Town Square

Post a New Topic

Guest Opinion: Will 'clean tech' deliver us from global warming?

Original post made on Nov 29, 2007

In case you haven't noticed, a "Clean Tech Revolution" is sweeping Silicon Valley and other centers of innovation around the globe.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007, 12:00 AM

Comments (12)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by David Smernoff
a resident of Portola Valley
on Nov 29, 2007 at 6:28 pm

Bravo Michael! It needs to be said that we all live massively over-consumptive lifestyles. Global warming must be countered at all levels, starting with the personal change you describe. Technology is only part of the solution, meaningful personal change is the real driver that will combat global climate change.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by hmm
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 29, 2007 at 6:42 pm

What would really make sense is to live without the stuff that we all accumulate in our lives. Most of us use garages, guest rooms, or even paid storage, to keep stuff we don't use often and are not sure what to do with.

My own personal view, is that this time of year is partly responsible for the clutter and consumerism it comes from. Do we need to buy sweaters for relatives who will hate them, in return for the sweaters they buy us which we equally hate. Do we need to buy the latest electric gadget for aging parents in the misguided view that it will make their lives easier. Do we need to buy gift hampers of food for those who will already be going out and buying much too many goodies for themselves at this time of over indulgence.

If we all managed to give thoughtful gifts rather than stuff, we could simplify our lives enormously. How about gifts of babysitting to young parents, coupons for yard work or garage clean up where we can get together with relatives for a fun day of hard work clearing up. How about inviting family for a hike in the forest with deli type sandwiches and hot soup for afterwards.

If we all managed to give of ourselves and our time, rather than more stuff, we would avoid lots of the extras we just don't need.

The only real problem with this, is that the economy would suffer and then what?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 29, 2007 at 9:06 pm

"The only real problem with this, is that the economy would suffer and then what?"

Not necessarily. The more egregiously stupid parts of our economy would suffer, replaced by new goods and services. Health care costs would probably go down, too.

Good ideas!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 30, 2007 at 8:59 am

It's too late. I don't think there is the political will to make the cuts in emissions necessary to avert a 2-3 degree C temperature rise.

It's time to consider active measures such as reducing the solar radiation which reaches the earth. Conservation is important and necessary but more is going to be required to reduce climate change.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 30, 2007 at 9:12 am

Anonymous, I tend to agree, as the actual tipping point into palpable consequences has just begun to be felt.

As for political will, we probably won't see that generated here unless we feel the direct impact of warming, in a way that really hurts - in the pocketbook, or otherwise.

We are essentially leaderless in all of this, in spite of good intentions on the part of some policy makers, the big questions - the hard political challenges - continue to be ignored, especially at the national and international levels (and to some degree, at the municipal level, even in communities that consider themselves "green".)

We have to do more, and there will be pain involved in doing so, before we come out the other end inn a way that puts our world, region, and city on a sustainable path.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 30, 2007 at 10:35 am

Even more efficient if we were all to live in barracks and march to our assigned jobs. It was tried and it didn't work.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by perspective.
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 30, 2007 at 12:37 pm


To make changes because it is a good idea to stay as clean as possible is good, simply because of the common sense notion that we don't want to mess with our air, our water, our ground and our seas...yes.

But, I am instantly turned off by anyone promoting an idea based on the ludicrous notion that we can "fight global warming". This is using fear to promote and agenda.

Anyone who thinks that we can do anything at all to stop the cyclical changes in our climate has no sense of historical climate changes or scientific perspective.

Regardless of the propoganda having been promoted, especially by certain "documentaries'...about 90% of the Greenhouse Gases is....water..the rest are various other gases including CO2, a natural part of our atmosphere. We, through our fossil fuels, contribute absolutely no more than 25% of the accumulated CO2 in our atmosphere..after the math that is less than 2.5% of all "greenhouse gases" coming from us.

Sources:
Web Link The OTHER science petition and peer-reviewed research.

www.junkscience.com/greenhouse The LAYMAN's science site.

So, please, garner support for clean tech, which is great and I fully support, but do it on realistic assessments of consequences, not fear mongering. All it does is lessen your credibility.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 6, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Perspective,

How's that smoking habit going? Still reading from the same sources, heh? Here's an article from the Union of Concerned Scientists how Exxon is using the same tactics and same firms for spew disinformation as the Tobacco companies.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by RealityCheck
a resident of another community
on Dec 6, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Perspective,

Wow, the "Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine" - sounds impressive - but not exactly! Check out their research building - looks like an old converted garage (or horse stable)! And it's address - a PO Box in some one-horse town in Oregon called Cave Junction. Real cutting-edge research being done there, no doubt!
Web Link

For more info on them check out:
Web Link

By the way, I'd say they chose their name based in part on trying to confuse people with a legitimate institute - Oregon Health & Science University.

And as far as "Junk Science" goes - it's a one-man operation by Steven Milloy who I notice is now promoting himeslf off as a "publisher" (likely because he had to self-publish his books since no one else wanted them) - he's actually a former PR hack who has created a dubious career by calling everything "junk science" and thus has "earned" a spot as a Fox News columinist (surprise, surprise).
For more info on him and "junk Science," see:
Web Link

Anyone who takes those two sources seriously has to be figuratively "deaf, dumb and blind."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by hmmm
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 7, 2007 at 6:15 pm

A quote from the site given above, which was meant to discredit the "other" petition

"Several members of the Institute's staff are also well known for their work on the Petition Project, an undertaking that has obtained the signatures of more than 19,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" and to concomitant proposals for world-wide energy taxation and rationing. The Petition Project does not utilize any Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine resources or funds. It also has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private donations by interested individuals, primarily readers of the newsletter Access to Energy that is independently published."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by dueling degrees
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 7, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Sourcewatch,by the Center for Media and Democracy, dares to say that Steve Miloy, of Junk Science, isn't actually a scientist...the only science degree he got was a BS in Natural Science ( and a Master's in Biostatistics)..
umm, can somebody please find Gore's science/mathematical degrees, any years in science?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by deaf, dumb and blind
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 7, 2007 at 6:21 pm

The "Deaf,dumb and blind" comment was such a persuasive debate technique!!


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Don't fund the rape culture at my alma mater
By Jessica T | 36 comments | 2,917 views

Quick Check List for UC Applications
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 2,065 views

Palo Alto and Bay Area Election Facts and Thoughts on the Implications
By Steve Levy | 18 comments | 1,572 views

Mothers, daughters, books, and boxes
By Sally Torbey | 4 comments | 1,207 views

Campaign Endorsements: Behind the Curtain
By Douglas Moran | 10 comments | 1,089 views