Natural Swimming Pools: A Guide to Building (Hardcover)
The Woodland House Just £14.00
Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 30 of 39
Posted By: tonyI saw this phrase in an article the other week end "Sustainable use of fossil fuels"For me it is the final nail in the coffin of the "S" word. rendering it meaningless -- we need a new word if it can be used like thathttp:///forum114/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/cry.gif" alt="" title="" >
Posted By: SteamyTeaNothing is sustainable
Posted By: SteamyTeaSecond Law of Thermodynamics. Everything cools and eventually stops moving, just the way it is.
Posted By: SeretDivide the total amount of coal in the world by the amount of time it takes to form and that's the sustainable rate.
Posted By: SteamyTeacalculate how long humans will be on the Earth ... how long should we sustain sustainability
Posted By: SteamyTeaIs it written in stone that 'sustainable' must include all future generations or is that just one definition.
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Posted By: BrianwilsonLocal Authorities are rushing into EfW claiming sustainable energy
Posted By: SeretIt's the generally accepted definition from the Brundtland Commission:
Posted By: fostertomSo is it just about the comfort and convenience of humans, and hang the rest? Even ignoring that as an ethical question, what makes us think that we can succeed at anything as long as we see ourselves as somehow separate from the rest in that way? Complete delusion.
Posted By: SteamyTeaWe can use a lot of stuff at the beginning and ration out the rest later on, or ration right from the start
Posted By: fostertomSo is it just about the comfort and convenience of humans, and hang the rest?
Posted By: SteamyTeaNot really about comfort and convenience, just seems to be a natural order of things.
Posted By: fostertomRight there is the assumption that any human activity can only deplete a resource, and the only question is how fast. Why are humans the only species for whom that is inevitable, a given?
Posted By: fostertomOn whose watch will the bets start to fall in
Posted By: SteamyTeaOn whose watch will the bets start to fall inOn a future generation ... that may or may not exist
On whose watch will the bets start to fall in
Posted By: SteamyTeaa future generation
Posted By: SteamyTeaMy two favourite economic theories
Posted By: fostertomSurely we aren't betting on that outcome, and how should that possibility influence what we do now?
Posted By: fostertomor does economics not have a view on such 'soft' matters?
Posted By: SteamyTeaI just stick to supply and demand and division of labour as the key theories when it comes to energy policy
Posted By: Sereteconomics is humanity. Its basically the study of human behaviour
Posted By: SeretAny sensible long term economic view will consider the affect of environmental damage. We already do this to a degree, for things like factoring damage to forests into the external costs of coal.
Posted By: fostertomIf by that you mean 'all significant/important aspects human behaviour', then that's dangerously wrong.
Posted By: SteamyTeaThey often fit quite well too.
© Green Building Press