Still Hating America.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's nice, Slave, but if he's buying his electricity from a 100% green source, then it doesn't matter whether he's got a fully lit 1:8 diorama of the Las Vegas strip going in his yard -- it's not adding to the carbon problem. And if that's what he's doing, he's surely paying more than his neighbors for power, which would be putting his money where his mouth is.

Would the green energy not be produced without his purchasing it? If it's being produced anyway, then presumably his use of it to power frivolous items takes it away from someone else, who instead must use "dirty" energy from sources such as Diablo Canyon.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Fish, barrel:



It's not worth fighting the facts, only the connection between this and human activity. And even that's worth fighting only if your corporate name as more than one X in it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Would the green energy not be produced without his purchasing it? If it's being produced anyway, then presumably his use of it to power frivolous items takes it away from someone else, who instead must use "dirty" energy from sources such as Diablo Canyon.

am I on ignore?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's nice, Slave, but if he's buying his electricity from a 100% green source, then it doesn't matter whether he's got a fully lit 1:8 diorama of the Las Vegas strip going in his yard -- it's not adding to the carbon problem. And if that's what he's doing, he's surely paying more than his neighbors for power, which would be putting his money where his mouth is.

am I on ignore?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
am I on ignore?

no.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
member you was plaining to spanky about reading stuff and all?

I usually post something (or give him a link to ignore) and then bust him for not reading it. Like I just did with you. But doing the busting first and then posting stuff adds an interesting twist.

That page you linked to says:

• TVA has built the first commercial wind-powered turbines in the southeastern U.S. on Buffalo Mountain in Anderson County, Tennessee. Solar generation sites are located in the service areas of participating public power companies. And methane gas is providing power at Allen Fossil Plant in Memphis, where a methane waste by-product from the city’s wastewater treatment plant is used for co-firing.

I suppose it's possible that all of those plants will be down at once, and that Gore will then be responsible for the release of more carbon into the atmosphere. But if the plants are all down two weeks a year, and Gore uses twenty times as much electricity as the next guy, then he's still releasing less carbon than his neighbor, and paying a lot more to get there.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Also, I've heard that sociologists have been raping Israeli Jews.

No, no, no. Sociologists are part of the great Jewish conspiracy. They're the apologists for the Bankers.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by taxwonk
his solar-pwered tin foil cooktop

I bet his wife loves that when they're grilling steaks.

S_A_m

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
oh, and from the TVA site I linked earlier:

• How does green power benefit the environment?
  The environmental effects of traditional energy sources like coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear power can be significant. Although no source of energy is impact-free, renewable resources create less waste and pollution. In fact, an investment of an additional $8 per month on your power bill buys enough Green Power Switch to equal the environmental benefits of planting an acre of trees in the Tennessee Valley.

so it's greener, not green. all Ty did was point to another attempted lie from Al gore.

The relevant question here is not whether there's no environmental impact of any kind -- dead eagles, blocking Slave's view of Ted Kennedy, etc. -- but what the carbon effects are, right? I'm pretty sure wind power isn't releasing more carbon into the atmosphere, but maybe you science types can tell me otherwise.

And maybe Gore is hypocritical. But if he's paying more for green power and doing the offsetting carbon thingy, then he's trying.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I bet his wife loves that when they're grilling steaks.

S_A_m

According to the commercial I saw, not as much as she loves it when he gets tired of pedaling while she's blow-drying her hair.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Would the green energy not be produced without his purchasing it? If it's being produced anyway, then presumably his use of it to power frivolous items takes it away from someone else, who instead must use "dirty" energy from sources such as Diablo Canyon.

In your world, are producers ever incented to increase supply?

But it seems reasonably clear to me that (a) existing market mechanisms do not let people avoid fossil fuel based electricity production completely unless they live off the grid, and (b) Gore is making some efforts to walk the walk.

What's odd is the conservatives here dumping all over market-based attempts to improve things. Or rather, I wish it were odd.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
am I on ignore?

not as such

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
She told me that such unscientific and misguided methods were acceptable at UC Berkeley, I did not believe her. She proved me wrong. And now she is teaching a whole new generation of students that as long as your paper is well written, your method of collecting data, and how you process that data is not important. The inmates have taken over the asylum.

But you just kept tapping that innumerate ass! WP, P!

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• There is a range of academic research on the value of unions in schools. Much of the research tries to make state-level comparisons, and has been largely discredited. Unfortunately, for those researchers, the differences between union-friendly and union-hostile states, say between Rhode Island and North Carolina, for example, are far too complex to be usefully encapsulated by a single union/non-union variable, but that was essentially the route taken by studies like Peltzman (1996) and Kurth (1988).
  There has been good quantitative research done that looked at the school level, instead of the state level. The most extensive review of the effects of unions in education was done by Eberts and Stone (1987). Using math and verbal achievement scores as their measure, their research demonstrated that unionized schools perform significantly better overall than their non-union counterparts, even after discounting such effects as class size and teacher experience. These finding have been replicated by others, including Milkman (1997) and Argys and Rees (1995).
  Though they’ve been replicated enough to have confidence in the overall picture, there is not yet a good explanation for these findings. One fairly comprehensive analysis, Zigarelli (1994), found that the main productivity effect is due to organizational differences between union and non-union schools. School management in union schools were shown to be more efficient and to have a tighter linkage between management goals and classroom practices. Communication of goals and practices was found to be easier in union schools, and implementation of new practices more effective. This essentially corroborates the findings of Eberts and Stone, who found that union schools increased the productivity of the school leadership. Zigarelli also points out that the political activities of unions, such as promoting increases in funding to schools, can be a significant part of the effect.
  Some researchers have speculated that the productivity improvement of union schools is due to increased standardization. As unions facilitate communication around the school, instruction practice tends to gravitate to the best practices. This is a well-known effect of unionization in other
  workplaces, so some labor researchers suspect this may play a role in schools, too (Carini, 2002).
  This could explain a secondary effect of unions in schools. Though it’s clear that overall, union schools have a significant positive effect on educational achievement, the effects for students at the very top and bottom ends of the ability distribution are more equivocal. Eberts and Stone
  originally uncovered this effect, but these findings, too, have been replicated. Milkman, for example, found that unionization boosted minority achievement substantially, in schools where minorities made up the majority of children, though the effect wasn’t as pronounced, and sometimes slightly negative, on minority children in schools where the majority of children are not minorities. Argys and Rees speculated that these studies, which attempt to estimate “productivity” coefficients, are somehow biased by the quantification of variables like class characteristics, such as size and overall student achievement, but that research still replicated the basic findings. Sanders and Rivers (1996) points out that the positive effects of good professional development are the greatest on the students at the margins, another reason to promote widespread, effective development work.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Also, I've heard that sociologists have been raping Israeli Jews.

Only the Ayrab sociologists.

ululululululululululaaaaah!

S_A_M