution.. It was WC Fields who said I'd never join any club that would have me as a member.
But your point is well made..
However.The real failure of the economy came from Bush's Oct. 2002 signing of the bill allowing no doc mortgages with the banking industry and the banking industry creating credit default swaps to cover eventual losses.. " I want to create 5 million new minority home owners by the end of the decade" GW BUSH OCT 2002
Pure and simple that was massive deregulation on the grandest scale since before the great depression.. Done in cooperation of a republican congress a republican senate and the republican white house.
Since I'm not familiar with the wind speed in the Kennedy compound either in Hannisport or Palm Beach I cannot make a comment about if a wind generator is worthwhile there.. . I do know in the areas where the wind is extremely high ranchers and farmers who tend to vote republican love to have them placed on their property since it provides another income stream..
I also know that a lot of the off the grid people who have wind generators tend to be democrats, In fact if I had sufficient wind to allow it I would have one here.
So please explain to me the political significance of being green..
GE and many other major fortune 500 companies are actively seeking the green movement.. Even Newt Gingrich is in favor of Green..
I saw Groucho make that remeark, on his TV show ... though I recognize that he may not have been the first, or only, to say it.
As for the winds at the Kennedy compound ... a wind farm was proposed, over the ocean, beyond the horizon of the Massachusetts shore. Ted personally led the successful effort to cancel the project. It appears that Ted supports wind power only off other's beaches.
"Green" is a purely political movement, from the start. It depends entirely on laws, rules, regulations - inherently political processes. Yet, the 'green' advocates go about, pretending otherwise.
Not to be overlooked is the transparent connections between various "green" political parties and the radical left. The 'watermelon' analogy is right on .... and it's no accident that Gorbachov left his post at the helm of the USSR to retire to ... running a "Green" group here in the USA.
The owners of factories making and installing windpower aren't a bunch of pinko's (not the ones I've met thus far) however I note that the farmers and ranchers where they're installed all tend to be pretty right wing conservative bunch who feel that Chenny is a softy leftist..
So what! If every single wind power plant proposed is installed wind power still won't provide more than 1% of this nations power..
Wouldn't you rather have private enterprise generating electricity than have semi public utilities doing it?
What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
I was quite clear in addressing the hypocracy of Senator "green" Kennedy in supporting wind power everywhere except in his own playground.
Such an inconsistancy makes perfect sense, if the issue is seen as one of political power, rather than any real interest in 'green' issues.
Maybe that's why he represents Massachusetts, and not New hampshire (Live Free or Die!).
Both parties understand the value of green.. the republican party because it provides economic oppertunity and the demoractic party because it's in the best long term interest of the nation..
If you don't like it,, you are free to get an old tractor and run a belt driven generator to create your own electricty (at least for the next 8 years) .. See we democrats believe in less government unlike the republicans who always talk a good story but wind up with a bigger government..
So ... let me be sure I understand this ... are you saying that you agree with me, that "green" is a fraud, put forth by those who wishd the role of government in our lives ... that is, to rule us?
That's the point I've been making from the start. Welcome aboard.
I also note that the one poster who has openly disagreed with this point, has also made clear his preference for Soviet-style communism. Communism: where the government, by definition, owns all - even the people.
It couldn't be clearer than that. Forget warm and fuzzy; these folks idea of a perfect world has you and I slaving away in labor camps.
I don't think we need to pursue this issue any further .... it has shown its' true colors.
A vote for 'green' is a vote for the return to serfdom, or worse.
Please go back to school and learn to read again.. I'm sorry but I never used the word fraud and in fact I've gone to great lengths to point out it's value..
Are you saying that because both republicans and democrats support the concept that somehow it's a fraud?
I realize that you are not in favor of your grandparents virtues, Waste Not want not..
That's oK as I said since we democrats believe in freedom you can generate your electricity anyway you wish as long as you keep it on your property. If you can figure out how to burn stinky old tires and keep all the fumes and smell in your space go ahead..
It's as soon as your smelly mess leaves your space that there is a problem.. (but actually you'll run afoul of Nixons clean air bill) not a problem with being green..
What did you do,
Spend all day thinking of comebacks to lob at some guy on the Internet
Well. this conversation has turned to idiocy.
<<Well. this conversation has turned to idiocy.>>Seriously. Got any ideas?
Perhaps it's a good time to open a bottle of wine
and watch our new presidents inauguration with my lovely wife.
and watch our new presidents inauguration with my lovely wife
What's Barack doing with your wife?
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Talking about me of course.
I knew it, I knew it. That's why my wife got up early to watch the inauguration. The guys been in for less than a day and he is honing in on our wives!!
LOL Well, I hope he takes care of that Honey Doo list.
What's Barack doing with your wife?
Screwing her like he's about to do to the rest of us. Unless of course you are an incarcerated terrorist.
It seems to me when discussions of green take place that people (myself included) too often seem to think sustainable means durable.
Wood can be sustainable but is not very durable. Likewise durability isn't necessarilly an indicator of sustainability.
As such, I think sustainability is always green. Durability may or may not be green depending on the circumstances.
I think the difference can lead to misunderstanding.
Excellant point.
I am totally enamored of those old stone farm houses found all over Europe. Providing a home and shelter for hundreds of generations.. Stone is the most abundant resource we have on earth. Broken up stone is the basis for concrete..
Yes we deplete it when it's used, however since it is so abundant, and completely recylable it is not ever going to be used up.
Wood is encased Carbon and as long as it remains encased is good for the planet's greenhouse gas emmisions. Harvesting wood leaves fully 1/2 of the wood to rot in the forest.. only the bole is harvested. At the sawmill even more wood is wasted in slab wood and sawdust.. about 1/4 of a tree is harvested for consumption and even more is wasted in actaul use.
<Wood is encased Carbon and as long as it remains encased is good for the planet's greenhouse gas emmisions. Harvesting wood leaves fully 1/2 of the wood to rot in the forest.. only the bole is harvested. At the sawmill even more wood is wasted in slab wood and sawdust.. about 1/4 of a tree is harvested for consumption and even more is wasted in actaul use.>How is that wood wasted? You're saying it stays in the cycle.http://www.tvwsolar.com
I went down to the lobby
To make a small call out.
A pretty dancing girl was there,
And she began to shout,
"Go on back to see the gypsy.
He can move you from the rear,
Drive you from your fear,
Bring you through the mirror.
He did it in Las Vegas,
And he can do it here."
Snort;
When wood rots it releases methane gas which is harmful to the upper atmosphere.. As long as wood doesn't rot that carbon is "trapped" in the wood..
It's the cycle of life thing.. by trapping carbon in wood we can delay the release of methane gas. Mankind is already releasing too much carbon into the air and by trapping some in wood used in a way to ensure it won't be quickly released that helps the environment..
Since the average home is 56 years old before it is either torn down or so badly altered that it may as well be torn down trees that may have taken hundreds or even thousands of years to grow are quickly adding to the carbon load of the planet..
The real problem lies with plantation grown trees.. trees grown quickly to a minimum size for commercial harvesting that provide 3/4 of it's carbon back into the atmosphere and then are dumped 56 years later to rot the last 1/4 adding that load to the planet..
See growing trees are a good thing.. They take carbon and convert it into oxygen. thus depleting the carbon load.. however harvested trees add to the carbon load.. (and are no longer generating oxygen)..
One final point.. we need to temper all of this.. all trees have a life cycle.. it may be short or long time but before it starts to decay internally we should harvest those trees and isolate what carbon we can..
"Since the average home is 56 years old before it is either torn down or so badly altered that it may as well be torn down "BS..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
BS to your BS
How many houses have been built in the past 56 years?
How many have been torn down or dramatically remodeled?
Now take the number of homes built before that ..
303 million people now zero a few hundred years ago
You made the statement.Prove it..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
<When wood rots it releases methane gas which is harmful to the upper atmosphere>So do cow farts.http://www.tvwsolar.com
I went down to the lobby
To make a small call out.
A pretty dancing girl was there,
And she began to shout,
"Go on back to see the gypsy.
He can move you from the rear,
Drive you from your fear,
Bring you through the mirror.
He did it in Las Vegas,
And he can do it here."
This entire wood carbon sequestering concept is bogus. The forests are a continuing cycle of regeneration. They are completely carbon neutral. Every bit of carbon they sequester, they release upon there demise. To attempt to include forest in the rising carbon level argument, the
only valid aspect is deforestation. If you prematurely cut them down you will have a momentary increase
in carbon. Not more then would have naturally been, but a spike in the release cycle. Sequester your own darn carbon! That is the answer.
What we are creating needs to be reduced and dealt with. What the planet normally produces is already balanced.
If you look at some of the carbon that is sequestered in 500+year old timberframes you understand the idea.. we can't help but pollute there are nearly 7 billion of us and every little bit helps.. As for deforestation as a solution you forget the trees while they are growing trade carbon for oxygen. Those 2000 year old redwoods out west do far better growing than they would be cut down and decomposing..
Yes leaving the timber standing is a good plan. :) No, you don't have to pollute.
That is a choice we are making.
with todays lifestyle pollution is the inevitable byproduct..
I admit that if we could all move to the forest by the brooke and didn't have to interact with others we could pollute less..
the reality is most of us live in Urban areas and pollution is a byproduct of our lives..
That is precisely what "Green" is. Living in a non-polluting sustainable way.
I also note that the one poster who has openly disagreed with this point, has also made clear his preference for Soviet-style communism. Communism: where the government, by definition, owns all - even the people.
It couldn't be clearer than that. Forget warm and fuzzy; these folks idea of a perfect world has you and I slaving away in labor camps.
I don't think we need to pursue this issue any further .... it has shown its' true colors.
A vote for 'green' is a vote for the return to serfdom, or worse.
Just how much ignorance can one guy hang onto?
No government on earth has better served its people's welfare than Castro's. While there isn't the kind of wealth that we brag about here (and the casino owners and mafia were forced to leave), there is no poverty, no unemployment, there is complete equality of the sexes, there is 100% literacy (probably the only country in the world to achieve that, and they did so within just a few years of the revolution), free education from K to PhD, free health-care for everyone and so many doctors per capita that they send them around the world to help other nations, an agriculture which is now 80% organic and by which the cities are 80% food self-sufficient, a movement in the last couple of decades away from centrally-controlled collectivization and toward private and cooperative ownership of land and productive resources.
No capitalist nation on earth has been able to achieve what Cuba has since the revolution - and this in spite of 50 years of the most intense economic embargo.
That a British economic organization should rate Cuba 6th happiest nation on earth speaks volumes. But some would rather swallow the propaganda and keep their heads in the sand.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Your blind sided defense of Cuba speaks volumes.
Why would so many Cubans desperately seek to get to America if Cuba was a success?
I like the fact that Cubans enjoy a very high level of education, I dislike the fact that the Castro's and a handful of their crony's enjoy a much better life than most other Cubans..
I like that they have so many doctors, I dislike that they cannot meet the medical needs of most of their citizens.
I dislike the fact that Cuba which used to export food today only grows 38% of it's own foodstuff.
I dislike the fact that Cuba has to rely on other nations to support even it's modest lifestyle.
America isn't lily white in it's treatment of Cuba for sure. On the other hand placing those soviet missiles aimed At America wasn't exactly a way to make peace.. However simply because Cuba could not trade with her nearest neighbor did not prevent her from trading with Mexico and other nearby nations..
Your blind sided defense of Cuba speaks volumes.
As usual, Frenchy, it's you who choose to remain blinded by American anti-Castro propaganda.
Why would so many Cubans desperately seek to get to America if Cuba was a success?
Why do so many Mexicans risk life and liberty to cross into America? Because, in both cases, we've destroyed their economies with either trade policies or embargos and we've broadcast a false image of a "land of plenty".
I like the fact that Cubans enjoy a very high level of education, I dislike the fact that the Castro's and a handful of their crony's enjoy a much better life than most other Cubans..
What head of state do you know who does not live well? His lifestyle would probably be considered modest by our standards.
I like that they have so many doctors, I dislike that they cannot meet the medical needs of most of their citizens.
Cuba has free medical care for all citizens, while in America 40% of us don't have even that minimal access. With the meager resources they have, Cuba has done a far better job then we have. And their medical schools offer free scholarships to Americans who cannot afford US tuitions.
I dislike the fact that Cuba which used to export food today only grows 38% of it's own foodstuff.
While Cuba used to have an agricultural commodity export economy for foreign exchange (sugar, tobacco), they now grow nearly all their own food and exchange food and medical expertise for Venezuelan oil. Cuba is a model for food self-sufficiency.
International Herald Tribune:
Cuba's urban farming program has been a stunning, and surprising, success. The farms, many of them on tiny plots like Bouza's, now supply much of Cuba's vegetables. They also provide 350,000 jobs nationwide with relatively high pay and have transformed eating habits in a nation accustomed to a less-than-ideal diet of rice and beans and canned goods from Eastern Europe.
From 1989-93, Cubans went from eating an average of 3,004 calories a day to only 2,323, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, as shelves emptied of the Soviet goods that made up two-thirds of Cuba's food. Today, they eat 3,547 calories a day — more than what the U.S. government recommends for American citizens.
"It's a really interesting model looking at what's possible in a nation that's 80 percent urban," said Catherine Murphy, a California sociologist who spent a decade studying farms in Havana. "It shows that cities can produce huge amounts of their own food, and you get all kinds of social and ecological benefits."
I dislike the fact that Cuba has to rely on other nations to support even it's modest lifestyle.
Every nation on earth trades with other nations. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and until Hugo Chavez took the reigns in Venezuela, Cuba was largely on its own since the US prevented any ship that docked in Havana from coming to US ports in an effort to starve the nation with an illegal collective punishment.
America isn't lily white in it's treatment of Cuba for sure. On the other hand placing those soviet missiles aimed At America wasn't exactly a way to make peace..
The Soviets put missiles in Cuba only because the US had missiles in Turkey aimed at them. And, in fact, the secret deal that Kennedy made with Kruschev was that we would remove our Turkish missiles if they removed theirs from Cuba.
However simply because Cuba could not trade with her nearest neighbor did not prevent her from trading with Mexico and other nearby nations..
It most certainly did. As I said above, the US would not allow any ship that traded with Cuba to touch a US port, so with their Soviet mentors gone Cubans nearly starved to death because of the viciousness of US policy. However, and unlike what happens here when there is a shortage, every Cuban was rationed the same number of calories per month so the hardship was shared and no one starved. And then Raul started his urban farming program which also privatized or cooperatived much of the usable farmland. And he rounded up the last Cubans who knew how to train and run ox teams and sent them around the country training others, such that today there are 60,000 ox teams plying the ground on their organic farms.
We could learn a great deal from the successes of Cuba, if only we would stop pretending they're the bad guys and stop trying to destroy them.
Whatever faults Castro has, no national leader - no matter how powerful - survives in office for 50 years unless he is supported by the people.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/21/2009 6:22 pm ET by Riversong
Edited 1/21/2009 6:23 pm ET by Riversong
I'm sorry but I believe you are looking at Cuba through the same rosy glasses you look at other things you like..
If you read my post at all you'll note that I recognize what Cuba has done well and what she hasn't done well. I am not blind to her gains nor have I ignored her weaknesses..
As for Fidel lasting 50 years, his secret police and prisons have ensured that..Not any love of the people for him..
Cuba isn't self sufficient on food.. she used to be a net exporter of foodstuff but no longer.. today she needs to import about 60% of what she needs. It's a complex subject but basically a failure of the collective farms that have all but been abandoned..
As to his lifestyle (and his crony's) While it's not as lavish as Babtista's once was it still is extremely opulent by Cuban standards..
It's a pity.. The Cuban people simply changed their boss they really didn't improve their lifestyle which was Fidel's original goal or claim.
I'm sorry but I believe you are looking at Cuba through the same rosy glasses you look at other things you like..
I look, as always, with insight and accuracy.
For a nation deliberately strangled for 50 years by the world's superpower, Cuba has performed miracles that no other nation has been able to replicate. By many social welfare standards, they are well ahead of us.
You neglect to mention that part of the recent increase in food imports by Cuba ws due to the destruction of their agricultural base by a hurricane in 2001. And there are other reasons that the US has now become their primary food exporter.
This is from the group that received the "alternative nobel prize"...
http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/cuba_organic_food.cfm
With Cuba's well-documented ability to feed itself, why would the Cuban government be interested in spending $91.9 million on food imports?
John S. Kavulich II, president of the U.S. Trade and Economic Council based in New York City, said, "There is a strong political component to the Cubans' decision to purchase food products from us. Of the products purchased since 2001, nearly all of them are available from other sources at better prices."
That Cuba is no longer the number one exporter of sugar in the world is a positive development. Their agricultural industry was heavily export oriented. Rather than growing their own food, they grew cash crops for monetary exchange. Now, with 50% of the nation's land agricultural, they devote their efforts to growing organic produce to feed themselves. No other nation on earth has an agricultural sector which is 80% organic and with urban agriculture that supplies 80% of the needs of the city populations.
Cuba has received international recognition and Right Livelihood awards for what they've done with urban and organic agriculture.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/21/2009 7:38 pm ET by Riversong
Cuba has had many chances to lift the embargo..Most recently Clintons overture. However it would have resulted in the complete collapses of the Castro regime. And rejected by Castro for that reason..
As to blaming all of her importing on the hurricane, Nonsense! Those dairy farms and other collectives have been complete failures. Today virtually all have been abandoned. Your own article shows how when citizens could market their vegetables for a profit how they changed from a net importer of vegetables to growing nearly all of their own..
Once you look objectively at Cuba's strengths and weaknesses yes some of the problems are a result of American policies.. but far from all.
If it was all America's doing why did Castro reject Clinton's offer? Why did he reject the many other offers he was given?
Communism has some good points, however it also has one major weakness that cannot be overlooked.. That weakness is called incentive..
Communism is the complete and total abnegation of all that is great, noble, worthwhile, or sacred in human existence.When I told you a while back "thank you for your service," I meant that with all my heart. Whatever minor points of discussion you and I might ever disagree upon, it is nothing compared to the gratitude I feel for the sacrifice that you and many others have made.
Communism is the complete and total abnegation of all that is great, noble, worthwhile, or sacred in human existence.
Ah, you reveal your fundamentalist streak. Reagan railed about an "evil empire" and Bush believed in a "triangle of evil". And Catskinner sees the devil in communism.
I think your statement above applies more appropriately to the cult of individualism that is the basis for capitalism.
The sacred, in every culture and tradition, was founded on the wholeness, health and integrity of the group (tribe, church, extended family) and the web of life of which it was part.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Sorry, wrong again.I'm about as far from a fundamentalist as you can get.
Sorry, wrong again. I'm about as far from a fundamentalist as you can get.
You hadn't come across as a fundamentalist, but when you claim that one major world ideology is utterly without value, and by implication that ours is noble and good, you're shown your Manichean side.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
But, back to the subject of this thread...
There is a very good article on the Building Science Corp website about "green" and "sustainable" building.
http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/digests/bsd-005-green-building-and-sustainability/?full_view=1
In it, John Straube says:
The terms “sustainableâ€, “green†and the like have become a part of many discussions, product advertisements, and everyday speech. However despite the growing pervasiveness of such terms, it is remarkable how imprecise and poorly understood the concept of sustainability is. It is also not widely appreciated how difficult it will be to move toward a sustainable society or how significant the required changes will be.<!----><!----><!---->
The United Nations Bruntland Commission Report is the source and inspiration for the popularization of the concept of sustainability. The definition of sustainable development given was:<!----><!---->
“Sustainable development is development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.â€<!----><!---->
A more correct and rigorous definition can be found in most chemistry, biology, and even economics textbooks:
<!----><!---->
A sustainable society, process, or product is one that can be sustained or continue to be produced over the long term, without adversely affecting the conditions necessary to support those same activities in the future. <!----><!---->
When applied to human impact on the environment, the conditions referred to above are the natural systems (e.g., soil, ecosystem, water, plants, etc) that provide all of our material and energy resources including clean air, water, food, etc. Applying this definition to that of a building:
<!----><!---->
A sustainable building is one that can be produced and continue to be operated over the long term without adversely affecting the natural environment necessary to support human activities in the future. <!----><!---->
In more practical terms, this means that a sustainable building cannot, in construction, operation, or disposal:<!----><!---->
consume materials unless they can be easily and harmlessly extracted, used, and returned to nature, <!----><!---->
consume non-renewable energy, <!----><!---->
destroy natural habitat, bio-diversity, or bio-mass, or <!----><!---->
release pollutants of a type or quantity that cannot be harmlessly broken down by natural systems. <!----><!---->
These are very difficult criteria to meet, and in fact require all aspects of human activity to be changed to meet them. For example, until steel is recycled in a non-polluting manner using renewable energy sources, no steel of any type (including nails or screws) can be included in a truly sustainable building. Clearly we are very far from producing even a single truly sustainable building in the industrialized world. However, to move toward these goals is both possible and practical. <!----><!---->
Given how far we are from producing truly sustainable buildings, a working definition of a green building is one that is more sustainable than current practise. The operative goals of a green building can be stated as:<!----><!---->
A green building is one that uses energy and material more effectively both in production and operation while polluting and damaging natural systems as little as possible.<!----><!---->
A reasonable measure of a green building might be one that is significantly better than similar, or average, buildings of the same size and type in the same area. Hence the question to ask of anyone claiming to have created a green building is by comparison to other buildings:<!----><!---->
Does it use less non-renewable energy to operate? <!----><!---->
Did it use fewer resources to build? <!----><!---->
Will it last as long as it can be used without undue effort to extend its life? <!----><!---->
Does it produce less pollution and damage natural systems less?
If one accepts the definition of building science as “the science and art of producing and operating buildingsâ€, then there is clearly a very large overlap between the skills and interests of a green builder/designer and those of a building scientist. Hence, “green†buildings are simply good buildings in most ways. That is, they are:
<!----><!---->
Energy efficient – in operation and in construction <!----><!---->
Resource efficient – in operation and in construction <!----><!---->
Non-polluting – in operation and production <!----><!---->
Durable – so that they can be used for a long time <!----><!---->
Adaptable for many uses – so they can be re-used easily <!----><!---->
Healthy – few chemicals given off, no mould, fresh air <!----><!---->
Beautiful and comfortable – so that people will want to use and re-use them <!----><!----><!----><!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<But, back to the subject of this thread...There is a very good article on the Building Science Corp website >>That was pretty good. Thanks.
<<You hadn't come across as a fundamentalist,>>good, glad to hear it <G><<but when you claim that one major world ideology is utterly without value,>>I don't think it's without value, I think it's far worse than that <LOL> <<and by implication that ours is noble and good,>>Nothing whatsoever of the sort. Really, you are supposed to be a far more careful thinker than that. There was no implication whatsoever in anything I wrote. If you are perceiving it, it is only because you are reading this into it.You made quite a leap there.I know Marx pretty well, 25 years ago I'd say I had his early writings down cold. I don't think Communism is that hard to discredit. And after the events of late 1945 until the collapse of the Soviet Union, I don't think it would be very easy to make the case that any major world power is regarding Communism as a legitimate model. <<you're shown your Manichean side.>>????
Nothing whatsoever of the sort. Really, you are supposed to be a far more careful thinker than that. There was no implication whatsoever in anything I wrote. If you are perceiving it, it is only because you are reading this into it.
There was little reading between the lines required:
"Communism is the complete and total abnegation of all that is great, noble, worthwhile, or sacred in human existence."<!----><!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
<!---->Communism = total negation of the good<!---->
<!---->Communism = antithesis of capitalism<!---->
<!---->Hence Capitalism (our ideology) is the good, great, noble, worthwhile and sacred.<!---->
<!----><!---->
<!---->Your syllogism could not be misunderstood.<!---->
<!----><!---->
<!---->Hence you are a Manichean (them is evil - we're good and noble) fundamentalist.<!---->
<!----><!---->
<!---->Ipso Facto.<!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/23/2009 3:55 pm ET by Riversong
<<Communism = total negation of the goodCommunism = antithesis of capitalismHence Capitalism (our ideology) is the good, great, noble, worthwhile and sacred.You syllogism could not be misunderstood.Hence you are a Manichean (them is evil - we're good and noble) fundamentalist.Ipso Facto.>>1) Communism is only the antithesis to Capitalism in Marxist ideology.There are many other possibilities, many other alternatives to Capitalism as we understand it, and nothing (besides Marxism)suggests that Communism is the only alternative. You have once again restricted the available evidence to support your argument.The implicit fallacy you just fell into is called "begging the question" (aka petitio principi), that is, you have implicitly assumed the conclusion in the premises. Also called circular reasoning.2) Your conclusion does not follow -- certainly it is not logically necessarily.If we have a bunch of dogs, some blue, some green, some red, some purple, and I remark that the blue dogs are really stupid, it does not follow that the green ones are necessarily smart.You should probably brush up on the rules of logical discourse if you're going to attack an argument with reason.Your syllogism is a mess. If I need to unpack this further, I can.<<Hence you are a Manichean (them is evil - we're good and noble) fundamentalist.>>3) Same logical flaw. You could not be any farther off.I can tear Marxism up pretty handily. Oddly enough, I can do the same for Capitalism. But I hardly think it's worth a lot of effort here.I'm no fundamentalist of any stripe by a long shot, and you are no logician. <BG>But you do build a pretty good house, it seems, and I'm glad you're still hanging around here.
Edited 1/23/2009 9:42 am by Catskinner
1) Communism is only the antithesis to Capitalism in Marxist ideology.
There are many other possibilities, many other alternatives to Capitalism as we understand it, and nothing (besides Marxism)suggests that Communism is the only alternative. You have once again restricted the available evidence to support your argument.
Nothing besides Marxism? How about American Conservatism, which has steadfastly held to the maxim that the two are diametrically opposed?
I'm not "restricting the available evidence" since my argument was a logical one not an evidentiary one and it was in response to your Manichean abosolutistic statement:
"Communism is the complete and total abnegation of all that is great, noble, worthwhile, or sacred in human existence."
The implicit fallacy you just fell into is called "begging the question" (aka petitio principi), that is, you have implicitly assumed the conclusion in the premises. Also called circular reasoning.
In fact, that was precisely the fallacy of your statement: by defining Communism as the antithesis of the good (rather than by its own independent attibutes) it is ipso facto bad. Circular reasoning par excellence.
2) Your conclusion does not follow -- certainly it is not logically necessarily.
If we have a bunch of dogs, some blue, some green, some red, some purple, and I remark that the blue dogs are really stupid, it does not follow that the green ones are necessarily smart.
You should probably brush up on the rules of logical discourse if you're going to attack an argument with reason.
Sorry, Catskinner, but it's clearly you who need a refresher in logic (a subject I received an A+ in at the second most demanding school in the country). My syllogism was as perfect as they come. Your example, if it were to replicate mine, would have to be:
Dogs are opposite of cats, dogs are smart, hence cats are stupid.
<<Hence you are a Manichean (them is evil - we're good and noble) fundamentalist.>>
3) Same logical flaw. You could not be any farther off.
It can't be a logical flaw since it's a simple applicaiton of the definition of the term. You stated that Communism is evil. Evil is said to exist only in diametrical opposition to the good. Those who believe in a world divided into good (invariably on our side) and evil (invariably on the other) are - by definition - Manicheans (or fundamentalists).
Feel free to withdraw your absurd claim that "Communism is the complete and total abnegation of all that is great, noble, worthwhile, or sacred in human existence."
You may as well be saying that the Devil is a communist, or all communists are devils. Sounds like Bush and Osama.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
That was breathtaking. <LOL>
Cuba has had many chances to lift the embargo
Since it's our embargo and not Cuba's, she can hardly make the choice. But the reason they're reluctant to let the US set the terms of "free trade" with Cuba is the same reason they had a revolution in the first place: they don't want to be once again taken over by corporate interests.
Those dairy farms and other collectives have been complete failures. Today virtually all have been abandoned.
The shift to private and cooperative use of farmland was entirely due to Raul Castro's initiative following the collapse of the Soviet Union. China has also adopted many market policies and privatization, but they are no less a socialist nation.
Once you look objectively at Cuba's strengths and weaknesses yes some of the problems are a result of American policies.. but far from all.
I never suggested that all their problems are our doing. But you cannot make any fair judgements about the "backwardness" of a country that has been under the oppressive thumb of their gargantuan neighbor for 50 years. The only fair assessment is that they have done exceptionally well under the circumstances, including surpassing US standards of social welfare on many fronts.
Communism has some good points, however it also has one major weakness that cannot be overlooked.. That weakness is called incentive..
You fail to appreciate the "incentive" of service to the common good. That was the sole motivation for human behavior for 10's of thousands of years until the very recent invention of individualism, private property and corporate capitalism. And that modern shift from the collective to the individual has coincided with all forms of social and ecological degradation.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Your last statement shows just how hopelessly Naive you are. There is no incentive for the common good. (certain rare individuals aside) Human existence was virtually all about survival. If you were a bad farmer, blacksmith, or hunter you and your family starved or were weakened until the next disease came along and finished you off.. There was no real social network until relatively recently.
What started out in the medical field and spread to the churches whereby charity was given to those unable to survive by their own means was merely a way for those in power to quell growing unease over their leadership. If the king took too much food to feed his army etc. then a small portion was allowed to be returned via the network of first the healthcare industry and later the church..
Collectivism which you point out as a historical strength was merely a realization that some tasks required more then the family's set of hands to accomplish. Early examples of "factory" work..
In fact that is one of FDR's great achievements meant among other things to stave off the growth of the communist party..
Your last statement shows just how hopelessly Naive you are.
Frenchy, naive is drawing unfounded conclusions based on willfull ignorance or wishfull thinking. Take a look in the mirror.
There is no incentive for the common good. (certain rare individuals aside) Human existence was virtually all about survival... There was no real social network until relatively recently.
All of human evolution was dependent on a tribal (i.e. social) structure. Humans couldn't outhunt large predators unless they did so as a group. Tribes took care of each other, particularly the young and the old and those with disabilities or special abilities (such as the shamans and healers).
And the consensus among anthropoligists today is that both ancient and living hunter-gatherer societies spend far less time per day or week in basic survival activities than we do here in America, and have far more time for cultural and social and artistic activities.
Collective social organization made the good life possible. Individualism has destroyed it for most of the world.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Both parties understand the value of green.. the republican party because it provides economic oppertunity and the demoractic party because it's in the best long term interest of the nation..
If you don't like it,, you are free to get an old tractor and run a belt driven generator to create your own electricty (at least for the next 8 years) .. See we democrats believe in less government unlike the republicans who always talk a good story but wind up with a bigger government..
I couldn't agree more. Republicans at the national level over the past decade or so have been lousy and adhering to conservative ideals.
That's why I count myself as Libertarian.
I think it's endemic to the nature of success.
To succeed politicians need to sell themselves enough to be able to afford to run an effective campaign.. in selling themselves they sell themselves to those with the money.
That means they compromise..
You may believe the liberterians offer a viable solution and they do.. right up to the point where they become successful. To achieve that success compromises must be made in order to acquire sufficent funds to be successful.
All minor parties are in a similar position.. They can cling to lofty goals because they don't expect success. Reality is going to be differant as long as we allow elections to be determined by funding..
Once elections are paid for by the people and not by special interest groups things can change.. Not untill then..
I agree with virtually every statement, save one. "Special interests". Here's some food for thought:
If you are willing to accept that there is a finite amount of political power/influence then what would help this country is MORE special interest groups...so much that each person is their own special interest group.
In the current version of our system (don't get me started on the constitution being a "living document"...it ISN'T) , our government is being used on behalf of a few special interest groups.
Lost is the interest of the common good. (OMG...did that sound like River?)
I don't believe in democracy though. (Always results in mob rule, i.e., our current version of the Constitution)
I believe in a Repulican form of government as set forth in the Constitution. Simply put majority rules so long as the interests of the minority are considered and protected. (Common good)
We had a Republic once...unfortunately for us, and probably to the chagrin of the founding fathers, we haven't kept it. (A nod to Ben Franklin there....mack daddy founding father he was)
"I seem to recall the republicans losing the senate when Jim Jeffords made the switch back in ... was it 98? Nor have the Republicans had the house since that brief 2-year "Gingrich" revolution."Republican here, and respectfully, you are wrong.From 1994 to 2006 Democrats controlled the Senate for 18 months.
Republicans also had the executive and judicial branch for the last 8 years.
from Wikipedia:"In the 1996 and 1998 elections, Republicans lost Congressional seats but still retained control of the House and the Senate. After the 2000 election, the Senate was divided evenly between the parties, with Republicans retaining the right to organize the Senate due to the election of Dick Cheney as Vice President. The Senate shifted to control by the Democrats after GOP senator Jim Jeffords changed party registration to "Independent" in June 2001, but later returned to Republican control after the November 2002 elections.
In the 2006 elections, Democrats won both the House of Representatives (233 Democrats, 202 Republicans) and the Senate (49 Democrats, 49 Republicans)
Am I supposed to somehow derive pleasure from anothers' misery? The more wealth, the better, in my book.
If you relish wealth (in the material and monetary sense), then you endorse poverty, homelessness, hunger, starvation, epidemic diseases, powerlessness, and destitution.
Never in the history of human civiliation has there existed wealth without poverty, and the one is the cause of the other.
Odd that no one today has even heard of the book Progress and Poverty (1879) or its author Henry George. In his day, his book was the most read tome in the US after the Bible. He established definitively the causal relationship between the two and proposed a better way.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Well, on that we'll have to disagree. It is clear you believe in the "fixed pie" model, while I endorse the "rising tide" model.
It is clear you believe in the "fixed pie" model, while I endorse the "rising tide" model.
I don't believe in pie in the sky.
And there's no economic theory more completely discredited (even to conservative Republicans) than trickle-down Reaganomics. That began the biggest redistribution of wealth from working folks to the super rich in the history of humanity - and it continues to this day and was directly responsible for both the bubbles and the bursts.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/19/2009 8:38 pm ET by Riversong
Tricle down? Let's see ...
It worked for Kennedy.
It worked for Reagan.
It worked for Bush.
How is it discredited?
Tricle down? Let's see ...
It worked for Kennedy.
It worked for Reagan.
It worked for Bush.
You just made my case. It worked for each of them by making them millionaires while impoverishing millions.
How is it discredited?
John Kenneth Galbraith: <!----><!----><!---->
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."<!----><!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Well we select the government we want. and the people in the government come from us.. there isn't a subspecies of children born as government.
And you believe in the tooth fairy, too?
No one makes it to high places in government without either having been born with a silver spoon or having one handed to them or selling their loyalty to the masters of the universe.
And "we" haven't selected a president in as long as I can remember. Political parties and corporate handlers have been buying and stealing the US (and state and local) government for almost as long as it's existed.
The Supremes selected the president in 2000 (after extensive voter-count fraud in Florida (by the secretary of state who just happened to be running the Bush campaign) . Ohio stole the presidency (among other states) in 2004 with the help of a secretary of state who just happened to be running the Bush campaign). And many poll watchers believe that the Obama victory would have been a landslide (he now has 87% approval by the US citizens) if there hadn't been so much voter manipulation by the Republican Party (the Democrat Party has done it's share in the past).
No surprise that Karl Rove's IT guru, Mike Connell, who was about to spill his guts about his role in the stealing of elections 2004 and 2006, died in a mysterious plane crash. "We the People" didn't do that, but "Them the Powerful" did - and always have eliminated those who challenge their monopoly on power and wealth.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
So your solution is what? A radicle over throw of the government? To what purpose? if a little country like Cuba can't improve the life of the average citizen by violent overthrow of Batista why would you believe a American revolution would achieve any better.. wouldn't we simply change our masters?
Look at all such revolutions. note how bloody they wound up. Can you tell me the average frenchman today has more Liberty than his prerevolution ancestor?
To change government in any meaningful way there needs to be a gradual societal change. Anything else is simply a changing of the guard..
Ever notice that we never run out of the things we are allowed to own? That's a market at work. "Free" stuff, however, has a way of getting depleted.
You must mean such highly-valued commodities as fossil fuels, which we've already used up to the point of rapidly-diminishing returns and every-increasing prices. Yup, that's the market at it's best.
And those "free" things which have a way of getting depleted - you must mean solar energy (which will run out in 5 billion years) or those other "worthless" commodities like happiness and contentment.
When did profit become a bad thing?
Since it was invented. Profit, by definition, is unearned income. Everyone has an unabridged right to a fair return on their labor, but no one has a right to what they haven't earned.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/19/2009 7:50 pm ET by Riversong
I can't accept either of your assumptions.
You assume oil resources are are depleting; yet we keep finding more. We have so much, we have chosen to not use what we have.
Even assuming that someday things will run out ... I have absolute faith that alternatives will be found. It's amazing how many things became possible when folks began to imagine collecting $150/barrel for their alternatives.
Profit is not unearned income. Profit is the measure of the value of your efforts. Bringing coal to Newcastle is the classic example of unprofitable activity ... but one ship, diverted there by a storm, made enormous profits. Why? It has the good fortune to arrive in the middle of a coal strike!
How much is some effort worth? The only check on that is an unrestricted market. Competition is by far the most effective way to ensure "fair" pricing. Any other method is pure sophistry.
I can't accept either of your assumptions.
I don't make "assumptions". I make sure I understand history so I don't succumb to false ideologies.
You assume oil resources are are depleting; yet we keep finding more. We have so much, we have chosen to not use what we have.
I don't assume oil resources are depleting. I take the word of the oil geologists like M. King Hubbard (who correctly predicted in the 50s that US oil would peak in the early 1970s, which it did). And the Society for the Study of Peak Oil, composed of oil company execs and scientists, has been saying for years that we are at or very near global peak and everything is downhill from here.
Funny how if we have so much we don't need to use it we instead spend hundreds of billions fighting wars to control other nation's oil.
Profit is not unearned income. Profit is the measure of the value of your efforts.
Odd, but all Americans understood for our first century the difference between wages (the value of one's labor) and profit (unearned income). That's why income taxes for the first half of our national history were only on profits and not wages. Wages belonged solely to the earner. Profits were a form of legalized theft which could rightly be seized by the government.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
"Profits were a form of legalized theft which could rightly be seized by the government." (In red for our communist friend)
Whoa there fella. I know a thing or two about early American history and the Consitution and Declaration of Independence. This might be your politcal opinion and I would fight for your right to state it.
However, there is nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government authority to seize profits by right. Government has no rights. Humans have rights provided to them by their "Creator". (I love the founders' choice of this word...everyone has a creator whether they believe in God or not...they even thought of the atheists and agnostics...those founding fathers were a smart, inclusive bunch)
Governments are instituted among men to protect rights. (paraphrased) We are supposed to have constitutionally protected rights, not constitutional rights. There is a huge difference.
Our government was meant to be a referee...not be a part of the game. Theft, as you refer to profit, involves someone taking something from someone against their wishes. My customers willingly give me my profit. You are confusing profit with fairness. It's not fair that Warren Buffett is a billionaire and teachers around here average about $35,000.00 per year. But I don't want the government taking his money and giving it to teachers, or worse, using his money for things they see as more appropriate.
I also don't want the referee in a basketball game taking the ball away from a team that's ahead by 30 points to make it more fair/enjoyable for the losing team.
Everyone is a winner but not everyone gets to win.
One arguement I have for letting the dollar determine values is that we all tend to be extremely short sighted..
In times of peace if the public had their way we would put away all out weapon systems and only drag them out (with the attending expenses) during times of war..
The military knows that without training the best weapon systems cannot work to their full potential so we spend money.
So since certain things make sense to take a long term perspective housing should be one of those things.. Just like you don't want moble homes to surround your house houses built to poor standards shouldn't be allowed and one of the standards that should be required is durability.
Money isn't the final arbitrator of things, sure it's a standard benchmark but not the final one..
In times of peace if the public had their way we would put away all out weapon systems and only drag them out (with the attending expenses) during times of war..
Oh, you mean like the last time we actually won a war - in 1941 when we cranked up the arms industry from nothing in no time flat and then trained the most powerful army on earth in short order?
Apparently you disagree with all the Founding Fathers and most presidents from Washington to Eisenhower.
“A standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happenâ€
- James Madison<!----><!----><!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I love Eisenhauers warning about the dangers of the Military industrial complex.. very to the point.
However I am aware that in a modern world with near instant push button destructive capablity we cannot eliminate our military completely.
I do whole heartedly agree that we need to drastically revise our military structure and scale back dramatically into more effective and responsive special forces type units..
Wandering around the oceans in trillion dollar carrier groups burning up 4 million dollars a day for each carrier group looking for a reason to exist is extremely troubling to me..
When America has 21 such groups and the rest of the world combined not even a handful we are wasting America's future on the military industrial complex's hold on America..
the best arbiter of that is the market. Time has value, materials have value, work has value. Just what are these thigs worth? The price tag is your best answer.
I assume you're refering that that market which is manipulated by the Wall Street speculators who've all-but-destroyed the economy, and by the Fed private bankers who manipulate the money supply and interest rates, and by the government which distorts it with subsidies and taxation.
Oh, yah! That objective and neutral arbiter of value. The one which knows the value of nothing and the price of everything.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
And your alternative is....?
And your alternative is....?
Well, here's a good start in the right direction, written by the author of the international bestseller When Corporations Rule the World and The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community.
The Speech President Obama Should Deliver… But Won'tby David Korten<!----><!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. presidency on a promise of change. Before his inauguration, indeed before his election, I drafted the following as my dream for the economic address he might deliver to the nation during his administration in fulfillment of the economic aspect of that promise. It is the New Economy agenda presented in the style of candidate Obama’s political rhetoric.
<!----> <!---->
I suffer no illusion that he will deliver it. He has surrounded himself with advisers aligned with Wall Street interests in an effort to establish public confidence in his ability to restore order in the economy. Because there has been no discussion of any other option, to most people “restoring order†means restoring the status quo with the addition of a job-stimulus package, and that is most likely what he will try to do.
<!----> <!---->
This speech presents the missing option—the program that a U.S. president must one day be able to announce and implement if there is to be any hope for our economic, social, and environmental future.
<!----> <!---->
Here is the address:
Fellow Citizens:
<!----> <!---->
My administration came to office with a mandate for bold action at a time when our most powerful economic institutions had clearly failed us. They crippled our economy; burdened governments with debilitating debts; corrupted our political institutions; and threatened the destruction of the natural environment on which our very lives depend.
<!----> <!---->
The failure can be traced directly to an elitist economic ideology that says if government favors the financial interests of the rich to the disregard of all else, everyone will benefit and the nation will prosper. A thirty-year experiment with trickle-down economics that favored the interests of Wall Street speculators over the hardworking people and businesses of Main Street has proved it doesn’t work.
<!----> <!---->
We have no more time or resources to devote to fixing a system based on false values and a discredited ideology. We must now come together to create the institutions of a new economy based on a values-based pragmatism that recognizes a simple truth: If the world is to work for any of us, it must work for all of us.
<!----> <!---->
Corrective action begins with recognition that our economic crisis is, at its core, a moral crisis. Our economic institutions and rules, even the indicators by which we measure economic performance, consistently place financial values ahead of life values.
<!----> <!---->
We have been measuring economic performance against GDP, or gross domestic product, which essentially measures the rate at which money and resources are flowing through the economy. Let us henceforth measure economic performance by the indicators of what we really want: the health and well-being of our children, families, communities, and the natural environment.
<!----> <!---->
Like a healthy ecosystem, a healthy twenty-first-century economy must have strong local roots and maximize the beneficial capture, storage, sharing, and use of local energy, water, and mineral resources. That is what we must seek to achieve, community by community, all across this nation, by unleashing the creative energies of our people and our local governments, businesses, and civic organizations.
<!----> <!---->
Previous administrations favored Wall Street, but the policies of this administration henceforth will favor the people and businesses of Main Street—people who are working to rebuild our local communities, restore the middle class, and bring our natural environment back to health.
<!----> <!---->
We will strive for local and national food independence by rebuilding our local food systems based on family farms and environmentally friendly farming methods that rebuild the soil, maximize yields per acre, minimize the use of toxic chemicals, and create opportunities for the many young people who are returning to the land.
<!----> <!---->
We will strive for energy independence by supporting local entrepreneurs who are creating local businesses to retrofit our buildings and develop and apply renewable-energy technologies.
<!----> <!---->
It is a basic principle of market theory that trade relations between nations should be balanced. So-called free trade agreements have hollowed out our national industrial capacity, mortgaged our future to foreign creditors, and created global financial instability. We will take steps to assure that our future trade relations are balanced and fair as we engage in the difficult but essential work of learning to live within our own means.
<!----> <!---->
We will rebuild our national infrastructure around a model of walkable, bicycle-friendly communities with efficient public transportation to conserve energy, nurture the relationships of community, and recover our farm and forest lands.
<!----> <!---->
A strong middle-class society is an American ideal. Our past embodiment of that ideal made us the envy of the world. We will act to restore that ideal by rebalancing the distribution of wealth. Necessary and appropriate steps will be taken to assure access by every person to quality health care, education, and other essential services, and to restore progressive taxation, as well as progressive wage and benefit rules, to protect working people.
<!----> <!---->
We will seek to create a true ownership society in which all people have the opportunity to own their homes and to have an ownership stake in the enterprise on which their livelihood depends. Our economic policies will favor responsible local ownership of local enterprises by people who have a stake in the health of their local communities and economies. The possibilities include locally owned family businesses, cooperatives, and the many other forms of community- or worker-owned enterprises.<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
We will act to render Wall Street’s casino-like operations unprofitable. We will impose a transactions tax, require responsible capital ratios, and impose a surcharge on short-term capital gains. We will make it illegal for people and corporations to sell or insure assets that they do not own or in which they do not have a direct material interest.
<!----> <!---->
To meet the financial needs of the new twenty-first-century Main Street economy, we will reverse the process of mergers and acquisitions that created the current concentration of banking power. We will restore the previous system of federally regulated community banks that are locally owned and managed and that fulfill the classic textbook banking function of serving as financial intermediaries between local people looking to secure a modest interest return on their savings and local people who need a loan to buy a home or finance a business.
<!----> <!---->
And last, but not least, we will implement an orderly process of monetary reform. Most people believe that our government creates money. That is a fiction. Private banks create virtually all the money in circulation when they issue a loan at interest. The money is created by making a simple accounting entry with a few computer keystrokes. That is all money really is, an accounting entry.
<!----> <!---->
My administration will act immediately to begin an orderly transition from our present system of bank-issued debt money to a system by which money is issued by the federal government. We will use the government-issued money to fund economic-stimulus projects that build the physical and social infrastructure of a twenty-first-century economy, being careful to remain consistent with our commitment to contain inflation.
<!----> <!---->
To this end I have instructed the treasury secretary to take immediate action to assume control of the Federal Reserve and begin a process of monetizing the federal debt. He will have a mandate to stabilize the money supply, contain housing and stock market bubbles, discourage speculation, and assure the availability of credit on fair and affordable terms to eligible Main Street borrowers.
<!----> <!---->
By recommitting ourselves to the founding ideals of this great nation, focusing on our possibilities, and liberating ourselves from failed ideas and institutions, together we can create a stronger, better nation. We can secure a fulfilling life for every person and honor the premise of the Declaration of Independence that every individual is endowed with an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
<!----> <!---->
No government on its own can resolve the problems facing our nation, but together we can and will resolve them. I call on every American to join with me in rebuilding our nation by acting to strengthen our families, our communities, and our natural environment; to secure the future of our children; and to restore our leadership position and reputation in the community of nations.
________________________________________
This is an abridged excerpt from David Korten's new book, An Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth, to be published by Berrett-Koehler, Feb 2009. This extract forms part of the YES! series, Path to a New Economy. An earlier version of this chapter first appeared as part of David's article in Tikkun, Nov/Dec 2008. David Korten is the author of the international bestseller When Corporations Rule the World and The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community. He is co-founder and board chair of YES! Magazine, and a board member of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies.<!----><!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
your dislike is noted but not notable..
Communication is not perfect. The goal however is laudable and your grandparents taught it to you..
Waste not want not.
There is a great deal of debate on how to achieve that but that is what democracy is about. For example Gerorge Washington didn't like Thomas Jefferson and there was much heated rhetroric on the subject that today we charish. For example; I know not what course others may take but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
You need to sit down around a campfire with people with such interest and focus.. you'll see that most are reasonable people with a legitimate interest.. the differances is their focus and why there is apparent disharmony..
There is a great deal of debate on how to achieve that but that is what democracy is about. For example Gerorge Washington didn't like Thomas Jefferson and there was much heated rhetroric on the subject that today we charish. For example; I know not what course others may take but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
George Washington hated Jefferson so much that he made him Secretary of State!
And that quote is from neither of them, but from Patrick Henry trying to incite his compatriots to war.
So what does this have to do with green building?
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Smart presidents keep the opposition near at hand. Look at Obama and Clinton..
There is plenty of historical comments about the strained relations between Washington and Jefferson if you do the research.
As for the comment I did not feel a need to attribute such a famous quote. Every 5th grader knows who said that.
As to it's relationship to green building I presume that you skimmed over what was written in the sentence before it.. Please take a moment to go back and read,... then think..
Judging by the cynicism and sarcasm of many of the other replies, I think this "green" stuff is being imposed .... with a religious fervor ... and is not accepted by those at the 'grass roots.'
Sounds like you get your "news" from Sean Hannity. The sustainability movement is the world's most extensive and fastest-growing grass-roots movement - in every country on every continent.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Yea, right.
Friend, I personally have lived, at the substence level, in a number of countries. It's a rare moment where I do not have an immediate family member on each continent (except Antartica).
The vast bulk of the world is simply too tired. too poor, and too oppressed to worry about "sustainability." To them, "sustainability" involved getting tonights' dinner, and staying clear of the secret police. If these folks dream at all, it is for the chance to have our freedom and prosperity.
Nor are those two desires unrelated. It wasn't that long ago that even our White House had a dirt floor. It was our freedom that allowed us to go from colonial backwater to world power in record time.
Maybe that's why, across the USA, immigrants are outraged by the careless disdain our 'natives' have for our liberties.
Yea, right. The vast bulk of the world is simply too tired. too poor, and too oppressed to worry about "sustainability."
<!----><!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."<!----><!---->
- John Stuart Mill<!----><!---->
I suppose if you close your eyes to the rest of the world in the same way you close your eyes to our own economic disaster you would miss the obvious.
Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement In the World Came Into Being and Why No One Saw it Coming, by Paul Hawken
Paul Hawken has spent over a decade researching organizations dedicated to restoring the environment and fostering social justice. From billion-dollar nonprofits to single-person dot.causes, these groups collectively comprise the largest movement on earth, a movement that has no name, leader, or location, and that has gone largely ignored by politicians and the media. Like nature itself, it is organizing from the bottom up, in every city, town, and culture. and is emerging to be an extraordinary and creative expression of people's needs worldwide.<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
Blessed Unrest explores the diversity of the movement, its brilliant ideas, innovative strategies, and hidden history, which date back many centuries. A culmination of Hawken's many years of leadership in the environmental and social justice fields, it will inspire and delight any and all who despair of the world's fate, and its conclusions will surprise even those within the movement itself. Fundamentally, it is a description of humanity's collective genius, and the unstoppable movement to reimagine our relationship to the environment and one another.<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
<!----> <!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Economic disaster? Only in America do the poor drive their own cars to their protest rallies.
You want economic disaster, pick any "centrally planned" country on the planet.
You want economic disaster, pick any "centrally planned" country on the planet.
You mean the fastest growing economy in the world, China, which virtually owns the US? The most centrally-planned and controlled economy in the world?
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/19/2009 9:19 pm ET by Riversong
what a last few posts....
from the last year, ida tot reno was a union biased commie, then this thread......
heck reno musta be a johnnie birch guy ??? <G>G
edit oh yeah... oh river, with a VT location anna tom paine quote, wassup?
Edited 1/19/2009 9:29 pm ET by junkhound
<<<<You want economic disaster, pick any "centrally planned" country on the planet.>>>> [from reno]<<You mean the fastest growing economy in the world, China, which virtually owns the US? The most centrally-planned and controlled economy in the world?>>Elsewhere in our discussion I proposed that economics was an essential component of understanding green design. I went on to propose a partial definition of an economy as the collective expression of individual preferences in the exchange of goods and services.On that analysis, China is a disaster area. Their legacy of grand-scale ecological waste and human abuse should be appalling to anyone with a modicum of decency.There is nothing whatsoever necessary in the connection between left politics and ecological or environmental responsibility.
Green is the buzzword/marketing ploy of the new century. I'm sick of hearing 'green design', green products and green service/contractors. Green means whatever you want it to. Steel is green if you manufacture it out of recycled steel ... which has been the case practically since steel was invented.
Green is just BS to get you to buy a product and to separate me from my green.
Well, at least you call yourself clueless!!
Recycled steel is greener than new steel, but after that comparison, it gets pretty ugly
pretty fast. Have you seen how much energy is used, and pollution generated in recycling steel?
Every step towards green is a good thing, in the long run we are going to need the help!!
Dan
Don't get me wrong ... I'm all for GREEN. Green(er) products, materials, manufacturing. I'm all for it.
I just get tired of the hype of everyone and their brother looking for a way to use the buzzword to push their goods and services. Your point about steel is right ... it gets pretty ugly. But recycled steel is a 'point' in the LEEDS rating system, I believe.
I used 'lots' of used building materials in my new house. Out of 16 doors, only two are new (one had to be a fire rated door). And it doesn't look like a mish mash ... all 6 panel style doors. More work, but less outlay of $. I don't consider myself a 'green builder' even though I frequented the used materials store.
I like trying to build "green" but hate using the word.
Unfortunately I think we're stuck with the word.
I think green is kind of like the word "love". I'm not so sure it can ever be completely defined because it means different things to different people, not to mention there are different degrees of it.
Green like other descriptive terms like Free, or Strong only make sense in reference to something else. It has certain attributes that Riversong and others have listed, but really something can only be Greener, or Free-er or Stronger than something else.
Edited 2/1/2009 8:50 pm ET by fingersandtoes
Good point. Also I think it's the time we are in. Twenty years from now
"Green" won't be the relevant term anymore. Either climate change will be fully recognized and people will be
actively living with the problems or it will wash away. Either outcome will have it's own issues.
Yeah, you got it. I don't mind the word ... but like lots of "popular" buzzwords, I think it gets overused and abused.
green means new
"green means new"Some of the green things in my refrigerator is far from being new..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
but they aren't what they were they are something new