Solar-powered clothes dryers disallowed by HOA's

[milkman]

Tom,

First of all you need an acronym for your solar-powered clothes dryer, SPCD.

Now that you have a name, SPCD, you can get a tax write off to build and construct you Green Energy Saving Device, GESD, with which you too can save the world.

Once the Feds and the state give you tax credits for your SPCD the HOA will have no choice but too allow the full use of SPCD due to it being a GESD.

Get your Congress Critter working on it ASAP.

I am sure they can find a space for a line or two in the 2,000 page bills they seem to pass lately without reading.

Later,
Dan

Now that's funny.....reads like a 5 star Palin book review.

 

[tallyho8]

Doesn't everyone know that 99% of the Earth's environmental problems are caused by overpopulation and that if every couple agreed not to have over 2 offspring for the next few generations that the population would diminish greatly and environmental conditions could improve?

Now every TBNer with over 2 kids will be mad at me and will violently repudiate what I said.

 

[BobRip]

Doesn't everyone know that 99% of the Earth's environmental problems are caused by overpopulation and that if every couple agreed not to have over 2 offspring for the next few generations that the population would diminish greatly and environmental conditions could improve?

Now every TBNer with over 2 kids will be mad at me and will violently repudiate what I said.

The key point. If I am a 1000 miles from my neighbor I will be unlikely to hurt him or him me. If we are elbow to elbow, we must both be very careful. Every product you use (not just your elbows) reaches out and touches someone some how.

 

[Steve C]

Steve, I am not advocating for or against carbon credits.
I am advocating for more citizen involvement in the politcal process as an alternative to gripping about the outcomes.

But, on the topic of carbon credits, if you begin from the premise that carbon emissions need to be curtailed, there is no way of doing that without a cost to somebody, somewhere. If your utility provider spends money on more expensive, but less carbon emitting or neutral generation methods and fuels, you will pay for that too. I don't see any free lunches here.

If you also see carbon emssions as a global problem, (ie. even if your own country has it's emissions under control, the developing world will nullify your efforts), then the problem becomes very complex, very quickly.

I see there is a growth industry boom going on in the carbon exchange business. As per usual, that means someone is profitting at our expense.

According to some, cows raised to supply the beef industry generate more methane-caused global warming than all the carbon fossil fuels combined. When you add in all the secondary carbon emissions, fuel, fertilizer, etc. the conclusion is we should all become vegetarians.

So, I ask you, is a world worth living in where you can't enjoy the occassional rib-eye steak?

Dave.

No. I say let us eat steak. The world is changing we need to adapt to it rather that to try to prevent it. I am not convinced that we can prevent it any more than the dinanasours could prevent the ice age.

 

[tallyho8]

The key point. If I am a 1000 miles from my neighbor I will be unlikely to hurt him or him me. If we are elbow to elbow, we must both be very careful. Every product you use (not just your elbows) reaches out and touches someone some how.

Even if you live 10,000 miles away from someone, your life affects them. The hydrocarbons you burn pollutes their air. If you buy a tool made as far away as China, there are many pollutions involved in making that tool that help pollute the Earth.

Six billion people can pollute the Earth at least 6 times faster than 1 billion people. Our poor little planet just seems to be getting too small to absorb all the pollutants we cover it with.

Someday in the future there will be many less people on Earth than there are now, and I believe that this future could be better achieved by producing less people than by many of the living meeting an untimely death.


But do I think there is any way to achieve this? NO!

 

[Western]

Remember what Einstein said after helping to develop the atom bomb? Something like " I know not what world war 3 will be fought with, but world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones" Maybe we will work ourselves backwards. Very few instances where we have left a place better or "as is" than we found it..

 

[Steve C]

Even if you live 10,000 miles away from someone, your life affects them. The hydrocarbons you burn pollutes their air. If you buy a tool made as far away as China, there are many pollutions involved in making that tool that help pollute the Earth.

Six billion people can pollute the Earth at least 6 times faster than 1 billion people. Our poor little planet just seems to be getting too small to absorb all the pollutants we cover it with.

Someday in the future there will be many less people on Earth than there are now, and I believe that this future could be better achieved by producing less people than by many of the living meeting an untimely death.


But do I think there is any way to achieve this? NO!

As a kid I used to worry about the population of the world outpacing the ability of the world to support it. After all we do after all have a finite amount of resources

Then I got busy earning a living and such and gave it very little thought.

I think there is a limit, I hope we haven't reached it.

 

[BobRip]

Even if you live 10,000 miles away from someone, your life affects them. The hydrocarbons you burn pollutes their air. If you buy a tool made as far away as China, there are many pollutions involved in making that tool that help pollute the Earth.

Six billion people can pollute the Earth at least 6 times faster than 1 billion people. Our poor little planet just seems to be getting too small to absorb all the pollutants we cover it with.

Someday in the future there will be many less people on Earth than there are now, and I believe that this future could be better achieved by producing less people than by many of the living meeting an untimely death.


But do I think there is any way to achieve this? NO!

We can take care of over population ourselves or let mother nature take care of it (war, famine, plagues, etc.). Actually in the developed country we have pretty good population stability.

 

[ultrarunner]

Doesn't everyone know that 99% of the Earth's environmental problems are caused by overpopulation and that if every couple agreed not to have over 2 offspring for the next few generations that the population would diminish greatly and environmental conditions could improve?

Now every TBNer with over 2 kids will be mad at me and will violently repudiate what I said.

Planning is heavily biased towards growth...

It's time for a yearly tax credit to those not having children... make it the highest at age 18 and taper it to zero at age 40...

 

[dave1949]

Doesn't everyone know that 99% of the Earth's environmental problems are caused by overpopulation and that if every couple agreed not to have over 2 offspring for the next few generations that the population would diminish greatly and environmental conditions could improve?

Now every TBNer with over 2 kids will be mad at me and will violently repudiate what I said.

A pasture can only carry so many cows, people on the earth are no different. We can have a pasture of well fed healthy cows, or an over-crowded pasture of weak and sickly cows.

I think limiting population is definitely one means of improving the quality of life. One measure of economic well being is per capita income. If a countries GNP grows by 5% and the population grows by 10%, per capita income is in a constant decline.

Interestingly enough, native Western Europe and Russian populations are declining so quickly, they are worried. Without emigrants from outside that region, their populations would be in a rapid decline. Some of that is happening here too. Compare the birth rate and growth of some minorities to caucasians - in general. Continueing on the current trend, by 2050 caucasians will be a minority in the US.

There are many industrial and phony food technologies that could extend our population support possibilities. If world population continues to expand, our current concept of living on the earth will look sort of quaint in another 200 years.

Fortunately, the people who study the population worldwide see it leveling off at around 9 billion as I recall. It has to stop growing before it can begin to decline

International Data Base Information Gateway - U.S. Census Bureau
Dave.