Mike Raiford wrote:
> Haha. What?

Been to Europe lately? You know, Venice sinking into the water, statues 
being moved inside because acid rain is melting them, etc?

I will say that LA is the only city I've been in that was as close to 
being as polluted as Paris and Beijing were when I was there. And that's 
because LA is in a big natural bowl and had awful air pollution even 
before Christopher Columbus got to the New World. (The native americans 
called it "the valley of smoke" because all the smoke from forest fires 
would end up settling there.)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Haha. What?
> 
> Been to Europe lately? You know, Venice sinking into the water, statues 
> being moved inside because acid rain is melting them, etc?
> 

I haven't actually, but yeah, thought it might have something to do with 
acid rain, but also figured that was a worldwide thing.

> I will say that LA is the only city I've been in that was as close to 
> being as polluted as Paris and Beijing were when I was there. And that's 
> because LA is in a big natural bowl and had awful air pollution even 
> before Christopher Columbus got to the New World. (The native americans 
> called it "the valley of smoke" because all the smoke from forest fires 
> would end up settling there.)
> 

Heh, I remember the first time I landed in LA, I immediately noticed the 
yellowish smog layer over the entire valley.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Personally, I have no idea what a "PO number" is.
> 
> This is actually useful to know if you're ever going to work for 
> yourself.

I'm not. (Obviously. My skills are in technology, not business.)

> It's a good thing to know, because if there's one thing I've learned 
> working as a small consultant to big companies is this: If you don't 
> have a PO# before you go to work, it will take you six months to get 
> paid, if ever. If you *do* have a PO#, you mail the bill to the 
> accounting department, and they pay it. If you *don't*, you mail the 
> bill to the guy who hired you, who sits on it because paying you isn't 
> his job, until you send it again, and again, and finally start tacking 
> on finance charges and CC'ing the accounting department, at which point 
> the accounting department goes "Finance charges??" and things start 
> moving again.

Hahahaha... PWNED!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> We already reduce carbon emissions ourselves. We just don't want 
> outsiders telling us the only way to do it is to use less energy.

Right. Because it's *completely* possible to waste energy yet still have 
low emissions... wait, WTF?

> Hey, *our* country isn't the one where the buildings are all melting.

Now to me, this just comes across as typical arrogant American. I'm sure 
it wasn't ment to be...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Heh, I remember the first time I landed in LA, I immediately noticed the 
> yellowish smog layer over the entire valley.

To be fair, there's yellowish smog over many cities these days, usually 
as seen from the top of the bridges coming into the city. LA is the 
reason california passed stricter car pollution laws than anyone else in 
the world 20 years ago.  Japan had to tool up whole new production lines 
just for California's pollution controls.

So, yeah, we're working on it. One problem is that Kyoto doesn't put 
limits on pollution, but on energy use. If you find a way to burn coal 
completely without pollution, you're still screwed.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> We already reduce carbon emissions ourselves. We just don't want 
>> outsiders telling us the only way to do it is to use less energy.
> 
> Right. Because it's *completely* possible to waste energy yet still have 
> low emissions... wait, WTF?

Um, yes, it is. Hydroelectrics? Nuclear? Etc?

>> Hey, *our* country isn't the one where the buildings are all melting.
> 
> Now to me, this just comes across as typical arrogant American. I'm sure 
> it wasn't ment to be...

Actually, it's a personal observation. I've traveled a lot compared to 
most Europeans, and most places I've been are more polluted than most 
places I've been in the USA. London was actually pretty good, tho.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

>> Right. Because it's *completely* possible to waste energy yet still 
>> have low emissions... wait, WTF?
> 
> Um, yes, it is. Hydroelectrics? Nuclear? Etc?

You actually think hydroelectrics could produce that much energy?

Mind you, you guys have Texas and Arisona... maybe a few solar panels 
could do something interesting?

>>> Hey, *our* country isn't the one where the buildings are all melting.
>>
>> Now to me, this just comes across as typical arrogant American. I'm 
>> sure it wasn't ment to be...
> 
> Actually, it's a personal observation. I've traveled a lot compared to 
> most Europeans, and most places I've been are more polluted than most 
> places I've been in the USA. London was actually pretty good, tho.

Isn't the USA several hundred times larger than the whole of Europe put 
together? (And a few thousand years newer too?)

I've always disliked how polluted London is. Mind you, I haven't seen 
that many other places...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Right. Because it's *completely* possible to waste energy yet still 
>>> have low emissions... wait, WTF?
>>
>> Um, yes, it is. Hydroelectrics? Nuclear? Etc?
> 
> You actually think hydroelectrics could produce that much energy?

It does appear to be a relatively small percentage, I'll grant you. 
However, that's not the point, really.

> Isn't the USA several hundred times larger than the whole of Europe put 
> together? (And a few thousand years newer too?)

GIYF. "Size of europe" first hit.  (Kind of funny, that.)
http://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htm

Not "several hundred", but a fair amount larger, depending on what you 
count as "Europe". If you count the whole continent, Europe is somewhat 
larger than the whole USA, but by less than the size of Alaska.

> I've always disliked how polluted London is. Mind you, I haven't seen 
> that many other places...

London was actually pretty clean when I was there.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Hey, *our* country isn't the one where the buildings are all melting.
> 
> Now to me, this just comes across as typical arrogant American. I'm sure
> it wasn't ment to be...

Even though the fact alone is obviously true (they aren't melting), I think
his "so why should I care" tone was actually sarcastic :)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Even though the fact alone is obviously true (they aren't melting),

I don't know what you mean, there. Certainly in some places the 
stonework is indeed melting, quite literally. Including both Venice and 
Rome.

> I think
> his "so why should I care" tone was actually sarcastic :)

Actually, I was expressing the fact that there was also the arrogance of 
people trying to tell a soverign country how it should run its affairs 
and then getting pissy when Congress voted against it. (And indeed voted 
against it in 1986, years and years before Kyoto itself was proposed.)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message