Nfp & Overpopulation

[Socrates]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1348078066' post='2484216']
I think the biggest problem is that the nations (and cultures, really) that consume the most resources are the ones with the most creative means to encourage proper stewardship of our resources, but they're also the ones who are too greedy and lazy to do so.

It's like how in the USA, the hybrid electric car industry hasn't really gotten off the ground in any real capacity, because the auto industry won't put forth the initial capital (a huge amount of money, really) to make the technology affordable and convenient to the average car owner. If I was looking to purchase a new car, I'd love to get one that ran on mostly electricity, for all sorts of environmentally conscious reasons. But the thing is that there aren't very many electric charger stations, and most cars can really only go about 50 miles on one charge. So even if I installed a charger in my garage, I could only travel a 25 mile radius before coming home. Plus the cars are super expensive, because the companies need to return on their investment in the technology. So not only are the ones at the corporate top more interested in lots of profit than environmental stewardship (hard to blame them, but they're the ones with the power), but even if I want to purchase an environmentally-friendly car, I can't, because it's not only too expensive but it doesn't fit my driving needs.

Sure, that doesn't mean I shouldn't recycle, buy used clothes, donate to famine-relief organizations or turn off lights when I'm not using them. I can still take some responsibility for proper stewardship of resources. But the people with the most power to make the biggest impact aren't interested.
[/quote]
So what's your proposed solution to this alleged problem?

Government corporate subsidies to invest in "green" technologies? (This has already created an expensive debacle with government subsidizing of companies spending on "green energy" at taxpayer expense. Wasteful corporate welfarism at its worst.)

Government dictating to private companies how they must invest their capital? (Because all-wise politicians always know better than those stupid,greedy businessmen about how to run their business!)

Despite the negligible actual effect electric vehicles will actually have on the environment and global warming (another debate in itself), the truth is that is that these issues will best be solved through the market, rather than by intervention. Whoever is able to develop and patent a successful affordable "green" vehicle will able to corner an entire market and crush the competition (and not only with environmentally-minded customers, but many others in these bad economic times with high gas prices). The market incentive exists, and I don't think auto-makers are too stupid to see this.

And while it's easy to sit back and accuse others of "greed," the investment of capital is no trivial matter. How resources are invested can mean the difference between success and bankruptcy. (GM would be bankrupt, had the government not bailed them out at taxpayer expense.) You are also presuming that a really affordable effective electric car would exist if only enough money is dumped into it. Who are you to say whether or not auto-makers are spending enough on "green" r&d?

I am sure electric and other "green" technologies will continue to improve. Technological innovations and improvements have occured in many areas under a free market, leading to better and more efficient technologies, and I don't see why this area of technology should be any exception. If companies simply didn't care at all, they would not have developed electric and hybrid vehicles in the first place.

(Note: I'm not sure if you are arguing for government interference in the market here or not, but your arguments are those commonly used to argue for more government spending or regulation, which in real life has been harmful rather than helpful. Your post simply seems to be based on half-baked presumptions and cliches.)

[Slappo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1348087460' post='2484308']
Well at least that is how it is supposed to work, in theory. For a variety of reasons it will not always be the case. You will know that as an accountant. Or did you sleep through your net present value courses?
[/quote]

Unless the realized savings from the upgrade do not cover the additional costs within a reasonable time span, then you're saving money.

Sure there are cases where energy efficiency is not effective, such as the the first hybrid cars, or new technology that ends up failing/high maintenance costs. In general, more efficient buildings/cars/equipment saves money. Of course everything is relative when it comes to cost savings/efficiency upgrades. That's why accountants are hired to do cost benefit analysis for corporations.

You can't throw out "going green" just because it has a higher initial cost though, and thats what FP was doing. Sure you can make "green" decisions that are 95% useless such as installing solar panels on the roof of a small building for the cost of a million dollars when the annual electric bill is 5k, but that's not really "going green" or being energy efficient is it?

[Slappo]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1348094858' post='2484370']
Despite the negligible actual effect electric vehicles will actually have on the environment and global warming (another debate in itself), the truth is that is that these issues will best be solved through the market, rather than by intervention. Whoever is able to develop and patent a successful affordable "green" vehicle will able to corner an entire market and crush the competition (and not only with environmentally-minded customers, but many others in these bad economic times with high gas prices). The market incentive exists, and I don't think auto-makers are too stupid to see this.[/quote]

Yup. As gas prices continue to increase, a free market will drive companies to invest in energy efficient technology. When fuel hits $20 a gallon in USA, you'll see a lot of electric cars.

I'm less concerned with the effect on global warming. I'm more concerned with the rapid use of natural resources at a rate that is unsustainable. The latter will resolve itself in a free market.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1348097980' post='2484396']
Unless the realized savings from the upgrade do not cover the additional costs within a reasonable time span, then you're saving money.

Sure there are cases where energy efficiency is not effective, such as the the first hybrid cars, or new technology that ends up failing/high maintenance costs. In general, more efficient buildings/cars/equipment saves money. Of course everything is relative when it comes to cost savings/efficiency upgrades. That's why accountants are hired to do cost benefit analysis for corporations.

You can't throw out "going green" just because it has a higher initial cost though, and thats what FP was doing. Sure you can make "green" decisions that are 95% useless such as installing solar panels on the roof of a small building for the cost of a million dollars when the annual electric bill is 5k, but that's not really "going green" or being energy efficient is it?
[/quote]

Right, yeah. That is what I was getting at.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1348100144' post='2484425']
Right, yeah. That is what I was getting at.
[/quote]
Sorry I think I came off a little strong there . FP's going green means spending 10x the money irked me a lot.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1348094858' post='2484370']
So what's your proposed solution to this alleged problem?
[/quote]

That the auto industry stop being so profit-hungry and instead invest more of its capital into "green" technology. You know...do the "right" thing when it comes to environmental stewardship. As should other people in positions of power and influence in our consumerist culture.

[quote]
(Note: I'm not sure if you are arguing for government interference in the market here or not, but your arguments are those commonly used to argue for more government spending or regulation, which in real life has been harmful rather than helpful. Your post simply seems to be based on half-baked presumptions and cliches.)
[/quote]

Nope, I couldn't care less about whether or not the government does interfere. So...yeah. It sounds to me like you're reading your own biases into my arguments, and thus perceiving them as half-baked.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1347925106' post='2483484']
To mention one, Africa has always controlled it's population by natural means. I don't know the mind of God, so maybe he has plans that there will be people who will be creative enough to prevent this happening to the whole world. But then maybe not, it's happened in the past. I pray you're right.
[/quote]

Africa is lacking in productive agriculture and suffers under ineffective political regimes. Of course, there's only so much that can be done in the Sahara, especially under the severe droughts they've had. There is a lot more we can do with less money as technology advances, like installing wells, micro-lending, etc.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1348113736' post='2484541']
That the auto industry stop being so profit-hungry and instead invest more of its capital into "green" technology. You know...do the "right" thing when it comes to environmental stewardship. As should other people in positions of power and influence in our consumerist culture.[/quote]

For being so profit-hungry, the auto industry manages to lose a lot of money. For that matter, assuming you are a U.S. Citizen, you should write General Motors since "We the People" are shareholders. But first, I recommend reading Lee Iaccoca's auto-biography. He talks about how automobiles created from the top-down (i.e. the company tried to deliver what they thought consumers should want) always flopped. That said, the industry is investing in alternative technologies as the market begins to demand it more. Hybrids are obviously growing in popularity and natural gas is gaining a foothold among fleets. Things don't change overnight... they need time to be tested and slowly built up, before coming to a tipping point at which it makes economic sense to make huge investments.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' timestamp='1348201159' post='2484948']
For being so profit-hungry, the auto industry manages to lose a lot of money. For that matter, assuming you are a U.S. Citizen, you should write General Motors since "We the People" are shareholders. But first, I recommend reading Lee Iaccoca's auto-biography. He talks about how automobiles created from the top-down (i.e. the company tried to deliver what they thought consumers should want) always flopped. That said, the industry is investing in alternative technologies as the market begins to demand it more. Hybrids are obviously growing in popularity and natural gas is gaining a foothold among fleets. Things don't change overnight... they need time to be tested and slowly built up, before coming to a tipping point at which it makes economic sense to make huge investments.
[/quote]

It would help things normalize, so as to allow us to properly assess the situation, if the government would stop subsidizing, propping up, and generally distorting the domestic market. It is difficult to draw any conclusions with a market as distorted as it is.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1348113736' post='2484541']
That the auto industry stop being so profit-hungry and instead invest more of its capital into "green" technology. You know...do the "right" thing when it comes to environmental stewardship. As should other people in positions of power and influence in our consumerist culture.[/quote]
So, do you know how much any auto-maker is spending on "green" research and development?
If so, then exactly what amount (or what percentage of their budget) [i]should[/i] they be investing in order to "do the right thing"?

Answers?

Your accusation seems to boil down to: "Because we don't already have a cheap green car that runs on moonbeams and gets 1000 mpg this proves that auto-makers aren't investing enough in green technology because they're too profit-hungry," as if simply spending huge amounts of money (rather than human ingenuity and inventiveness) will in itself solve all technological hurdles.

I suppose this hunger for profits also explains why we don't all have affordable flying cars, personal jet-packs, daily rocket-ship commutes to and from the moon, and robot maids that do all our housework.

Accusing private businesses of being "profit-hungry" is silly, as these businesses, particularly in highly competitive industries like the auto industry, are necessary for these companies to stay in business. As recently all of the Big Three American auto-makers were broke or nearly broke, I don't think excessive profits or stinginess with money is the problem.
If an auto company goes out of business, its not just a few rich corporate fat-cats getting their just deserts, but lots of people losing jobs, increased unemployment, as well as that company being unable to develop any new vehicles, "green" or otherwise.

[quote]Nope, I couldn't care less about whether or not the government does interfere. So...yeah. It sounds to me like you're reading your own biases into my arguments, and thus perceiving them as half-baked.[/quote]
I care, because excessive government interference in the market is a real problem which is crippling the economy.

Your "arguments" are half-baked because they are simply based on cliched emotional rhetoric, rather than actual facts and reason.

It's very easy to sit around and accuse others of greed, but this is rash judgment, and the realities are quite a bit more complex than you acknowledge. I don't mean to insinuate that auto CEO's are all saints or anything, but your accusations seem to have little to do with anything concrete.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1348098323' post='2484399']
Yup. As gas prices continue to increase, a free market will drive companies to invest in energy efficient technology. When fuel hits $20 a gallon in USA, you'll see a lot of electric cars.

I'm less concerned with the effect on global warming. I'm more concerned with the rapid use of natural resources at a rate that is unsustainable. The latter will resolve itself in a free market.
[/quote]

Really, electric cars huh? I guess you know that under the current administration which has worked dilligently to close coal fired electric plants and the Prez who promised to " bankrupt anyone who tries to open new coal fired electric plants " and the current green regulations that now have 240 coal fired electric plants in 30 states slated to close next year that electric prices are going to skyrocket. I ask you who could afford to drive an electric car, and where and how would they charge it ?

ed

Edited September 24, 2012 by Ed Normile

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1348087266' post='2484306']
Are you kidding me? The upfront costs of energy efficiency are more, but long term costs are where you save tons of money. Of course spending 5 million dollars more for the infrastructure necessary for geo-thermal heating is going to make a building both cost more and more valuable. The 500ks a year you save in oil re-coups that initial investment over 10 years and every year after that you are making bank in savings.
[/quote]

Actually, this is false. It will save you money [i]over time, [/i]but just how long is that "over time"? I know a guy who built a green home (Which strangely wasn't painted green). He did the works, and he got himself a nice viewing on the Green channel. However, when they did the math, they realized it won't actually pay off for [b]fifty more years. [/b]The guy is over fifty years old. He will never live to see it pay off. His entire life will be paying off debt and he won't even be able to see the fruit of his labors.

[arfink]

For those who would like to contemplate some potential solutions to world resource problems, please ponder the Thorium fuel cycle:
[url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle"]https://en.wikipedia...rium_fuel_cycle[/url]

Molten salt thorium reactor: (the safest and most efficient way of using thorium as a nuclear fission fuel)
[url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor"]https://en.wikipedia...en_salt_reactor[/url]

Thorium fueled nuclear reactors are an untapped fuel source which we could use to keep world energy production plentiful and cheap for an extremely long time, far longer than any hydrocarbon based fuel cycle. It also has a much lower cost barrier than solar or wind power because the yield is incredibly high.

Ultimately the entire question is moot to me, BTW, of whether we have too many people on the planet. Entropy will eventually overtake the universe, period. Let us then reproduce and partake in the grand battle against entropy, yeah?

Edited September 24, 2012 by arfink

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1348463660' post='2485899']
Actually, this is false. It will save you money [i]over time, [/i]but just how long is that "over time"? I know a guy who built a green home (Which strangely wasn't painted green). He did the works, and he got himself a nice viewing on the Green channel. However, when they did the math, they realized it won't actually pay off for [b]fifty more years. [/b]The guy is over fifty years old. He will never live to see it pay off. His entire life will be paying off debt and he won't even be able to see the fruit of his labors.
[/quote]

for context for the people who dont do much in the way of renovation/construction work... many houses dont last that long, at least not without serious repairs, making it even worse.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1348465097' post='2485909']
for context for the people who dont do much in the way of renovation/construction work... many houses dont last that long, at least not without serious repairs, making it even worse.
[/quote]

I definitely know some in the way of construction work, seeing as how I helped build my two story 3,400 hundred square foot house. Simply making a regular home is expensive and hard to pay off. Adding "Green technology" is simply a declaration of your freedom. You will be forever in debt unless you sell it, which merely passes on the debt to some other unfortunate fellow.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1348465401' post='2485912']
I definitely know some in the way of construction work, seeing as how I helped build my two story 3,400 hundred square foot house. Simply making a regular home is expensive and hard to pay off. Adding "Green technology" is simply a declaration of your freedom. You will be forever in debt unless you sell it, which merely passes on the debt to some other unfortunate fellow.
[/quote]

3400 hundred sq. ft = 340,000 sq. ft.

For comparison, Oprah's lovely monstrosity of a house is 23 000 square feet.
[img]http://www.aolcdn.com/photogalleryassets/bv-life-style/721798/oprah-house-450kc-091109kc.jpg[/img]

You are welcome.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1348465401' post='2485912']
Adding "Green technology" is simply a declaration of your freedom. You will be forever in debt unless you sell it, which merely passes on the debt to some other unfortunate fellow.
[/quote]

It is simply common sense that this statement is only true in those cases where the savings you gain by whatever 'green' technology you use does not outweigh the additional cost. It's an enormously simple calculation. To make sweeping statements like that with nothing in the way of numbers is incoherent.
Just treat 'green' technology as an investment. Smart investments pay off, and poor ones do not. There is nothing magic about green tech that makes it an inherent money pit.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1348465514' post='2485914']
3400 hundred sq. ft = 340,000 sq. ft.

For comparison, Oprah's lovely monstrosity of a house is 23 000 square feet.
[img]http://www.aolcdn.com/photogalleryassets/bv-life-style/721798/oprah-house-450kc-091109kc.jpg[/img]

You are welcome.
[/quote]

Us Vulga Germans are a wealthy people.

[Slappo]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1348463660' post='2485899']
Actually, this is false. It will save you money [i]over time, [/i]but just how long is that "over time"? I know a guy who built a green home (Which strangely wasn't painted green). He did the works, and he got himself a nice viewing on the Green channel. However, when they did the math, they realized it won't actually pay off for [b]fifty more years. [/b]The guy is over fifty years old. He will never live to see it pay off. His entire life will be paying off debt and he won't even be able to see the fruit of his labors.
[/quote]

Like Nihil and I have both said previously. Obviously not every scenario of "going green" will show realized savings. [u][b]You have to do a cost benefit analysis.[/b][/u]

If it costs an additional 20k to install geothermal heating which will save 50% a month in heating costs, and your annual heating costs are 6k a year that is a realized savings of 3k annually on a 20k investment. In 10 years time that would be a 30k realized savings and a net gain of 10k.

If it costs an additional 200k to install super doors & windows with super magical powers that turn cold air hot which will save 90% a month in heating costs, and your annual heating costs are 6k a year that is 5.4k savings annually on a 200k investment and it would take over 37 years to simply pay itself off.

Note: these numbers don't account for inflation, interest rates on loans, or potential interest made on investments as that is far beyond the scope of this post. Also, all numbers are ficticious. I do know that geothermal heating has proven to be highly cost effective although it has downsides of taking quite a while to heat up a house if it is cold due to the heating methods. The cost of keeping the house warm year round is minimal though.

Obviously the geothermal is amesome and the magical doors and windows are crazy expensive and not worth it.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Slappo

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote][color=#282828][font='Segoe UI', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I suppose this hunger for profits also explains why we don't all have affordable flying cars, personal jet-packs, daily rocket-ship commutes to and from the moon, and robot maids that do all our housework.[/font][/color][/quote]

Actually, no. That would be NASA's budget, which has been slashed within an inch of it's life. And we do have jet packs, if you have the cash. And hovercrafts, for that matter. Russia has rocket-ship commutes, as we retired our space elevator shuttle this past week. And have you heard of a roomba? It's this magical robot that you turn on and it vacuums the floor all by its self!

Since you seem to be so passionate about the subject, what do you suggest we actually do, Socrates? Ignore any kind of stewardship of the earth? Use up all of our oil deposits and just hope for the best? I'm not saying I'm an expert on the auto industry. Clearly I'm not, and it's a bad example. But my point still stands. I'm saying that those who have the most power to influence how our society deals with the problem of "overpopulation" and right use of our natural resources aren't making sustainability a true priority.