Al Gore not exactly environment friendly...

[MikeC]

I suggest everyone stop spewing hot air and start doing it, then. You don't need to convince everyone around you that you're right in order to walk places instead of driving.

Education and awareness is part of the challenge.

There are still gads of people who are confused by the mixed messages of the mass media about global warming in the past decade; most of those folks shrug and say, "hey I don't know what's for real so I'll just ignore it, I guess, cause survival is hard enough."

Then there's all the folks in high places who seem to think they have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are, regardless of the cost to the world, and who throw smoke screens to hide the truth. This needs to be countered, no ifs or buts.

As for me, I...
-- minimize car usage. No car commuting by anyone in my household. Walk or bike whenever we can.
-- minimize electricity consumption with high eff. lights, various power saving practices (like turning things off whenever possible)
-- talk to people about such issues; as I said, awareness is not fully there yet, nor is there the move to action in everyone
-- encourage PC users via SPCR to be power smart, efficiency aware, reduce/reuse/recycle conscious
-- am working on launching a new site, www.ecopcreview.com -- with the objective of doing for Green Computing (as far as that is possible) what SPCR did for silent computing.

[jaganath]

The CAUSE and EFFECT of global warming is the question.

The effects are fairly obvious. The cause, according to the IPCC, is humans (or more accurately industrial emissions).

and now we want to blame the change in the environment to humans? Ummm, the earth changed a lot before we even existed.

Yes, it did, and no doubt it will continue to do so long after we are dead. However that does not prove that human emissions are not causing the current warming. All the scientific studies show that natural forcings disregarding greenhouse gases are not sufficient to explain the current warming.

We can't even predict the weather accurately a few days out and you want me to believe that the environmentalists know for a fact that the the evil humans are changing the earth's climate with a little bit of carbon dioxide emissions?

First, there is a big difference between predicting weather and predicting climate. The weather system at such short timescales as days or weeks is a chaotic system and therefore inherently unpredictable; however in the long-term it is mean-reverting and predictable (within a certain range; no-one can predict the future with 100% accuracy). Secondly, it is hardly a "little bit" of CO2; in 2002 24 billion tons of CO2 were released from the burning of fossil fuels, and this will only increase with the rapid development of India and China.

for christ sake lets not take some fanciful theory and claim it as the definitive answer. We are going to need many many many many many more years of solid empirical data before we can ever claim to remotely support this theory.

Global warming is hardly a "fanciful theory"; it is scientific fact. The attribution of the warming is more contentious, but the balance of the evidence indicates that an anthropogenic cause is most likely.

Also, just because everyone believes in something doesn't make it right

Absolutely; the only measure of scientific truth is empirical data which confirms theoretical predictions.

[autoboy]

So the ice age was "mean-reverting and predictable" Predictable? Nobody can even agree on what would happen if the earth warmed even more. Some think it could trigger another ice age, some the opposite. There are so many variables here and we are far from a real answer. There are several different theories out there that try to explain past climate change. Volcanoes, changing water currents, increased radiation from the sun, solar wind etc. All of these and more we don't even know about could be the reason we are warming other than emissions. The earth changes. Scientists are just now finding out that the North and South Poles reverse every 300K years or so and we are due for another reversal. Try that one on todays high tech society. If the F22 Raptor can't even fly over the international date line without its computers crashing what happens when the north pole is in the antarctic? There is so much we don't know yet.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to reduce emisions in case we are the cause. All I am saying is that I am pissed that the other side of the argument is getting smothered and the real cause for global warming may be overlooked because people have a preconcieved notion that we are causing the warming.

This theory is not fact and should not be presented to the people as fact.

MikeC, yes I watched the movie.

[MikeC]

I'm glad you watched the movie.

the real cause for global warming may be overlooked because people have a preconcieved notion that we are causing the warming.

Much as you'll probably want to disagree with me, I think you're a victim of the obsfucation campaign (by the white house and others) that caused 53% of journalists to write in the last few years that there's much scientific confusion about global warming, its causes and its effects.

There's no question that the Earth changes, that climate changes. There's also no question that climate change is happening today at a faster rate than ever seen in the course of recorded human history (say 4000 years). There's no disagreement among scientists about catastrophic results if the rate of climate change continues at the same rate.

Even if you disagree about the causes of climate change, surely you must agree that the changes in human behavior and activity proposed in the film can and should be done now to try and slow the rate of climate change.

Or should everyone continue to try and emulate the ideal of gas guzzling materialistic excess because it's not our fault?

[autoboy]

I think you're a victim of the obsfucation campaign

This is simply not true. I don't even watch traditional media. I'm actually a big fan of digg where there is a substantial amount of information about global warming and its percieved causes. I just don't agree with them because the arguments don't prove to me that CO2 is the cause of the warming. I have always formed my own opinions and stuck to them until someone can prove to me otherwise. Usually, i end up right, many times I have been wrong. Can you see how I tend to start flame wars with people?

I tend to agree with all of the steps that are being taken to curb our polution. I am glad that these steps are being taken. Just because I don't agree with the reasoning behind the steps doesn't mean I don't want the same outcome as you. This is why I get into trouble. I tend to piss off my friends even though we want the same things.

I just talked to a friend of mine about this and he kinda laughed. I've pissed him off many times. However, he had a good point. Al Gore buys the polution coupons ensuring that the electricity he uses comes from renewable sources. It doesn't go directly into his house, but he pays for the electricity to enter the grid which offsets his electricity usage. This is a great plan and shoud be used more by poeple who don't have the means to set up their own solar panels.

This kinda brings up another good point. Even Al Gore, who is passionate about this, will not change his lifestyle to go live in a tree. We cannot change peoples lives drastically. We can, however, find ways to do the same thing (or very similar) we have always done, just in new ways. Nobody wants to drive an electric car that can only go 60 miles. Even a car that can go 250 miles is not for everyone. We must find ways to change the world without changing our lives.

Mike, i'm looking forward to that new website. I'm a big fan of efficient computers though I still fold for stanford. All of my folding machines are running undervolted to 1.1V or lower and serve other purposes as well. So when is Stanford going to get anything usefull out of this program? I'm starting to have my doubts.

[Erssa]

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to reduce emisions in case we are the cause. All I am saying is that I am pissed that the other side of the argument is getting smothered and the real cause for global warming may be overlooked because people have a preconcieved notion that we are causing the warming.

I have to say, I agree alot with autoboy. General population has no idea, on what's the real truth, but they have been fed with the "truth" in media. An now that it's supported by legions of ignorant people, it has turned itself into a religion.

[autoboy]

OMG, I forgot about that one. Saw it awhile ago and couldn't stop laughing.

Damn, i'm glad someone at least kinda agrees with me.

Sometimes I feel like global warming is no different than Anna Nicole Smith.

[Plissken]

Here's a link to an article from the "Science" section of a 1975 Newsweek issue describing the upcoming global COOLING disaster predicted by scientists:

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

It seems alarmism is a never-ending phenomenon. What would we think now if billions were spent 30 years ago to battle the coming ice age?

[Erssa]

Damn, i'm glad someone at least kinda agrees with me.

No, I don't kinda agree with you. I just plain agree with you.

The CAUSE and EFFECT of global warming is the question. We can easily see from ice cores and other evidence that the earth is a dynamic environment that is ever changing ... and now we want to blame the changing in environment to humans? Ummm, the earth changed a lot before we even existed. There is all sorts of other factors involved with the warming of the earth that many people are just ignoring or just don't even know about yet. We can't even predict the weather accurately a few days out and you want me to believe that the environmentalists know for a fact that the the evil humans are changing the earth's climate with a little bit of carbon dioxide emissions?

This could have came from my mouth.

I totally agree, that weather and climate are just so complex, that we cannot trust in the computer simulations, which are programmed/build to produce the wanted outcome (=support for apocalyptic doom of global warming theory). I remember hearing couple of years ago, that there isn't a single global warming climate model, that could effectively predict El Niño-Southern Oscillation, yet we should believe, that the same scientist, that cannot even predict El Niño, with accuracy, can make models and prediction on something as gargantuan as the whole climate. I'm not a scientist, but I believe, that there are just too many (unknown) variables in nature, to create such a simulation with accuracy. It's just like in economics. We know a lot about economics and yet noone can make really accurate predictions or models on future, there are just too much variables.

Again, I'm not saying, that the world is not warming up. It clearly is. We just don't know exactly why. And in my opinion, it's arrogant to say we know for sure. That's why it's sad, that people who disagree with the common consensus are treated almost as if they were denying the holocaust, almost.

I'm all for reduced CO2 emissions, just in case. It's something, that can be done with a little effort. Energy efficiency is only good in the long run.

[klankymen]

I remember hearing couple of years ago, that there isn't a single global warming climate model, that could effectively predict El Niño-Southern Oscillation, yet we should believe, that the same scientist, that cannot even predict El Niño, with accuracy, can make models and prediction on something as gargantuan as the whole climate.

I don't quite think I can follow that argument.

No one in the world can predict you the result of a coin toss. But I could pretty damn close tell you how many heads you'd get if you tossed a billion coins.

[MikeC]

Here's a link to an article from the "Science" section of a 1975 Newsweek issue describing the upcoming global COOLING disaster predicted by scientists:

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

It's an interesting piece, but not quite the same; there was no scientific consensus then about the "cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions." The article's lack of specific details about just how many scientists shared this view -- of a global cooling disaster -- is telling. It strikes me as a journalist's attempt to puff up a story when there really wasn't any coherent story to speak of, just a couple of reports. The other simple fact is that the concern about global cooling did not go beyond this odd article (I've never heard of it before).

Global warming, on the other hand was being talked about 25 years ago, and the chorus of the scientific community about this issue has grown louder and bigger for all that time. The latest report in early Feb by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of some 500 scientists is the most definitive. According to a BBC news report (similar to many others) :

The higher degree of certainty that changes are down to human activities - up from at least 66% in 2001 to at least 90% now - is significant, as is the judgement that human activities are responsible for about 13 times as much of the warming we see as changes in the Sun's output.

As to what all that should mean, Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep), was in little doubt.

"Friday, 2 February 2007 may go down in history as the day when the question mark was removed from the question of whether climate change has anything to do with human activities."

This is a snapshot of the report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6322083.stm

It seems alarmism is a never-ending phenomenon. What would we think now if billions were spent 30 years ago to battle the coming ice age?

And therefore current environmental concerns over global warming should be regarded as alarmism and ignored? This seems like a perfect parroting of the Bush line.

[MikeC]

Here, by the way, is an series of stories about how scientists were offered $10,000 each to dispute the IPPC climate study. The offer came from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration.

[Plissken]

there was no scientific consensus then about the "cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions." The article's lack of specific details about just how many scientists shared this view -- of a global cooling disaster -- is telling. It strikes me as a journalist's attempt to puff up a story when there really wasn't any coherent story to speak of, just a couple of reports. The other simple fact is that the concern about global cooling did not go beyond this odd article (I've never heard of it before).

I'm old enough to remember plenty of talk about the dangers of both global cooling and global warming back then.

The latest report in early Feb by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of some 500 scientists is the most definitive.

Based on the data available back then, I maintain that if the same Intergovernmental Panel was around, we might have had policy decisions based upon the upcoming ice age. Enviromental groups are much stronger and much better funded today.

No one likes pollution, especially me, and I try to live my life as green as reasonably possible. But I remain convinced, based on data, that we do not know how much humans are impacting the current trend of warming, and my gut feeling is that we have a neglible, if any, effect. My tax dollars toward less pollution, great. My tax dollars toward stopping global warming, bah. Another day, another slogan.

Back to the original poster's intent, can't we all agree that Al Gore is a hypocrite?

[MikeC]

Back to the original poster's intent, can't we all agree that Al Gore is a hypocrite?

perhaps... but not if he employs an army of people who work at his house.

[Devonavar]

Ok, let's see if I can move this debate.

First off, whether or not humans are the cause of global warming is irrelevant. That's right, it's a red herring. This is not the crux of the debate, it's simply our natural tendancy to play the blame game — which has already been discussed in this thread. I don't care if humans are to blame for global warming or not. I care whether this world will be habitable for generations to come. With that in mind, here is how I think this debate should play out:

1. it's a fact that the earth is getting warmer. How or why is irrelevant.
2. this warmer earth is affecting our environment (true by definition).
3. human life needs to be adapted to its environment to survive.
4. since our environment is changing, human being need to adapt to survive.
5. if we wait for evolution to help us adapt, we will fall behind the pace of environmental change and will not adapt fast enough to survive.
6. therefore, we must take positive action to either increase our rate of evolution or slow the rate of change in the environment or some combination of both.
7. our actions are human in scope: We have control over ourselves, but not our environment
8. therefore, it is easier to change ourselves than the environment. Put another way: It is easier for us to adapt than to force everything else to adapt to us.
9. therefore, our response to premise 1. (global warming) should be to change ourselves in the way that best achieves the goals set in premise 6.
10. we have only very limited control over our evolution
11. there are very significant political and moral reasons not to expand that control (we are not, generally speaking, comfortable or skillful with genetic engineering or eugenics).
12. therefore, increasing our rate of evolution is not a feasible path (besides, our dependence on other species would require tinkering with their rate of evolution as well...)
13. therefore, the best course of action is to change ourselves in such a way that the rate of change in the environment slows or stops.

That leads to this:

14. we, as humans, constitute a part of the environment
15. therefore, the environment is at least partially human in scope
16. therefore we have at least some control over the rate of environmental change.
17. to date, our best theories about controlling environmental change involve reducing the amount of hydrocarbons released into the atmosphere. These theories are not proven, but they are still the best theories we have.
18. the rate of climate change is urgent enough that we do not have time to fully verify our theories before action is needed.
19. therefore, we must take action without verifying our theories
20. that action should be still be based on the best data available, which happens to be our unproven-but-probable theories about hydrocarbons.
21. therefore, our best chance of surviving the global warming observed in premise 1. is to proceed as though our as-yet-unproven theories about climate change and hydrocarbons is true, while modifying our strategy as new data comes to light.

[Beyonder]

We can't even predict the weather accurately a few days out and you want me to believe that the environmentalists know for a fact that the the evil humans are changing the earth's climate with a little bit of carbon dioxide emissions?

...evil humans?!

I don't think that's what the environmentalists are saying; after all, the environmentalists are humans just like the rest of us. I don't think it's evil to pollute, so much as it's unthoughtful or uninformed. I certainly wouldn't consider someone "evil" simply because they didn't meet my environmental standards. (which are, for the record, quite low--my old lady is always beating on me to separate the recycling, which totally sucks)

I reserve "evil" for really worthy things, like the IRS and Bob Sagat.

[autoboy]

Some great arguments. I wish it wasn't late and I could respond to them. I'll start with a few

1. it's a fact that the earth is getting warmer. How or why is irrelevant.

How or why would lead us to a solution. It is not irrevelent, it is the goal. I think you probably agree as evidenced in #21

therefore, our best chance of surviving the global warming observed in premise 1. is to proceed as though our as-yet-unproven theories about climate change and hydrocarbons is true, while modifying our strategy as new data comes to light.

You probably didn't really mean this.

2. this warmer earth is affecting our environment (true by definition).

Sure it is but in what way? In the middle ages warm period before the little ice age, civilization thrived. England was an excelent wine producing area. The population exploded. Check out the documentary about the little ice age on history channel. Good TV.

3. human life needs to be adapted to its environment to survive.

As do animals and plants. Our economy and food cannot cope with drastic change.

4. since our environment is changing, human being need to adapt to survive.

Yeah, we are also smart.

5. if we wait for evolution to help us adapt, we will fall behind the pace of environmental change and will not adapt fast enough to survive.

We have already left evolution behind with modern medicine. We are no longer getting stronger and we are breeding weakness into ourselves. Luckily, we are also smart enough to account for this.

6. therefore, we must take positive action to either increase our rate of evolution or slow the rate of change in the environment or some combination of both.

I'm hoping for both but i'm not counting on evolution. I'm counting on intelligence to adapt the human race.

8. therefore, it is easier to change ourselves than the environment. Put another way: It is easier for us to adapt than to force everything else to adapt to us.

I think you are saying basically the same thing as me. You are shifting from darwinism to my theory of intelligence with this point.

9. therefore, our response to premise 1. (global warming) should be to change ourselves in the way that best achieves the goals set in premise 6.

I totally agree but we are not going to change evolution for the better. In order to evolve you need death and that is exactly what we are trying to avoid. In essence, we are trying to cheat evoltution.

I kinda skip the next few points because I already addressed their general points.

13. therefore, the best course of action is to change ourselves in such a way that the rate of change in the environment slows or stops.

A pipe dream. We are foolish if we think we can stop the earth from changing. We can't stop volcanoes, earthquakes, sun spots, solar wind, tornadoes, floods, etc. We cannot make the earth do whatever we want. We can try to minimize our footprint but the earth will still change and our climate will never be constant.

I'll address the rest tomorrow.

[autoboy]

I don't think that's what the environmentalists are saying; after all, the environmentalists are humans just like the rest of us.

I disagree. The environmentalists that shove this down our throats hate people and what they do to the environment. Can't you see the hatred in their eyes? Hard core environmentalists see themselves as being superior to normal 1st world people. I'm not talking about normal environment lovers, i'm talking about the really crazy ones like PETA

Plissken wrote:
Back to the original poster's intent, can't we all agree that Al Gore is a hypocrite?

MikeC wrote:
perhaps... but not if he employs an army of people who work at his house.

The guy runs his office out of his house. Lets give him a break. Maybe he should turn off that pool heater though.

[Beyonder]

The environmentalists that shove this down our throats hate people and what they do to the environment. Can't you see the hatred in their eyes?

No, actually I can't. This is called hyperbole.

Hard core environmentalists see themselves as being superior to normal 1st world people. I'm not talking about normal environment lovers, i'm talking about the really crazy ones like PETA

1. PETA is an animal rights group, not an environmental group.
2. PETA, needless to say, is terribly mis representative of animal rights activists in general. So are most hard-core environmental groups. You're lumping people together based on a small, vocal minority, which is why your conclusions are unsurprising.

[jaganath]

weather and climate are just so complex, that we cannot trust in the computer simulations, which are programmed/build to produce the wanted outcome (=support for apocalyptic doom of global warming theory

I refute your implication that the models are "fixed" to produce a predetermined result. The models are verified by putting in historical inputs and seeing if they can reproduce past climate trends; so-called "hindcasting". If they can produce past climate, there is a good chance they can model future climate as well.

Also, global warming is hardly an "apocalyptic doom theory"; sure, the sea will rise and some low-lying countries will have bad things happen to them, but it won't be the end of the world and some places may actually benefit from global warming (for example Canada).

autoboy@We have already left evolution behind with modern medicine.

Um, this is really not true. Mankind continues to evolve (as does everything else, including diseases).

[Erssa]

Also, global warming is hardly an "apocalyptic doom theory"; sure, the sea will rise and some low-lying countries will have bad things happen to them, but it won't be the end of the world and some places may actually benefit from global warming (for example Canada).

I admit, I was a bit dramatic. It would benefit Finland as well. We would have a climate similar to southern France, longer crop seasons etc...

[AZBrandon]

You're right. The house is 2400sf, 2 levels. Natural gas is used for central forced air heating, and the water heat is gas fired as well. Those two items accounted for 14 gigajoules (GJ) in Jan. One GJ is equivalent to 278 kw/h; 14 = 3892kw/h. For the whole year, NG consumption is around 90GJ. June to Sept, the monthly demand falls to under 3 GJ -- around 700kw/h. Electricity consumption drops too, but only by 10-15%.

This is interesting, as it's the first time I've tried to quantify the house energy consumption. Obviously, heating in colder weather is the single biggest energy consumer. New better insulated windows should help; the ones we have are pretty bad...

BACK ON TOPIC, I want to extend a thank-you to MikeC for such a detailed energy equivilency examination listed above. This seems about right too, my home in the summer uses around 1500kw/h a month but of course it's half the square feet and the difference in degrees from the average temperature to desired temperature is actually lesser in Phoenix than it must be in Canada.

I have read that commercial buildings have made huge strides in reducing electrical consumption through greater efficiency in heating/cooling, lighting, and insulation. For homes however, I guess it's just an economic issue. For most folks, gas and electricity is cheaper than remodeling or building new structures.

It's much like the case for home solar, which I have looked into given the thousands in subsidies available here and the abundance of sunshine in Phoenix. Unfortunately, even a "cheap" array would cost me $3500 installed after subsidies and cut my power bill by about $175/year. Hence why solar doesn't make a lot of sense for me. Triple insulated windows might cut my bill by $50/year, again at a cost of thousands of dollars. So long as energy is cheap, there's not a lot of reason to get extremely carried away with efficiency I guess. My dream home would be entirely underground, to be honest. Minimum heating/cooling cost in any climate and maximum yard size.

[mrzed]

I suggest everyone stop spewing hot air and start doing it, then. You don't need to convince everyone around you that you're right in order to walk places instead of driving.

Education and awareness is part of the challenge.

As for me, I...
-- minimize car usage. No car commuting by anyone in my household. Walk or bike whenever we can.
-- minimize electricity consumption with high eff. lights, various power saving practices (like turning things off whenever possible)
-- talk to people about such issues; as I said, awareness is not fully there yet, nor is there the move to action in everyone
-- encourage PC users via SPCR to be power smart, efficiency aware, reduce/reuse/recycle conscious
-- am working on launching a new site, www.ecopcreview.com -- with the objective of doing for Green Computing (as far as that is possible) what SPCR did for silent computing.

I'd just like to commend Mike here, and say that the inclusion of "green" commentary in the content on this site is one of the things I appreciate about it.

I also have found that a combination of action and words helps. I have a number of friends, west coast middle class types with graduate degrees and the whole bit, that I would expect have the same understanding as I do about these issues, but don't. I have noticed that I am fielding a lot of questions about green issues from them, in part because they see my actions, but also because these issues are just a natural part of my discourse. Saying "just do it" is a bit of a cop out, because it suggests that words don't matter, and that is simply not true.

[matt_garman]

But seriously, I agree that politics in America is too partisan. People see too much of Republican/Democrat, left/right, conservative/liberal, instead of right/wrong...

It sure seems that way, doesn't it?

I read this article a while back, from Time or Newsweek or Reader's Digest (or maybe something else all together). It was quite a while ago, so my memory's foggy. But, as a backdrop, it talked about a scenario where a fairly hard-core conservative family was transplanted to an area dominated by liberals and vice-versa (this may have actually been a TV show).

Anyway, the point of the story is that in actuality, most people that call themselves "Democrat" or "Republican" actually share many values with people on the other side. I think that's pretty true. I know many people who are call themselves one or the other but don't strictly vote that way (but I also know many who do vote exclusively one way).

Anyway, I think most will agree that the major media is forced to err on the side of sensationalism, just to remain competitive. Presenting politics as highly polarized is very sensational---it's Democrats versus Republicans, just like a sporting event. You've got to have some kind of emotional impact to sell media (well, to sell a lot of media to the masses). Competition, disagreement, us against them, Team A against Team B---very emotional.

I wonder if anyone's ever done a survey like this: ask people a series of questions about how they stand on certain issues. Finally, ask them which political party with which they associate themselves. I'd wager that you'd see a lot of cross pollination in folks' opinions, regardless of political association.

Just thoughts,
Matt

[matt_garman]

As for me, I...
-- minimize car usage. No car commuting by anyone in my household. Walk or bike whenever we can.

How far are you from your work? How do you deal with snow and freezing rain? (I may just be a wimp, but I really suffer in super cold weather... and I can only imagine that Vancouver is colder and stays cold longer than Chicago.)

What about safety when biking? Again, maybe I'm just a wimp, but I'd fear for my life trying to bike in downtown Chicago.

Do you bike even in really bad weather (super cold, ice rain, snow, etc)?

I'm just trying to find out if I'm making excuses for not being greener in my daily life, or if it's really that hard. (Though I do walk to a commuter train, take the train, and walk from the train station to work every day. So that's better than driving.)

[qviri]

I can only imagine that Vancouver is colder and stays cold longer than Chicago.

Vancouver's climate is milder than a lof of the rest of the continent because of the location. Think Seattle.

[mrzed]

As for me, I...
-- minimize car usage. No car commuting by anyone in my household. Walk or bike whenever we can.

How far are you from your work? How do you deal with snow and freezing rain? (I may just be a wimp, but I really suffer in super cold weather... and I can only imagine that Vancouver is colder and stays cold longer than Chicago.)

What about safety when biking? Again, maybe I'm just a wimp, but I'd fear for my life trying to bike in downtown Chicago.

Do you bike even in really bad weather (super cold, ice rain, snow, etc)?

I'm just trying to find out if I'm making excuses for not being greener in my daily life, or if it's really that hard. (Though I do walk to a commuter train, take the train, and walk from the train station to work every day. So that's better than driving.)

If you commute by transit, you're already doing the one best thing you can. Changing to a bike wouldn't have an appreciable difference.

I commuted by bicycle in Toronto (slightly milder than Chicago) 11 months of the year. I only stopped when it got below -15 or so (~5 degrees american), or when there was a fresh dump of snow. If you have the right gear, it's not bad, but I think stressing cycling is one of the mistakes of the environmental movement. Puts too many people off.

Vancouver is a great city for cycling overall. Regarding safety, it's like any bigger city, you just have to be confident but defensive.

[MikeC]

Hmm... perhaps not everyone here has seen this little tour of the SPCR lab that's now a couple years old (and out of date), but one thing has not changed: It's still the bottom floor of my house. SPCR occupies about 800SF, maybe a bit more. I commute by walking downstairs and turning on my computer. Trust me -- when it comes to cold, I'm probably the biggest wuss.

This does not mean I never use my car. I make short trips here and here, but not every day. I also do get on planes a few times a year for tradeshows and other business.

My wife has been commuting downtown by bike for nearly two years now (14km round trip daily). Even all through the winter, even with light snow. She's become v. fit & tough. She's lucky to work for a company in a building that has lockers and showers. Vancouver has a couple of decent bike lanes/paths, but auto drivers remain blind to bikes most of the time. It's a constant danger. She much prefers it to the crowded buses.

We're toying with the idea of getting a compact old car (like the one we with a good body and drivetrain, then converting it into an electric car. Our longest daily drive might be 50-60km; this range should be reachable. Plug it in to recharge nightly. There's an article in the current issue of www.homepower.com magazine by a family that bought an old VW Rabbit already been converted to electric power for $4200. That seems like a sweet deal...

[autoboy]

I wish you luck converting your car. It is a great project. My buddy had an electric rabbit in high school and it was a great car. Since you are a computer guy you should use lithium ion batteries.

[matt_garman]

-- am working on launching a new site, www.ecopcreview.com -- with the objective of doing for Green Computing (as far as that is possible) what SPCR did for silent computing.

You've set a mighty high standard with SPCR.

Here's a concept I'm sure you've thought of, but I think could be a significant area of study and research: what or where is the threshold for keeping your existing system versus buying a new, more environmentally-friendly one?

I've heard time and time again that both the manufacture and disposal of computer parts is extremely environmentally unfriendly. So at what point is an upgrade to a new (presumably more effecient, less power-hungry) computer justified?

For myself---and I'm sure there's plenty on this forum that can relate to this---it's all too easy to rationalize an upgrade because it's more efficient or uses less power. But I know in the back of my mind that (1) I don't really need it and (2) by the nature of being a computer geek, I stay pretty current, and therefore upgrades are generally only marginal improvements in efficiency and power consumption (e.g. 75% efficient PSU to an 80%).

I vaguely remember reading about this debate when LCDs were becoming the standard computer monitor (replacing CRTs). Many people were saying LCDs are the best, since they consume so much less power. But then people would retort with the fact that (1) their manufacture is horribly inefficient and hard on the environment and coupled with the fact that (2) they needed to be replaced more often, it was a net loss. (Standard foggy memory/second-hand knowledge disclaimer applies.)

Anyhow... sorry to stray so far off topic. I just find it an interesting debate.

Matt