blunted

Members
  • Content Count

    1,386
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

256 F'n Saint

2 Followers

About blunted

  • Rank
    Super Anarchist
  • Birthday 01/02/1969

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Toronto
  • Interests
    Boats with wings are cool, just plain cool

Recent Profile Visitors

13,049 profile views
  1. blunted

    Don't Anchor Here

    don't anchor on these thingys I thought this might be of some interest...
  2. blunted

    Greta Rides Again?

    A new ground hog metropolis under construction.... yes, end of life blades chopped into three pieces so they fit a 53’ trailer then buried for all time. Like plastic boats they are tough to recycle. Some guys out west are trying to run them through a chipper and use the pellets as feedstock for other things with very limited success. The matrix / resin can be burned off to recover the fiber but that’s a bad look for the industry, epoxy and polyester are not renowned for their clean burning attributes and the fibre at best becomes chopped strand mat that likely costs three times as much to produce as new as I understand it these babies were about 25-30 years old when they hit the end of their service life. lifecycle costing is a bitch for some forms of green energy . remember, this is kind of like every composite boat ever actually ends its days as well. None of us who sail plastic boats or drive plastic cars are holier than thou.
  3. blunted

    Greta Rides Again?

    Imagine the one way wonders we could build with all those scrap wings! Perpetually on Starboard! Always right! Sounds like we should have a race. Think they can be fitted to a McGregor 26?
  4. blunted

    Greta Rides Again?

    Gawd, it's like an itch I can't stop scratching.
  5. blunted

    Greta Rides Again?

    Not precisely my point about XR, but one step short of it...... A co-founder of Extinction Rebellion has been filmed at an event calling for activists to “take down” civilization as part of the group’s disruptive fight for climate change. LBC can reveal today, as part of Nick Ferrari’s campaign for police to have greater powers to clamp down on the group, that Simon Bramwell spoke publicly at a meeting hosted by Deep Green Resistance UK, calling for them to adopt more extreme tactics. (snip) Mr Bramwell was filmed at the event saying: “Extinction Rebellion is the spirit of our age. It contains absolutely every dichotomy and absolutely every flaw and beauty that our present society encapsulates. It is white-supremacist, it is racist. It is also very very beautiful and there is incredible people doing incredible work within the organization. It is also deeply deeply patriarchal and people like Roger Hallam completely and utterly 100 percent exemplify that patriarchy” (snip) “We are facing the hardest of times at the moment. Our civilization is displaying every sign of collapse and because we have become so separated from nature, as that collapse occurs that pent up animal in us is gonna be released in utter savagery. “And it is part of our duty in my opinion that we’ve also got to not only take down civilization but shepherd ourselves and incoming generations back into a state of wilding as it were, into like a feral consciousness that is also one of the biggest tasks remaining to us. (snip) “We can’t convince people that they are going to maybe *have to see their child die* because we don’t simply have the machinery and technology to keep them alive any longer. “So we have to offer them something else along as these trajectories of civil disobedience and direct sabotage of civilization…”
  6. blunted

    Lake Ontario Anarchy

    Yep, everything upstream is above normal so it's all but certain we'll need those hip waders again this spring. Linky for those that want it: https://www.glerl.noaa.gov//data/dashboard/GLD_HTML5.html
  7. blunted

    Greta Rides Again?

    At long last you arrived at my irony. Of course there is no free electricity, someone has to pay for things. Also nobody has answered my query about where all the carbon free electricity comes from. Everyone acts as if simply driving an EV will reduce carbon emissions, but what of the electricity generated by burning coal for example? That's not better in the aggregate.
  8. blunted

    Greta Rides Again?

    Seemingly at the Free super chargers quoted below.
  9. blunted

    Greta Rides Again?

    So where does all the carbon free electricity to power all the conveyances spring from? Particularly the free stuff, I'm very interested in all the free energy. I could use that for other things if it's just hanging about and it's free. I have a boom box from the 80's I could power with free energy, that would be great! In fact, free energy, kind of sounds like a perpetual motion machine. I'm so very excited that we live in these times of amazing innovation. Physicists always said you could never do a perpetual motion machine because of some kind of laws but isn't free electricity from plugs for cars really the same thing? I mean, you just set up one of those charging stations and cars can plug into for free and then they move around to the next free plug. I suppose if they were well built enough they could drive forever on their free electricity. Exciting times indeed. I guess those plugs just gather up the energy from the atmosphere around them or something like that. I'm not an electrical engineer, so it's tough to say. Fucking cool!
  10. blunted

    Greta Rides Again?

    Seemingly you all missed the generator on the back of the bike it was irony, subtle I guess
  11. blunted

    Greta Rides Again?

    I have to admit those low carbon e-scooters are pretty cool. I saw this one this summer at my local supermarket. He's got it all worked out.
  12. blunted

    Measurement Discrepancy

    Actually its beaver pelts around here, the rationale I mean. The original discrepancy can be derived from the different taxation rates. You list a bigger draft on the form knowing the government is going to tax it at higher rate than in the US, meaning when you hit the water you'll only have a smaller practical amount of depth to work with which is what is listed in US docs. Make sense?
  13. blunted

    Greta Rides Again?

    Well what is an impact? I'm not Bill C here asking what the meaning of "is" is. I'm being serious. What impacts are you talking about Clean? It's not lives, because the link I included is all about how many fewer people die today than before, yes, because technology. Technology does not favor the Luddite set. You made the point yourself, thanks to Satellites, 4WD, petrochemicals, modern medicine and so on, the "impacts" of severe weather are much lower in terms of casualties, this despite radically higher population densities. Which goes to my point that perhaps I made in another thread. Other impacts, e.g. economic impacts can also be categorized as creative destruction in many regards. I am of the belief that we, the West, are simply not going to get the rest of the world to sign onto a bunch of policy prescriptions (Because they don't rise to the level of being called solutions, they're not even close) that will impoverish all those who sign onto them without anything close to certainty that they will work. To the extent that pretty much 95% of all population growth on the globe will happen outside "the West" over the coming decades, we don't get to dictate, control, or otherwise effectively steer any policies or solutions to the problem. To that extent, asking "The West" to give up 20-80% of its standard of living to achieve a goal, that more than half the world is pretty demonstrably not going to co-sign is politically speaking, a fool's errand. (Cue Bruce Hudson to say, "it's working, just do more faster and it'll all be OK") Till we run out of rare earth minerals or China has entirely monopolized them and you won't be able to make two triple A battery cells to rub together. To expand on my analogy above, if Canada and Australia could go zero emissions tomorrow, it would be erased almost as fast. If Europe and the US joined in, we would simply be arresting the rise ofCO2 for perhaps 1-2 decades before the less than agreeable rest of the world ate those gains as well. So as Stewart Brand argued, then you climb into the morass of geo-engineering. If in fact CO2 keeps rising and if in fact global environmental changes come to pass sooner or later the more militant warmists must come to the conclusion the Geo-engineering is going to have to happen to save our collective skins, even if the unenlightened don't want to go there. There is an overwhelming logic that they must either start killing masses of people, (No doubt a talking point at the extinction rebellion knitting circle) , like billions of them (Carbon consumers) or start geo-engineering our way out of the problem regardless of who is on board or not. Then for the low cost of $1BN per year they can stop the planet warming, at huge moral risk. (Moral risk being that if you can stop the problem for that little money and effort, lets not even try to stop dumping CO2 in the air, lets just pay for the shade we need and consume whatever we feel like because the tab is low to pay annually). So what of the impact of adverse weather events? Well, it's mostly economic, if you look at systems that are bought and paid for getting whacked, then they have to be rebuilt either in place or moved inland so they don't get wrecked as quickly next time. (Working with the example of coastal communities suffering flooding and storms as a result of AWG) Call it the strategic retreat solution. Well if greens can sit here and tell me that we can remake our economies by building new green power systems and completely reconfiguring our societies and it'll create millions of new jobs, well turn about is fair play. you can argue just as easily, or rather more easily that we can create whole new millions of jobs and sectors of our economy on the basis of strategic retreat and geo-engineering. You want energy efficient homes? Fine, do that (Good for me, I'm an architect, I make money when people build new or change buildings). Build those fine new homes away from the coast where they are less susceptible to "impact". you want a golden new future? Great, let insurance companies start participating in urban design and development, I garantee you will see "impact" go down and annual losses go down. You just won't live too close to the ocean anymore. Which of course will have its own impacts. (The laws of unintended consequences really do run the show in this realm far beyond what anybody wants to imagine) Imagine if you took all the proposed dollars for green new deals, de-coaling Germany and every other green initiative. Now split that in half, get rid of the half baked shit that is a waste of time and delivers marginal improvement. keep half for useful green stuff, keep 5% for basic research and getting new ideas developed, take the remaining 45% and actually plow it into resilience of your society and I bet you'd have far more impressive results over 100 years. Keep in mind, half the world IS NOT GOING TO BUY INTO the current green policy initiatives, you are bailing out the titanic with a tea spoon, you will be overcome. So plow valuable resources into reducing pollution and building resilience. Life will continue to be enjoyable and will end up being less risky in the short and mid-term for modern societies than swallowing green policies whole which will simply endanger entire economies. Keep in mind the risk of economic failure for the West due to swallowing too much green policy, the end result is you hand the fate of the world to China, unilaterally. Reducing pollution is still an excellent rationale for reducing coal use or even scaling back gradually on hydro-carbons that are not used to make chemicals and plastics. I can buy into that. Building resilience is still an excellent rationale for building solar and wind farms, but perhaps not with the goal of powering whole grids with them. You want impacts, fine, look at what economic impacts are of really bad environmentally induced events and build resilience to reduce the economic impacts of what is very likely going to happen because we "The West" cannot stop it anyhow, without killing tons of people or engaging in geo-engineering against the consensus of most other nations. Building an all renewables grid which ends up being worse for ecosystems and destroys resilience is not something I can buy into. Developing sensible interlocking systems that are mutually reinforcing and trend towards less and less pollution over time while making us safer and happier is definitely something I can buy into. The two solutions are not worlds apart but the underlaying reasons are and only one of those two approaches responds to humans wants and needs in a realistic manner. Commence shit flinging about the post at your leisure.
  14. blunted

    Greta Rides Again?

    Sadly we keep killing less people every year with storms and weather events, as seen over the last century. We're just getting better and better at dealing with bad shit. Clearly we have to speed up the killing to get the message out. Perhaps if we start a few helpful fires people will pay attention. https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters
  15. blunted

    Greta Rides Again?

    One reason I put that video up, aside from the part about nuclear, is the fact that the world is becoming urbanized. about 2% of the globe is urban, which is good and bad. Good because of rewilding etc but bad in that population density can quickly outstrip the capacity to generate sufficient power in that same general footprint, at least low intesnsity generation such as solar and wind. Also as he points out, we, the West are being totally overmatched from a population perspective. What the West ends up doing is important but the South is going to be the long end of any environmental lever eventually by virtue of rising wealth times population numbers. The South is already doing things the way it wants to and we know that as societies become richer they do in fact become more concerned about their environment even if they keep increasing consumption and therefore CO2 etc. My point is, we can sit here and jawbone about it all night and day, at the end of the day if India and China don't want to get with any reduction program, there will simply be no reductions globally in any meaningful sense. Australia and Canada combined would account for about 3.5% of global emissions. if we went 100% carbon neutral tomorrow the savings would be wiped out globally in less than 2 years simply due to growth globally. I also posted it because I love that clip of the train running through the market.