Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
johnnyhasbeen

Earth hour

Recommended Posts

So I just found out that some non-hockey fans think we should not use electricity during HNiC this weekend. Yeah right, that will happen. LMAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we do seem to have power outages during our games..........and it cost's us games and points :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, Global warming people make me laugh - for a multitude of reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not alot of Canadians that I know are against global warming. Here it is considered a good thing! Yes, there are some, but they seem to be the same type that go out and attack fishing/sealing vessels and are surprised when they get run over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, televisions take up a very very small amount of energy.

But I will not participate anyway, the same politicians who advertise earth hour are the ones who say no to solar energy, LED lighting, other forms of renewable energy etc. etc.

Canada is so late into the game of the "green economy" it is pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did my part. Traded the truck in for a Hyundai. Now my back is too sore to get into the tiny car and drive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Canada is so late into the game of the "green economy" it is pathetic.

Personally, that's mainly what I think human caused global warming is all about - money. The Earth naturally goes through changes in climate, so there's no way to prove that human beings are responsible for any global climate changes. Just a few months ago someone hacked a bunch of emails from a big time global warming research center where many of the emails indicated the fudging of data and other such things to make the situation seem worse than it really is. Last year researchers found that sea levels were rising half as fast as some say they are. People talk about the right using fear to influence people, it's no different with the left and global warming. I'm sure that environmentalists would be blaming humanity just the same if the world's temperatures happened to be dropping. I guess humans caused the rise and fall of numerous ice ages over the millennia also!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, that's mainly what I think human caused global warming is all about - money. The Earth naturally goes through changes in climate, so there's no way to prove that human beings are responsible for any global climate changes. Just a few months ago someone hacked a bunch of emails from a big time global warming research center where many of the emails indicated the fudging of data and other such things to make the situation seem worse than it really is. Last year researchers found that sea levels were rising half as fast as some say they are. People talk about the right using fear to influence people, it's no different with the left and global warming. I'm sure that environmentalists would be blaming humanity just the same if the world's temperatures happened to be dropping. I guess humans caused the rise and fall of numerous ice ages over the millennia also!

ok. Now what's your point ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They had it during HNiC last year, too. Don Cherry's co-worker, David Suzuki, came on and gave a message saying it was okay to still watch the game (he was going to as well), just try and keep other energy use to a minimum. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok. Now what's your point ?

Isn't it obvious? I don't think human beings are the main reason for any changes in global climate. I think that "green economy" is a big force and people want to capitalize on it, so they blow it out of proportion to get people to pump money into the economy for new cars, more efficient heating and cooling, etc.

Edited by Fanpuck33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't it obvious? I don't think human beings are the main reason for any changes in global climate. I think that "green economy" is a big force and people want to capitalize on it, so they blow it out of proportion to get people to pump money into the economy for new cars, more efficient heating and cooling, etc.

uhhhh..... no, not going to go there. I bet you think public health care is a sham too right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhhhh..... no, not going to go there. I bet you think public health care is a sham too right?

The way Obama is going about it, absolutely. All sorts of back-door deals and ridiculous clauses and mystery surrounding it. People like Nancy Pelosi saying that the only way we can find out what is in the bill is by passing it. Essentially they are going to make not having health insurance a crime and the people in the hard-working middle class will have to buy their own insurance and insurance for everyone else. Having the IRS in charge of health care scares me. Taxing people 4 years before the system begins scares me (our government is SO good with money). I don't trust the government a lick to take care of my health when it can't take care of schools and already has tons of corruption in programs such as Medicaid. People say we'll easily be able to afford health care by reducing the misuse of medicaid - what makes them think they can run a universal system when they can't even keep a smaller system clean?

On a moral level, obviously everyone should be entitled to health care and not have to worry about the costs. At a practical level, it pisses me off that it will just further a problem that already exists, the fact that there are many people who are perfectly capable of working, but would rather live off of the hard earned money made by others via welfare. Of course, there are people who legitimately need help with unemployment and health care, but there are just as many who take advantage of the system. I'm fine with helping those who are truly in need, but it pisses me off to no end that my tax dollars will be going to help people who are just playing the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was embarassing to read recently that Canada is actually going backwards in terms of 'green' policy. A decade ago, we were closer to the forefront. Now we're one of the worst industrialized nations in terms of polluting per capita. Canada, as usual, stands for nothing. People may have hated Trudeau and Chretien, but at least those guys had Canada standing for something. Now we're a wishy washy political mess that takes no stand on anything.

And Fanpuck, gotta say, you may not like Obama's Health Care deal, but your American health care is more accessible today than it was a week ago. Is it great? No. But it's at least a step in the right direction. When you're talking about so many different people with so many differing opinions, I'd say passing anything that gets millions more some health care is a win. I think the bill has to be accepted for what it's worth: the first step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was embarassing to read recently that Canada is actually going backwards in terms of 'green' policy. A decade ago, we were closer to the forefront. Now we're one of the worst industrialized nations in terms of polluting per capita. Canada, as usual, stands for nothing. People may have hated Trudeau and Chretien, but at least those guys had Canada standing for something. Now we're a wishy washy political mess that takes no stand on anything.

It is all talk and no action.

Just yesterday I interviewed a guy who started a company in Brantford, Ontario that produces LED lighting, solar panels and such. He started his company in 1996 out of Brantford, which has been one of the most economically depressed cities in Canada since the mid 80s. The only reason I found out about his company was through the local MPP and one of the city council members, they both spoke about how badly they wanted to see Brantford become a "green hub" in southern Ontario. Seems like a perfect opportunity for a city that is trying to find an identity after an economic crisis left it crippled.

In 14 years, not once has the city approached him about putting in LED lighting for street lights, setting up solar panels as a form of "greener" energy etc etc. He has yet to sell a single product to the city.

German developers are looking for an opportunity to come over and really get this sector of the economy booming, but they are reluctant to do so with the government so slow to get on board (and I mean not just say they are on board, but actually throw some coin into the project).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is all talk and no action.

Just yesterday I interviewed a guy who started a company in Brantford, Ontario that produces LED lighting, solar panels and such. He started his company in 1996 out of Brantford, which has been one of the most economically depressed cities in Canada since the mid 80s. The only reason I found out about his company was through the local MPP and one of the city council members, they both spoke about how badly they wanted to see Brantford become a "green hub" in southern Ontario. Seems like a perfect opportunity for a city that is trying to find an identity after an economic crisis left it crippled.

In 14 years, not once has the city approached him about putting in LED lighting for street lights, setting up solar panels as a form of "greener" energy etc etc. He has yet to sell a single product to the city.

German developers are looking for an opportunity to come over and really get this sector of the economy booming, but they are reluctant to do so with the government so slow to get on board (and I mean not just say they are on board, but actually throw some coin into the project).

I've worked in the lighting industry for my entire career...specifically in the infrastructure, industrial, commercial segments. There is so much misleading information with regards to LED Lighting claims in the news papers that you almost have to disregard them completely.

For starters, would you want your local politicians to okay buying 1000's of streetlights from a small start-up that probably doesn't have a great handle on implementing LED technology into a fixture? What happens if/when the product doesn't live up to claims?

There is an incredible amount of bad business ethics in the "green" building industry...buyer beware. Until recently there were no industry standards to hold people to when it came to testing LED fixtures. As a result some companies were claiming up to 100x (or more) then their products were capable of...

I know my industry very well...there is no local company in Brantford that can supply quality LED streetlighting which provides enough light to currently accepted standards. In fact, I'm not wholly convinced that there are any products on the market which legitimately outperform current High Pressure Sodium lamps for energy efficiency. The LED story is currently sold on the potential for improved maintenance...but there are still issues around those claims too.

LED fixtures currently make sense for many low wattage applications. Downlights and some recessed fixtures are already at the start of their next wave. The streetlighting battle is ongoing as manufacturers try to improve the technology...and some are VERY close, but MOST are smoke and mirrors (guys bringing in off-shore junk and slapping on a CSA label (which only proves you won't fry yourself opening the fixture)).

I've been to Clinton Climate Initiative meetings/shows, the CaGBC shows, etc...they are FULL of politicians looking for a PR opportunity...what better way then to push for highly visible LED streetlights that "save energy"...who cares if the claims aren't justified. There is a manufacturer that says it's true so they get their newspaper article from a young reporter that doesn't really know anything about LED's...not singling you out here...

Edited by Zowpeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't it obvious? I don't think human beings are the main reason for any changes in global climate. I think that "green economy" is a big force and people want to capitalize on it, so they blow it out of proportion to get people to pump money into the economy for new cars, more efficient heating and cooling, etc.

So you think global world economy is better keep rolling on oil and plastic and that we should continue to capitalize on these sources of energy instead of spending our money on building greener sources of energy for car, furnitures and heating systems ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it's one thing if you don't believe that global warming is caused by mankind. But personally I don't understand why that's an excuse for us to to continue polluting our planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you think global world economy is better keep rolling on oil and plastic and that we should continue to capitalize on these sources of energy instead of spending our money on building greener sources of energy for car, furniture and heating systems ?

Um, in no way am I saying that. I am all for green technology. I just don't see global warming as being any sort of reason to "go green." The fact that resources such as oil and coal will not last forever is a reason to work towards being more green. I see green technology being more cost-effective in the long term being a reason to go green. I use fluorescent light bulbs because despite the initial cost being more expensive, you end up saving money because of the fact they use less energy to run and last a lot longer than incandescent bulbs. I would consider getting a hybrid car as long as the money I would save on gasoline would make up for the difference in initial price. A result of both of these things would be using less oil and coal, thus extending their use as we continue to develop more new technology to improve methods of renewable energy. Nowhere does worrying about global warming come into the equation for me. I think global warming is largely used as a tool in order to pursue means that I actually agree with.

To me it's one thing if you don't believe that global warming is caused by mankind. But personally I don't understand why that's an excuse for us to to continue polluting our planet.

Don't get me wrong, I in no way am trying to say that pollution is fine and that we shouldn't try to change things. I just think it's blown way out of proportion and made to appear much more serious than it actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, in no way am I saying that. I am all for green technology. I just don't see global warming as being any sort of reason to "go green." The fact that resources such as oil and coal will not last forever is a reason to work towards being more green. I see green technology being more cost-effective in the long term being a reason to go green. I use fluorescent light bulbs because despite the initial cost being more expensive, you end up saving money because of the fact they use less energy to run and last a lot longer than incandescent bulbs. I would consider getting a hybrid car as long as the money I would save on gasoline would make up for the difference in initial price. A result of both of these things would be using less oil and coal, thus extending their use as we continue to develop more new technology to improve methods of renewable energy. Nowhere does worrying about global warming come into the equation for me. I think global warming is largely used as a tool in order to pursue means that I actually agree with.

At least tell me that you were not agreeing with Dick Cheney when he said that only 1% of risk of the presence of massive destruction weapon in Iraq justified the invasion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At least tell me that you were not agreeing with Dick Cheney when he said that only 1% of risk of the presence of massive destruction weapon in Iraq justified the invasion...

The fact that Iraq was constantly violating the terms of their UN agreements was reason enough to go in and do something about it in my opinion. Just another sign of the UN's impotence. Hell, another sign is the fact that the US went into Iraq without the UN's permission and pretty much didn't do anything about it.

Edited by Fanpuck33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that Iraq was constantly violating the terms of their UN agreements was reason enough to go in and do something about it in my opinion. Just another sign of the UN's impotence. Hell, another sign is the fact that the US went into Iraq without the UN's permission and pretty much didn't do anything about it.

I know, but I was just questioning the principe of :

There is some risk, but no proof, that Iraq have MDW so it is a valid point to justify an invade.

Tere is some risk, but no proof, that the humanity is responsible for the global warming but it is not a valid point to justify doing all we can to avoid it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know, but I was just questioning the principe of :

There is some risk, but no proof, that Iraq have MDW so it is a valid point to justify an invade.

Tere is some risk, but no proof, that the humanity is responsible for the global warming but it is not a valid point to justify doing all we can to avoid it.

Ok, I see where you're going with it. If a 1% chance of WMDs was the ONLY reason for invading Iraq, then no, I would not agree with his statement. If I did, I'd be making a lot more noise about Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've worked in the lighting industry for my entire career...specifically in the infrastructure, industrial, commercial segments. There is so much misleading information with regards to LED Lighting claims in the news papers that you almost have to disregard them completely.

For starters, would you want your local politicians to okay buying 1000's of streetlights from a small start-up that probably doesn't have a great handle on implementing LED technology into a fixture? What happens if/when the product doesn't live up to claims?

I know my industry very well...there is no local company in Brantford that can supply quality LED streetlighting which provides enough light to currently accepted standards. In fact, I'm not wholly convinced that there are any products on the market which legitimately outperform current High Pressure Sodium lamps for energy efficiency. The LED story is currently sold on the potential for improved maintenance...but there are still issues around those claims too.

I've been to Clinton Climate Initiative meetings/shows, the CaGBC shows, etc...they are FULL of politicians looking for a PR opportunity...what better way then to push for highly visible LED streetlights that "save energy"...who cares if the claims aren't justified. There is a manufacturer that says it's true so they get their newspaper article from a young reporter that doesn't really know anything about LED's...not singling you out here...

That's where you lost me. I believe you know a ton more about this topic than what I will ever care to know, but who said anything about 1000s of streetlights? I'm talking about testing the product. If you are going to hype up a company and talk about moving an entire city's industry into the "green economy", well then why not put your money where your mouth is?

As for the second bolded part, you're right, they don't currently have the infrastructure to provide streetlights for the city, but it appears to be a growing business and with a little support, it could just work.

I don't know how familiar you are with Brantford, but the city could use a win. We're talking about an area that went from being one of the leading manufacturing centres in all of Canada to one that reached 25% unemployment just 15 years ago. My whole point is that risks need to be taken and opportunities need to be explored. The university coming to the downtown core was a big step in the right direction, but let's not just stop there.

As for not singling me out, well you definitely did, but that's ok :lol: If this was the actual focus of what I'm working on then maybe I'd be able to invest more time into it, but it is only a small portion of what I'm looking at with the city and all I see from the sidelines is a business that is at least trying something and a city that appears to be reluctant to even stick its foot in the water let alone dive in. Like the owner of the company said, he's a loyal Brantfordian but he will have no problem taking his business elsewhere if the opportunity arises. He specifically mentioned London as an example of a city that is at least exploring greener options, which could end up being just another example of Brantford losing out on a potential moneymaker.

Edited by Quebecois

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's where you lost me. I believe you know a ton more about this topic than what I will ever care to know, but who said anything about 1000s of streetlights? I'm talking about testing the product. If you are going to hype up a company and talk about moving an entire city's industry into the "green economy", well then why not put your money where your mouth is?

As for the second bolded part, you're right, they don't currently have the infrastructure to provide streetlights for the city, but it appears to be a growing business and with a little support, it could just work.

I don't know how familiar you are with Brantford, but the city could use a win. We're talking about an area that went from being one of the leading manufacturing centres in all of Canada to one that reached 25% unemployment just 15 years ago. My whole point is that risks need to be taken and opportunities need to be explored. The university coming to the downtown core was a big step in the right direction, but let's not just stop there.

As for not singling me out, well you definitely did, but that's ok :lol: If this was the actual focus of what I'm working on then maybe I'd be able to invest more time into it, but it is only a small portion of what I'm looking at with the city and all I see from the sidelines is a business that is at least trying something and a city that appears to be reluctant to even stick its foot in the water let alone dive in. Like the owner of the company said, he's a loyal Brantfordian but he will have no problem taking his business elsewhere if the opportunity arises. He specifically mentioned London as an example of a city that is at least exploring greener options, which could end up being just another example of Brantford losing out on a potential moneymaker.

For what it's worth, I grew up within a 40 minute drive of Brantford.

I'm not trying to single you out...just point out what I feel is a major issue with the "green" building movement. That is: bold claims that are not backed up, proven or tested. The claims made by solar, wind, LED, and many other technologies are so overblown that it will cause most of these tech's to fizzle in just a couple years as people become disillusioned with them. Most people writing articles are taking the manufacturers claims and the politicians claims as fact...it's ALMOST comical. The problem is that many people are pushing for the widespread use of these technologies to the tune of BILLIONS in government spending. So the end result is a lot of government debt for products/technologies that are years away from being able to perform anywhere close to the claims being made...and woops, we'll be stuck with the early versions that don't perform...

There are a number of companies in the lighting industry worth billions of dollars...they are spending 90+% of their R&D money on developing product that PROPERLY integrates LED's into fixtures. (ie. not using a cheap retrofit/replacement lamp like this small Brantford company). This wouldn't be happening if LED's didn't hold a lot of promise that was close to paying off. However, I believe that most small to mid-size LED companies are looking to get bought by the larger firms or simply make a quick buck off of the local government through subsidy and gov't projects. In reality, there are hundreds of these small firms with no real patents to their names...they are just trying to capitalize on a trendy tech by marketing themselves as "green". Many are simply bringing in essentially complete product from off-shore and claiming it's CDN. Most of the off-shore product is pretty bad, but there ARE some good ones too. I checked out the website of this Brantford company and I didn't see anything I'd recommend...for what it's worth, they'll get smoked in the streetlighting market as all the "majors" are about to launch product soon, if they haven't already...their competitive advantage will be about 1,000,000, to every 1 fixture this guy sells. Since his version of tech has no differentiation he's dead in the water chasing that application.

Don't get me wrong, on LED's specifically they are coming along rapidly, and improving monthly...they ARE a massive part of the future of lighting, especially streetlighting. In many applications they are already the right light source for consulting engineers to choose. Also worth noting that LED's are not exactly perfect when it comes to recycling (sure they don't use mercury but there are disposal issues...). There are also some questions/issues with the limited resources used to make LED chips (Gallium for one)...though I suspect the industry will overcome that concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For what it's worth, I grew up within a 40 minute drive of Brantford.

I'm not trying to single you out...just point out what I feel is a major issue with the "green" building movement. That is: bold claims that are not backed up, proven or tested. The claims made by solar, wind, LED, and many other technologies are so overblown that it will cause most of these tech's to fizzle in just a couple years as people become disillusioned with them. Most people writing articles are taking the manufacturers claims and the politicians claims as fact...it's ALMOST comical. The problem is that many people are pushing for the widespread use of these technologies to the tune of BILLIONS in government spending. So the end result is a lot of government debt for products/technologies that are years away from being able to perform anywhere close to the claims being made...and woops, we'll be stuck with the early versions that don't perform...

There are a number of companies in the lighting industry worth billions of dollars...they are spending 90+% of their R&D money on developing product that PROPERLY integrates LED's into fixtures. (ie. not using a cheap retrofit/replacement lamp like this small Brantford company). This wouldn't be happening if LED's didn't hold a lot of promise that was close to paying off. However, I believe that most small to mid-size LED companies are looking to get bought by the larger firms or simply make a quick buck off of the local government through subsidy and gov't projects. In reality, there are hundreds of these small firms with no real patents to their names...they are just trying to capitalize on a trendy tech by marketing themselves as "green". Many are simply bringing in essentially complete product from off-shore and claiming it's CDN. Most of the off-shore product is pretty bad, but there ARE some good ones too. I checked out the website of this Brantford company and I didn't see anything I'd recommend...for what it's worth, they'll get smoked in the streetlighting market as all the "majors" are about to launch product soon, if they haven't already...their competitive advantage will be about 1,000,000, to every 1 fixture this guy sells. Since his version of tech has no differentiation he's dead in the water chasing that application.

Don't get me wrong, on LED's specifically they are coming along rapidly, and improving monthly...they ARE a massive part of the future of lighting, especially streetlighting. In many applications they are already the right light source for consulting engineers to choose. Also worth noting that LED's are not exactly perfect when it comes to recycling (sure they don't use mercury but there are disposal issues...). There are also some questions/issues with the limited resources used to make LED chips (Gallium for one)...though I suspect the industry will overcome that concern.

Yeah fair enough, I can certainly understand that there is a lot of myth out there when it comes to the green shift and I definitely need to be careful to not simply take things at face value.

The frustration for me lies with the slow moving city council here in the city and that frustration is certainly not exclusive to a lack of productivity with regards to the "green economy". I still consider myself a bit of an outsider as far as Brantford goes, as I'm only here temporarily as a student, but it is stunning how little has gotten done here since the local economy went in the tank 25 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...