If I hadn’t been down to Crescent Con down in New Orleans a couple weeks ago, then I would simply feel badly for the folks down in the Big Easy and keep my fingers crossed for them.
But instead, for me, the Big Breezy has a very personal aspect to it now. I met hundreds of great folks down there, and now I’m worried about all of them. I find myself wondering which of them got out in plenty of time…which ones were sitting there stuck in the unmoving mass of traffic. I remember the chatty cab driver who jovially pointed out the Superdome as the place where the Saints go to lose every weekend (if I got the team wrong, cut me some slack, I’m not Mr. Football), and now I wonder if the cabbie was one of those who couldn’t afford to get out and is now huddling in that same structure for which he showed such disdain. There’s a shop in the French Quarter that sells toy soldiers that Harlan loves, and I didn’t get a chance to swing by there and buy him something while I was down there; now I wonder if it’ll still be there by morning.
Katrina has been downgraded from a category 5 to category 4 which, according to a spokesman for the National Weather Service, is like being downgraded from being hit by an 18 wheeler to being hit by a freight train.
If any of the great folks I met down there are able to, chime in here and let us know how you’re doing.
PAD
• 
Re Reagan: “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.” Believe it or not, he was partially right. In hot weather, trees release volatile organic hydrocarbons including terpenes and isoprenes – two molecules linked to photochemical smog. In very hot weather, the production of these begins to accelerate.
America’s Great Smoky Mountains are supposed to take their name from the photochemical smog released by millions of hectares of hardwoods.
“Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.”
This inspired one of my all time favorites protest posters: a guy showed up at the next Reagan rally with a large cardboard tree that had a word baloon coming out saying “Chop me before I kill again!”
“Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.”
While technically true, the statement is misleading. The statistic, I think, is that plants/trees worldwide produce more global warming associated pulltants that all the automobiles in the US do. Which is to take a larger pollutant source and spread it out over a much larger area, and then compare it to a very concentrated few sources (cities) in just one country. And it’s also a very simplistic statement, since it ignores that the ecosystem is a SYSTEM, and as such it’s designed to accomodate certain rates and concentrations of pollutants. Add in human-made pollution, and that’s going to have an impact.
“oh good, all is forgiven then. I do have one question concerning the above post. Why can’t I be both?
JAC”
Won’t argue with the sarcastic, but I think you’ve got some serious work to do before we get to labelling you a total nutjob. So chop chop! =)
Hey, I know this is the sort of stupid question that an Earth Science teacher should already know but since A- the lake is one of the things that is always threatening to flood the city and B-they need someplace to put all of the toxic sludge currently in the city, why don’t they drain the lake, thus eliminating A and fill it back up when they pump out New Orleans, thereby taking care of B.
This would leave them with a partially filled lake of poison which they could then start cleaning up. The lake should remain half field to prepare for the next big rainfall.
Ok, I know this would not work or it would have been done but why? New Orleans has the ocean, the river and the lake, all threatening to destroy it. Not much you can or should do about the first two but lakes can and have been eliminated.
Of course, this would be bad for the environment but so are levees and cities in general.
“why don’t they drain the lake”
Reasonable question. But Lake Pontchartrain is connected to the Gulf by a channel (several? can’t remember anymore). It’s also much larger than New Orleans, so draining it would require far more work/time than fixing the levees and pumping out the city.
Once things settle down I hope that people will learn from this for the next one.
For me, one thing that keeps coming around is how poorly we use the people around us who can help many others. The buses that sat unused–if the mayor of Sanford called and said “Bill, if there were ever an evacuation of Sanford, could your family leave without you and you drive one of the school buses full of evacuees to ***** (someplace presumably far the hëll away from Sanford)?” I’d be flattered and honored to say yes.
There are plenty of people here better than me, so I don’t think those buses would go driverless.
I also hope that someone comes up with a plan for people to drop their animals off at some place before a natural disaster hits, because I’ll bet a lot of the folks who stayed behind were people who refused to part with an animal that is a part of the family. Again, there would be as many, if not more, volunteers for this duty.
As an added incentive, these folks should be named ahead of time, given a dinner and award by the mayor and featured in a front page photo spread. Just in case any of the bášŧárdš think about skipping town when the poop actually hits the fan.
Anyway, that’s what I’D do if I were mayor.
“Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.”
I love this one. It ranks right up there with the other great Republican quote against environmental policies or arguments.
“One volcano puts more pollutants into the atmosphere then an entire year of U.S. industry does.” Although, depending on who is saying this one, it can vary from being one year to the entire history of U.S. industry. I picked one year for a reason though. Closer to the truth with that one.
See, and this is a fun statement to make when you want to start out the debate by screwing with the heads of both sides, both statements are 100% true.
But this is the fun thing about the truth. Half of the truth can end up going 180 degrees in the wrong direction then the complete truth. And both of those statements, while 100% true, are only 50% of a 100% truth.
The National Academy of Sciences has released several studies on the subjects. In each of these they explain that (in the shortened version) that the pollutants released by trees, volcanoes, undersea fissures and other such natural sources are “soft” pollutants (i.e. organic in composition.) When these pollutants encounter moisture in the atmosphere, they get weighted down and rarely reach the highest levels of the atmosphere. One good tropical storm will remove almost the entire discharge of a volcano overnight and the normal storm cycle of the U.S. handles the pollutants created by trees.
Industry creates what is referred to as hard pollutants (i.e. inorganic in composition.) These do not get either weighted down or broken down by atmospheric moisture and are rarely completely rained out of the atmosphere. The CFC’s found in the areas of the greatest ozone layer damage have all been hard CFC’s and the tests down on the areas where the air pollution is at its worse (outside of right after things like major fires or eruptions) show that the largest amount of pollutants causing problems for people/the environment in the air are hard pollutants.
The shorter version of all that? Natural sources do create more “pollution” then many man made sources but the man made sources do the greatest damage and cause the most harm. It’s a perverted twist on the concept of quality over quantity. Now take this bit of knowledge and go ye forth to pìšš øff some conservatives in debates. 😉
The problem is, I haven’t heard anyone say that since Reagan. Oh I’m sure people say it, but I don’t think it’s the main argument against, say, Kyoto.
That argument usually goes something more like this–to actually stop or reverse the global warming process we would have to reduce our emissions to a level that would require the elimination of our way of life. Nobody wants to give up their jobs or way of life. Any politician proposing that we do so will be bounced out in record time.
Now I’ve heard facts and figures and undoubtedly bogus claims by both sides but I wouldn’t mind being shown any decent non-spin sources that just answer the questions–What would it take to actually improve the global warming problem? Would they prevent global warming or just slow it down? How much of a change in our technology and way of life would it entail? (if the answer to the last one is “A great deal.” the next question should be “well, that isn’t going to happen so why am I wasting time talking to you.”).
Frankly, if the solutions aren’t any good I’d just as soon let things go on as they are and hope and wait for new technology to arise that WILL solve the problem. But I’m certainly willing to hear any proposals.
“What would it take to actually improve the global warming problem?”
The Fox network ha already given us the solution. All the robots must point thier exaust pipes up and discharge, thus moving the earth farther away from the sun. Failing that there is the stop gap method of harvesting a giant ice cube from a comet and dropping it in the ocean.
Someone call Plane Express STAT!
JAC
“What would it take to actually improve the global warming problem?”
Well, if it were up to me, I’d try to kill a couple of birds with one stone by making it illegal to own a vehicle over a certain weight class unless it legitimately ties into your livelihood. (Hauling, construction, etc…) Esentially, tell all the yuppie fûçkš who wouldn’t know a dirt road if it bit them in the ášš that they don’t need a Hummer. (Believe me, it’s a lot nicer than what I’d LIKE to do to them)
We’d reduce emissions, road wear, and gas comsumption.
Personally, I have ZERO sympathy for anybody who whines about “losing their way of life” when what they really mean is that they just don’t want to give up their huge-ášš status symbol SUV.
Also, we need to see more of a push for development of hydrogen powered vehicles. It’s cleaner, infinitely renewable, and (despite what opponents try to say) no more dangerous- probably even safer- than gasoline.
Personally, I have ZERO sympathy for anybody who whines about “losing their way of life” when what they really mean is that they just don’t want to give up their huge-ášš status symbol SUV.
yeah but see, this is what I mean. Eleiminate every SUV on the planet and we have really not changed global warming more than an iota. There are a lot of iota sized ideas we could do and they all add up to a large iota. But still an iota.
Also, we need to see more of a push for development of hydrogen powered vehicles. It’s cleaner, infinitely renewable, and (despite what opponents try to say) no more dangerous- probably even safer- than gasoline.
That’d be cool by me–I’m sorry people let that little accident with the Hindenberg put the kibosh on balloons (“It’s an airship!”).
But doesn’t hydrogen require that energy be used to generate the hydrogen? (I think we would get the hydrogen by breaking bonds between the Hydrogen and oxygen in water). If we all switched from oil to hydrogen, would the reduction in emmisions be enough? (keeping in mind that most of the world probably still uses wood as the main source of energy and won’t be switching to anything high tech any time soon).
Well, here’s one link I pulled off of Google…
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html
Granted, I’m far from an expert, but it seems that many of the lines of inquiry being followed currently involve use of “clean” energy sources in the harvesting of hydrogen. Of course, it will take time and further research for these methods, or others, to achieve viable consumption vs output ratios, but the same can be said of any new technology. People just need to support it now, because the potential long-term benefits are great.
The potential benefits even go beyond the environmental, considering how much socio-political crap in this country is either directly caused by or at least related to oil procurement, production, and consumption.
-Rex Hondo-
Interesting link, Rex. Thanks.
Obviously the technology has a long way to go and some seem more promising than others–hard to imagine many of them producing the mass quantities we need. But as you say, supporting it now may yield big results.
One good bit of news–while everyone hates the oil companies it is from them that I expect the real advances to come. They have no intention of going under just because their product (oil) is going to run out. Already the technology for extracting oil from shale has made tremendous strides and it will not take much more of a price increase in oil to make it economically feasible. We have something like 300 years worth of oil shale so anyone who thought they would see the energy depleted Road Warrior scenario in their lifetime will be sadly disappointed.
Ultimately I’d like to see us get off of oil entirely but it’s good to know that it’s there.
http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=44994
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts — A U.S. chemist is trying to determine how the world will produce enough energy to supply 9 billion people by mid-century — and whether that can be done without pumping off-the-charts amounts of carbon dioxide into the air.
Daniel Nocera, 48, is working to achieve an old, elusive dream: using the bountiful energy in sunlight to split water into its basic components, hydrogen and oxygen. The elements could then be used to supply clean-running fuel cells or new kinds of machinery. Or the energy created from the reaction itself, as atomic bonds are severed and re-formed, might be harnessed and stored.
There is a beautiful model for this: photosynthesis. Sunlight kickstarts a reaction in which leaves break down water and carbon dioxide and turn them into oxygen and sugar, which plants use for fuel.
But plants developed this process over billions of years, and even so, it’s technically not that efficient. Nocera and other scientists are trying to replicate that — and perhaps improve on it — in decades.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but it’s generally locked up in compounds with other elements. Currently, it is chiefly harvested from fossil fuels, whose use is the main cause of carbon dioxide emissions blamed for global warming.
Frankly, if the solutions aren’t any good I’d just as soon let things go on as they are and hope and wait for new technology to arise that WILL solve the problem. But I’m certainly willing to hear any proposals.
I’m glad you’re willing to hear proposals, but I feel like this mindset is ultimately going to be self-defeating.
I don’t know at what point a solution reaches the “not any good” stage, but from the rest of your post it sounds like any solution that (a) doesn’t solve the problem or (b) causes significant disruption to people’s lives is likely to fit the bill. (In other words, I’m hoping this isn’t taken as a straw man argument, since I think it’s your actual position. Corrections welcome.)
If I’m right in those assumptions, then you’ve essentially set yourself up to say that NO solution is any good, and that we should keep waiting until technology lets us come up with a perfect one. The problem with that is twofold: first, there’s never going to be a perfect one; and second, the less we do now the worse the problem gets, meaning that a later solution has to be even better.
I’m not that much of an idealist, particularly when it comes to the assumption that technology will eventually fix everything. I think we’re honor-bound to our kids to do as much as is feasible now, just in case the tech doesn’t come through — and so that if it does, they don’t have to pull off one of those James-Bond-defuses-the-bomb-with-007-seconds-left-on-the-clock deals.
At a friggin’ minimum, MPG standards for cars and trucks should be set far, far, far higher than they currently are. That’s something we’ve got the technology to achieve now without a whole lot of effort, and it’s borderline criminal how much the lower standards are costing us environmentally, economically, and from a foreign-policy standpoint.
TWL
And on a different note, anyone who isn’t reading Bryan Lambert’s “You Are Dumb” column should be. A sample is at the below link: yes, it’s political at times, but it’s also uproariously funny, IMO.
http://www.youaredumb.net/archive/2005/9/2
TWL
Tim,
We are in absolute agreement on MPG standards. At the very least, any car not meeting reasonable standards should have a special tax plunked on it, the proceeds going to research in alternative energy.
I don’t know at what point a solution reaches the “not any good” stage, but from the rest of your post it sounds like any solution that (a) doesn’t solve the problem or (b) causes significant disruption to people’s lives is likely to fit the bill. (In other words, I’m hoping this isn’t taken as a straw man argument, since I think it’s your actual position. Corrections welcome.)
Well, here’s the thing–any solution that causes major disruption AND doesn’t even solve the problem is a waste of time talking about because–and I use capital letters here to emphasize how much I know this is true–THERE IS NO WAY IT WILL EVER BE IMPLEMENTED. Imagine a congressman pr senator trying to sell some Kyoto style law that essentially says “Ok folks, we have to close down this factory and ration gasoline and we’re switching to 4 day work weeks (with a 20% drop in salaries, natch) and really, it isn’t going to make any likely change in the result but at least we are doing something to—” (at this point, Senator Pete Tagliani was cut off as an angry mob burned him in Effigy. The mayor of Effigy was said to be upset.)
The point is, unless people are sure that their sacrifice will make a difference, they will not stand for it. period. So I don’t see the point of wishing it were different. If we all lived like Hobbits life would be grand but it would take a plague with about 95% fatality to get us down to a population level that would allow that to happen.
And just to tie it in to today’s news–if people were willing to do what is REALLY needed to put a dent in the global warming problem would we be seriously even THINKING about rebuilding a city? We would be thinking about dismantling the ones that nature has not already destroyed for us.
One other thing–since USA citizens produce far more greenhouse gases than most people it would be a valuable thing environmentally to reduce or at least freeze the population. Since our birthrate is actually low the only option is to eliminate immigration. In fact, according to some graphs I have seen our population may have actually dropped at some point in this century were it not for immigrants.
Now from my own point of view, this is ok–it’s a bad thing economically to have a shrinking population (Europe and Japan are demographic time bombs). But from an environmental aspect, eliminating illegal immigration would be potentially more valuable than any MPG standard we could achieve. Are environmentalists prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Pat Buchanans of the world?
One last point (and Tim, please believe that I’m writing this not to score points or beat you in a game of wits–I make it a point never to do that with people who can teach Physics. 🙂 I’ve got kids who will long outlive me, God willing, and I’d like them to have a life as good or better than mine, so it behooves me to try to keep things from going downhill). I know that trusting in future technology can be an easy way to hide your head in the sand and go on blithely çráppìņg on the planet, secure in the notion that some future scientist will clean up the mess. At the same time–let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. A significant reduction in industrial technology might not register more than a blip on the total environment but it could significantly delay some of the future technologies and inventions that will really solve the problem.
As much as we all like to hate Big Business, I expect that if anyone invents a car that runs on hydrogen (or stupidity) it will probably be as a result of research going on at Ford or Chrysler.
“We have something like 300 years worth of oil shale so anyone who thought they would see the energy depleted Road Warrior scenario in their lifetime will be sadly disappointed.”
WELL CRAP! All that money on the black market, wasted! Now what will I do with these anti personnel vehicle mounted rockets? sigh, Oh well, I guess I can only hope Skynet becomes operational soon.
JAC
oops double clicked…. sorry
JAC
“If we all lived like Hobbits life would be grand but it would take a plague with about 95% fatality to get us down to a population level that would allow that to happen.”
Shut up! Bush might think thats a great idea, and put someone on that! Don’t let him hear!
JAC
Now what will I do with these anti personnel vehicle mounted rockets?
Jeff, if you have to have me tell you how you can have fun with an anti personnel vehicle mounted rocket you really need to get out more. Hëll, just point it in any random direction and pull the trigger.
Actually, maybe you should just send it to me. I promise I’ll put it to good use. Kenny G is gonna have a concert in Raleigh…
Jeff, if you have to have me tell you how you can have fun with an anti personnel vehicle mounted rocket you really need to get out more. Hëll, just point it in any random direction and pull the trigger.
Actually, maybe you should just send it to me. I promise I’ll put it to good use. Kenny G is gonna have a concert in Raleigh…
Hey! Wait until we squeeze some money from him! (He’s a UW alum who hasn’t given anything to the alma mater yet….)
You know, while everyone’s favorite sport the past few days – from politicians to the media – seems to be “Who to blame?”, I for one would rather give credit where it is due at this point and focus on the extraordinary efforts of those saving people from the roofs of their homes, the generousity of people who have not only donated money but opened up their homes to strangers in a time of need. I met a woman last night who is from Louisiana and says she despises Bush, but was tired of the focus being on blaming him. She says she knows people personally who simply refised to leave. She is also having 13 evacuees stay at her house. That is the type of memory I will make sure to remember when I think of this. While I will never understand those that would fire upon those trying to fix the levee, what will dominate my thoughts is how New Orleans truly has become “America’s City” this past week; how the people – even though the media and Al Sharptons insist on playing the race card – of this country viewed those evacuating and in need of help as Americans, how everyone from corporations to faith-based organiztions to the Average Joe have decided that they want to do whatever they can.
In so many ways, this disaster has brought out the best in us. It would do well for us to realize and remember that while we complete the task at hand and make dámņ sure it doesn’t happen again.
Jerome, while I agree with you–the unrestrained glee with which some folks immediately began the blame game tells us a lot about them–there is no question that heads should role. Firing the head of FEMA during the crisis would be foolish but Mr Wolf should expect to be cleaning out his desk shortly. I’ll wait and see before saying the same about Chertoff at Homeland Security. And it’s up to the people of New Orleans to remember what the mayor and governor did come next election time. (Boy, does Guilliani look better and better. If there’s one thing a mayor should know it’s that you make dámņ sure that you are the LAST one out, not one of the first.)
Bush will have to take his lumps for appointing Brown to FEMA and just hope that his critics will overreach and try to pin too much blame on him, resulting in a backlash. Fortunately for him, they probably can’t help themselves.
None of this has exactly filled me with confidence regarding our ability to respond to the next terrorist attack. Of course, I never had much confidence to start with–the last good idea I heard from those guys was to buy duct tape and they got reamed in the press for it.
(Safety Tip form Cap’n Bill: there are very very few situations that are not improved by your having duct tape. Bear attacks. Broken car windows. release of Anthrax spores. Falling posters. Even leaky ducts.)
Out of curiosity, I did the math. Let’s say there were 100,000 people who had no means of transportation to get out of the city. And lets say, on average, a bus carries 50 people. That is 2,000 buses needed to evacuate the city. Hate to say it, but that is a logistical nightmare on a good day, much less when 300,000 people are in cars also trying to escape.
Let’s say there are 10,000 people stuck at the Superdome. Even if you cram 100 per bus, that is still 100 buses you need, and the number would most likely be closer to 200 buses. Buses that have fuel, etc. Obviously that is a huge amount.
My point? The logisitics involved in this are quite overwhelming, to say the least. It will be interesting to see what we could have done better — and clearly, there is a lot of room for improvement. But even on a good day this would be a nightmare to oversee. And that is just simply evacuating people.
I am glad to hear of the overwhelming support that is coming from the average person. I have a friend in Alabama who is using the trucks for his business transport supplies for free. The son of another friend has flown to Texas to help a church that is helping feed the 10,000 in the Astrodome. And the list goes on. As much as the government may have failed in some form or fashion, it is good to hear of those who are not waiting for the government to figure out what to do next. They are jumping in there and helping, doing what needs to be done. You may see hints of it in the news, but far more is going on than is being reported. Guess it is not as good of a story as someone bashing Bush or some other government official.
Iowa Jim
I’m on record for wanting heads from local to federal….and Chertoff is one of them. On MEET THE PRESS, he was continuing to insist that nobody expected the levees to breach after the storm (obviously thought he was off the clock after the storm passed) and that he and his subordinates gave the Superbowl a second thought even though they knew it was a last resort gathering spot for refugees [they had apparently prestaged a great deal of food and water but didn’t think to send any there]. From what I can tell, their performance under the gun was on the same level as the local authorities.
Out of curiosity, I did the math. Let’s say there were 100,000 people who had no means of transportation to get out of the city. And lets say, on average, a bus carries 50 people. That is 2,000 buses needed to evacuate the city. Hate to say it, but that is a logistical nightmare on a good day, much less when 300,000 people are in cars also trying to escape.
Let’s say there are 10,000 people stuck at the Superdome. Even if you cram 100 per bus, that is still 100 buses you need, and the number would most likely be closer to 200 buses. Buses that have fuel, etc. Obviously that is a huge amount.
My point? The logisitics involved in this are quite overwhelming, to say the least. It will be interesting to see what we could have done better — and clearly, there is a lot of room for improvement. But even on a good day this would be a nightmare to oversee. And that is just simply evacuating people.
I am glad to hear of the overwhelming support that is coming from the average person. I have a friend in Alabama who is using the trucks for his business transport supplies for free. The son of another friend has flown to Texas to help a church that is helping feed the 10,000 in the Astrodome. And the list goes on. As much as the government may have failed in some form or fashion, it is good to hear of those who are not waiting for the government to figure out what to do next. They are jumping in there and helping, doing what needs to be done. You may see hints of it in the news, but far more is going on than is being reported. Guess it is not as good of a story as someone bashing Bush or some other government official.
Iowa Jim
Out of curiosity, I did the math. Let’s say there were 100,000 people who had no means of transportation to get out of the city. And lets say, on average, a bus carries 50 people. That is 2,000 buses needed to evacuate the city. Hate to say it, but that is a logistical nightmare on a good day, much less when 300,000 people are in cars also trying to escape.
Let’s say there are 10,000 people stuck at the Superdome. Even if you cram 100 per bus, that is still 100 buses you need, and the number would most likely be closer to 200 buses. Buses that have fuel, etc. Obviously that is a huge amount.
My point? The logisitics involved in this are quite overwhelming, to say the least. It will be interesting to see what we could have done better — and clearly, there is a lot of room for improvement. But even on a good day this would be a nightmare to oversee. And that is just simply evacuating people.
Yeah, a mess….but then again, that’s why you make plans so you can solve these problems ahead of time.
[On the other hand, I’ve heard that there was no way to undertake a forced evacuation without the backup of lots of National Guard to enforce it, which has its own problems….]
I’d like to know who was behind the evacuation plan. It was apparently outsourced to a private company, but I don’t know who’s behind that company…
the last good idea I heard from those guys was to buy duct tape and they got reamed in the press for it.
In all fairness, I think the reason they got reamed was that this was their only piece of advance to the public.
Jim, your numbers are great back of the envelop calculations. Of course, you can cut the number in half if you assume that the buses can take two trips. More if the evacuation site is about 60 miles from downtown and you have enough advance warning to plan for multiple trips.
This is one of many things that people pay taxes for. The idea that a below sea level city on top of a swamp could experience a major is a known possible disaster, not (as Bush and Brownie seem to have thought), something no one could have conceived of.
Given the fact that a failure of the levees was talked about as far back as 1975, the fact that city and state officials did not have an evacuation contingency plan in place is inexcusable. I don’t see any of this a placing blame, simply acknowledging that the people of New Orleans and then country in general need to learn from this lesson and demand better from our elected officials.
Somebody was tallying up the gaffes. I doubt that this is exhaustive…
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/025267.php#025267
Hi y’all,
For those who think hydrogen will get us out of global warming, go over to sci.energy.hydrogen for a rude awakening. Hydrogen cars are just a boondoggle for extracting grant and subsidy money from the guv’mint. Just call them a pollution multiplier, and you have the gist of it!
BTW, I have been in a disaster or two, Northridge and the Santa Barbara wildfires, and I think I know one of the reasons for the problems in NO. The folks that evacuated were the very ones that usually mobilize and help during an emergency!
The folks that were left were the ones that DON’T do things. Due to illness, disability, lack of resources or ambition, they remained behind while all the good and decent, capable folk followed recomendations and got out. The ones left behind often had a mindset of “Take care of me!” They followed instructions of “Go here for us to take care of you” and they did. Then, the problem was, there were no resources at those sites to handle the problem.
Well, Charlie, I tried several variations of the address or partial address that you posted and none of them worked.
The main problem with hydrogen is that it takes energy to produce it by separated it from oxygen in water. Some have proposed setting up solar plants in the deserts of California and Arizon where it’s sunny all year round to generate the electricity. Water would be piped in from the coast for electrolysis. The problem is liquifying it under pressure requires even more energy.
It could be done, but it would require a massive investment in our infrastructure to convert all of our gas stations to hydrogen stations. So we’ll just have to see if the engineering problems can be overcome to make it economically feasible.
I got to something that seemed to be talking about some of the perils associated with hydrogen fuel cells, among them that the conversion to energy ends up removing oxygen from the air, and locking it in water. I’m way too far removed from my chemistry lessons, but there was some chat on CharlieE’s site about how oxygen in water doesn’t get back into the air for us to breathe.
I don’t really see how that’s an issue. When you use electrolysis to separate hydrogen and oxygen in water, the oxygen is released to the air. When hyrdorgen reacts with oxygen by combustion or in a fuel cell, the same amoung of oxygen is consumed, recreating the water, so the net balance of oxygen in the air would remain unchanged.
BTW, what URL did you use to visit Charlie’s site? I got tired of guessing what the complete address was after .com, .net, and .org all failed.
I just cut and paste what he posted into the yahoo search, and then jumped to the first or second hit that came up on the search. It was clunky, but I wanted to see what the negatives were about it. I found it hard to believe that such a huge negative could have been hidden from the public, or that scientists would avdocate fuel cells as an alternative energy source if it posed a threat to all life on earth.
I also didn’t exactly buy the “eliminate oxygen from the air FOREVER!” claims, since, well, if it really were a closed/one-way system, we’d all be gasping for air sooner or later.
I had the great pleasure of meeting the David Family at CCC this year and I live in the Lake view area of New Orleans…Right no a literal lake thanks to the levee Break. I think, from the photos that I have seen, that we lost everything. Over thirty years of collections and the memories that go with them. It breaks my heart. We are luckier than a lot of people. My wife and I are okay and as long as we have life, we have hope.
Blame makes for great rattings for the news nets and I think there is enough to go around. Right now, what I would like to do most is go home, and start to rebuild. I want to thank everyone who has been kind and thoughtful during this time. I hope people save their angier to a time when they can make sure that our goverment is orginized enough to make the aftermath less tradgic for those people who have the misfortune to not have the resources to flee a storm like this one.
Frank Schiavo
Den, I assume Charlie’s referring to a Usenet group. Go over to groups.google.com and put in the group name — that should work. I haven’t tested it myself and don’t have time to at the moment, but that’s my best guess.
(And Bill, I do plan to respond to your post upthread, tonight if possible.)
TWL
Well, the good news today is that we learned where ol’ George gets it from:
“Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them,” (Barbara) Bush told American Public Media’s “Marketplace” program.
Man, I wish I could be such a heartless bìŧçh after such a tragedy. It might just get me elected to public office.
Ugh. Now I remember why I stopped going to Usenet groups back in college, and that was the darks when Usenet was the be all and end all of internet discussion.
As far as “rude awakenings” go, there seemed to be more flaming at the groups I skimmed through rather than intelligent discussions.
The “eliminate all oxygen from the earth forever” argument sounds like a paranoid lunatic fantasy. After all, we’ve burn thousands tons of oil, coal, and natural gas every year, all of which remove oxygen from the atmosphere – faster in fact than the plants can convert the CO2 released back into O2, as evidenced by the increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere measured over the last 50+ years.
I guess living on cots in a crowded arena with no water, no food and no sewage or trash removal is okay if you’re poor and therefore used to it.
At least Bar didn’t say, “let them eat cake.”
Frank, I’m very sorry to hear of your losses and glad to hear that you and your wife are physically ok.
Fred
I’ll second that, Fred. I can’t imagine what your situation feels like, Frank, but I wish you and your wife all possible good luck.
Given the fact that a failure of the levees was talked about as far back as 1975, the fact that city and state officials did not have an evacuation contingency plan in place is inexcusable. I don’t see any of this a placing blame, simply acknowledging that the people of New Orleans and then country in general need to learn from this lesson and demand better from our elected officials.
Valid point that busses could have taken multiple trips, but that does not negate how many trips it would have taken.
There are published reports that there WAS a plan and it was not followed. It is documented that it took the governor until Thursday to sign an order to allow school buses to be used.
I do think it is way too early to point fingers. But if you want a somewhat unbiased view of what happened, the BBC website has some interesting facts:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4216508.stm
Iowa Jim
Nah, it’s not too early to point fingers…cause they’re gonna be pointing at EVERYONE.
And I think one BIG thing to point at is the insistence on following bureacratic forms and protocol in the face of an emergency on the part of lower and middle management. Not a lot of common sense here; I think it took so long for the governor to sign the order because she probably thought it didn’t NEED an order–just the common sense God gave a turnip to go out there and get the buses. Similiarly, a lot of the delay in getting some National Guard and equipment there was that they were waiting on paperwork to be signed and they were following post 9/11 security screening measures [until someone had the bright idea of issuing an order to allow visual and manual searches].
And let’s not get into the turf wars….
I think it took so long for the governor to sign the order because she probably thought it didn’t NEED an order
I doubt it. Politicians tend to know EXACTLY what they’re powers are and are loath to give it up. Interestingly, even the mayor is now turning on the Governor (although I think that the mayor should probably shut up–he’s the one who best knows his city and should have had the people in place to get the buses to higher ground, not to mention better stuff at the Dome. Telling people that they had to expect to be “on their own” for 3 or 4 days is ridiculous, at least when the alternative would not be that hard to do.
Frank Schiavo– my condolences on your losses. Look, I know this is probably way way down on the list of things to worry about but when you get resettled and want to start rebuilding that lost collection, send me an e-mail. (along these lines, wouldn’t it be cool if there was a place we could send comics to all those kids hanging out in refugee centers. Yes, yes, I KNOW they really need food water and clothes and I’m not saying don’t send those as well but wouldn’t it be smart of Marvel or DC to send some stuff to keep the kids occupied?
Bill:
>Frank Schiavo– my condolences on your losses. Look, I know this is probably way way down on the list of things to worry about but when you get resettled and want to start rebuilding that lost collection, send me an e-mail. (along these lines, wouldn’t it be cool if there was a place we could send comics to all those kids hanging out in refugee centers. Yes, yes, I KNOW they really need food water and clothes and I’m not saying don’t send those as well but wouldn’t it be smart of Marvel or DC to send some stuff to keep the kids occupied?
Agreed. Bill, if you have any interest in pursuing this, I have a huge number of comics that I’d send to wherever.
Fred
Bill,
A response, as promised — whew!
We are in absolute agreement on MPG standards. At the very least, any car not meeting reasonable standards should have a special tax plunked on it, the proceeds going to research in alternative energy.
Careful — isn’t that big bad social engineering? 🙂
More seriously, that sounds like a reasonable plan to me.
I don’t know at what point a solution reaches the “not any good” stage, but from the rest of your post it sounds like any solution that (a) doesn’t solve the problem or (b) causes significant disruption to people’s lives is likely to fit the bill. (In other words, I’m hoping this isn’t taken as a straw man argument, since I think it’s your actual position. Corrections welcome.)
Well, here’s the thing–any solution that causes major disruption AND doesn’t even solve the problem is a waste of time talking about because–and I use capital letters here to emphasize how much I know this is true–THERE IS NO WAY IT WILL EVER BE IMPLEMENTED.
I agree with that, but you’re not quite answering the situation I addressed. You’re discussing a proposal that causes disruption AND doesn’t solve the problem, whereas I was discussing the OR option. Significant different, in my opinion.
You’re right, of course, in that a draconian proposal which can’t promise definite results is a dead bill — but I think there are certainly middle-ground areas between your scenario and a bill that does nothing but nibble ’round the edges. Our agreement on MPG standards is proof enough of that.
One other thing–since USA citizens produce far more greenhouse gases than most people it would be a valuable thing environmentally to reduce or at least freeze the population.
Perhaps, but that argument can be turned around as well. Given that Americans are one of the biggest per-capita producers of greenhouse gases AND that there are so many of us, even incremental changes in our behavior to reduce production could have a significant effect. Having each person do X could have a lot more global impact if “each person” refers to every American as opposed to, say, every native of Luxembourg.
I know that trusting in future technology can be an easy way to hide your head in the sand and go on blithely çráppìņg on the planet, secure in the notion that some future scientist will clean up the mess. At the same time–let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. A significant reduction in industrial technology might not register more than a blip on the total environment but it could significantly delay some of the future technologies and inventions that will really solve the problem.
Stated that way, your point is certainly valid — but the worry is how easily that can be used as an excuse. If *any* act putting the brakes on industry or technology can be shot down with “how do you know this isn’t the path to a future tech that will solve the problem?”, then the overall effect is likely going to make things worse in the short term and dicey in the long.
I think it’s an issue of coming up with sensible regulations. By “sensible” I think I mean “utterly out of the hands of politicians who know nothing about science, which is to say most of them.”
Side note, but one related to the core thread here: the president of the university where Lisa’s working just gave her start-of-the-year talk yesterday, and talked a fair bit about the Gulf Coast. She said a number of things, some of which showed her to be very human and not just someone mouthing platitudes … but the big thing that got Lisa’s attention was something like this:
“People ask how we can go about our daily business in light of all this. Our business is education, which means we are the long-term solution. We’re the ones training the scientists who can help create better forecasts, engineers who can predict and solve problems further in advance, and politicians who can learn enough science to stop being stupid and learn from these mistakes.”
I was impressed, even second-hand.
As much as we all like to hate Big Business, I expect that if anyone invents a car that runs on hydrogen (or stupidity) it will probably be as a result of research going on at Ford or Chrysler.
I’ve got my doubts about Ford, since if memory serves one of their execs is the one who said in an interview that he didn’t believe fossil fuels were millions of years old in the first place — but Chrysler maybe. I’d be more likely to bet on someone like Toyota, though.
TWL