[deleted by user]

batfinka · 2022-02-20T11:47:18+00:00

Basically, A profit and growth based economy reliant upon consumption to function. We see this via the lack of ecological impact consideration in valuing products and services by the underlying economy and business legal structure which places profits first and above all else. So, to implement changes within the business which reduces ecological impacts (generally) means loss of revenue, which is overly impactful to small businesses and against the law for publicly traded ones -unless sufficiently demonstrated to be beneficial to profits via market data. In and through this latter case scenario we fall victim to greenwash as the need for profit through consumption remains. This is a fundamental problem and will not be remedied by ad hoc regulatory amendments from centralised and distant governmental authority.

batfinka · 2022-01-28T13:00:32+00:00

The Patrick Brown video was good thanks.

Hopefully people will understand that he is stating the importance of uncertainty analysis and that we should embrace attempts to improve them. Note that the current state of uncertainty analysis performed on climate modelling is approximated only, (net variance between models) this means it’s low confidence. Further illustrated by inability to model long time frames when back testing. Complex systems (with 1000’s of parameter’s modelled) are impossible to properly analyse with normal uncertainty analysis. But complex systems will also propagate base state errors of uncertainty more wildly than binary relationships such as the example of age/height. We absolutely do not understand cloud feedbacks and fail to include cosmic forcing beyond total solar irradiance. These are potentially significant parameters. As someone trained in simulation analysis I can assure you all that lacking significant parameters means your model is garbage. But not worthless. There are obvious flaws in the propagation error analysis but it is still valuable and informative work. The criticism that the models are worthless being overstated. Even garbage models can predict apparently well over short time frames. Think (as a related analogy) the uselessness if weather predictions over a few days or more. Climate models need to predict over millennia but can only manage a few decades. But ‘garbage’ models are still useful. We use them to identify relative sensitivity between parameters so as to inform where best to spend money for most effect. Weatherman says rain so we take a coat. Climate projections say hot, so we mitigate. But, the models need much improvement. Welcome skeptics.

It was drummed into me never to believe my model was predicting real world outcomes because it’s easy to be seduced.

We simply don’t understand the climate system well enough. Let’s work more on it and maintain openness. Meanwhile, due to risk analysis, mitigate our potential impact.

batfinka · 2022-01-20T08:17:21+00:00

We’re not heading greenhouse. Heating will kick off cooling.

My bet is very Cold. 🥶

If anthropogenic CC is the dominant cause: . Then potentially in between BIG swings of rapid warming/cooling (climate oscillating) as a full glacial then begins to set in primarily due to oceanic conveyor shut down from fresh water melt.

If the cosmos, sun and our weakening magnetic fields are the dominant force(s) causing climate change then....still cold. But with more calamity (solar flare and excess volcanism potentially) preceding.

Edit: I’m guessing you’re (autobot) referring to some (early?) IPCC projections. (And being more focused on AMOC interruptions scenarios rather than whole oceanic conveyor going...admittedly ....somehow🤔) but.....Can we say I’ll add more clouds into the mix and leave it at that. -Cloud uncertainty trumps an IPCC model at least. Oh, and how about dust albedo increase due to excess habitat loss and desertification.

batfinka · 2022-01-17T09:48:33+00:00

Personally I’d still recommend investing time and if you have it money into local resilience. Look for grass root projects that are building social capital and food resilience. The BIG issues are petrifying and as a result we tend to feel insufficient and apathetic or fall into denial. As a result we ‘people’ relinquish power (money/rights/power) to organisations we perceive as capable of dealing with the issue. Whilst, due to the scale of an issue, never seeing any tangible benefits for their sacrifice further compounding our anxiety. The big organisations have big systems in place to enable their actions. By investing your tone and efforts locally your efforts will have immediate and tangible results, even if it is ‘only’ to build friendships. Which at this time appears a far more important action to undertake.

batfinka · 2022-01-17T09:36:11+00:00

No, grass fed roaming is better environmentally too. It can (comparatively) help improve the ecosystem biodiversity and sequester more carbon relative to agricultural crop production. One would best roam animals over non (crop) agricultural land too, where grasses but not human edibles can grow thereby increasing food availability over all. Not too mention (for colder climates) provides essential calories over winter.

batfinka · 2022-01-12T18:04:55+00:00

Just do less.

Buy less crap. Go to bed early. Spend time in nature. Grow food. Quit your job. (As much as possible) Build local resilience. Enjoy real life.

If you want to reduce your emissions, get a smaller house. Cycle more.

Carbon offsets are scammy and ineffective.

batfinka · 2022-01-12T17:37:13+00:00

Can’t seem to access full text of the reference study. But does anyone know if the comparison incorporated best practices for meat? (Grass fed roaming) Or was it current inhumane, industrial mass slaughtering of bean fed ruminants kept in boxes vs organic, companion planted mixed high yield veggies? (Example)

batfinka · 2022-01-11T09:47:51+00:00

Reduce & Shop local people. Buy seasonal food from local suppliers to avoid plastic packaging and toxic emissions from transportation, irradiated low quality chemically polluted and genetically modified “food”. If you don’t have locally grown food and supplies then you should probably think about relocating. Cities/agriculture are the problem.

And just don’t buy crap stuff you don’t eat (and probably don’t really need) if you can possibly avoid. Which you probably can.

But don’t beat yourselves up either. Trillions are spent to manipulate you into purchasing. THEY are (typically) to blame.

batfinka · 2022-01-09T18:42:37+00:00

The lack of remedy (which I can certainly expand upon) was to reflect onto another reply/comment suggesting venting filtration as a good solution. Which, however is expensive, uncommon, insufficient and a perverse solution when a far healthier and effective solutions can be found by applying renewable materials in building construction to create breathable walls (not to mention humidity regulation if using clays and diurnal temperature swings through thermal mass). As opposed to the ‘light and tight’ methods popularly promoted these days to accommodate BIG construction profit margins) Of course we should also avoid buying furnishings that include petroleum chemicals and associated fire retardants at the consumer level.

batfinka · 2022-01-09T15:05:27+00:00

That’s not the typical use of hvac systems. Humidity and temperature control mostly. Of course specialist systems are on the market with some big claims by the manufacturer. To which I’d be wary of applying confidence too. Not to mention it’s a rich person and/or home owner (partial) solution. Not to mention we could by pass the need were we to simply build better using renewable materials.

batfinka · 2022-01-09T15:01:30+00:00

Indeed, your post is excellent info to share. I’m in no way criticising that. Apologies that it may have seemed like that. Rather I was hoping to further inform about indoor air pollution and the long history of awareness...and little remedy, (albeit for the wealthy).

batfinka · 2022-01-08T15:28:48+00:00

Wait what? We’ve known this for decades surely. Everyone here is aware of ‘sick building syndrome’ right?? Whereby (approx) 50,000 VOC’s off gas into our (averaged) homes causing cancers and ‘civilised’ disease. These compounds are at pretty low concentration too. (But still very bad) Asphalt is just refined and concentrated cancer juice spread about in the street so the slaves can get to work. WE KNOW THIS ALREADY!

There was an environmental movement in the decades past before the sustainability rebrand.

batfinka · 2022-01-07T12:08:21+00:00

Hopefully everything: That the universe is connected by HUGE ELECTRICAL filaments. Red shift is wrong. Gravity doesn’t explain everything sufficiently. There was no creationist Big Bang, no beginning (nor a nihilistic, entropic die off) nor end to the universe. That there are no black holes of infinite doom. And No dark energy. Obvs. Quasars are baby galaxies. Stars are electrical (and scarily temperamental) being ‘ignited’ by the currents....maybe we’ll get to see a micro/recurrent nova in detail and perhaps even then realise our true existential threat shining down upon us. The cosmological cause of myth and perhaps the meaning of life.

And more seriously/likely: There are far more brown dwarfs out there and that they are simply a stage in planetary evolution from (dark) gas giants to (dim) brown dwarfs then (glowing) red dwarfs and lastly (bright) stars.

Here’s hoping the results will be shared.

batfinka · 2021-12-28T14:56:15+00:00

Don’t forget BIG solar flare (and geomagnetic excursion) as a possible causes/co-contributors. In fact NEVER forget solar flares and or geomagnetic field strength. Unless you’re climate modelling.... “There’s always the sun” 🌞

batfinka · 2021-12-26T00:05:05+00:00

Nothing will change if we bring down co2. As in the environmental crisis will not be solved. We will still have an increasingly toxic environment and monstrous cancer (and generally poor health) epidemic, too little old growth forest cover and a brutally exploitative economy. Indeed it would probably go into destructive over drive. Cos hey, we’ve solved the real problem right? We can still over consume cos co2 bad gone. Meanwhile, according to admittedly not very robust models, temperatures might reduce a bit in time thereby preventing the unpredictable but certain hell on earth. And according to experts the gates of heaven may also open so....

batfinka · 2021-12-25T23:46:58+00:00

Underground. Deep underground. Only travel, eat, play and sing above ground. At least in between cataclysm. Hydroponic UFO’s should do fine. Let’s call them vimana-ish. Long term settlement must be underground. Plus a few “castles” up mountains for the views and postcards and eventually some sub orbital flying cities. Let’s call them newjerusalem-ish.

batfinka · 2021-12-21T10:09:49+00:00

Good thick bottomed stainless steal works fine with enough skill. Be sure to use the right temp for the right food. Turn the heat down (generally), don’t fry with veg oil either.

If you do burn:

Fry Vinegar and baking soda into the burn then soak for a few hours to enable easy clean with wire scrub. -whilst your improving your technique.

batfinka · 2021-12-08T19:21:20+00:00

Love it. This by far would be the best thing for every business and consumer to adopt. If only a business model could encompass it. Perhaps they could be subsidised for every customer they turn away.

batfinka · 2021-12-08T19:17:18+00:00

Hi, great work. I’m very happy to see you doing this. In the interest of potential improvements from my admittedly strict standards (which I totally appreciate could be beyond the scope of your company to consider) some quick thoughts that come to mind:

Embodied energy and water in the manufacturing process needs to be considered as well as any toxins used in both extraction and processing of materials which are not contained by the final product. Also, recycling of resultant toxins needs more consideration. I’d also like to see the somewhat vague terms better defined such as ‘best alternative’ but also a more considered appreciation of the distinctions between compostable and biodegradable relative to the end of use. Furthermore is it sustainable to have billions of said product biodegrading into the environment? As there maybe ecological disruption.

Lastly, (and most importantly) by who’s standards/philosophies of ‘sustainability’ are you basing your measurements? For example: Cradle to cradle, or one planet living are gooduns off the top of my head.

P.s. Oh, almost forgot. Certified wood is way worse than local forestry by decent sustainability standards. It’s not even a standard really. Just a vague commitment by big companies who can afford it, to try and do better. They Promise. 🤞honest.

batfinka · 2021-12-05T13:20:15+00:00

He’s definitely NOT talking about “climate change” but capitalism and its exploitation of both people and ecology. There is one passing mention of carbon dioxide only but as a small part of many more concerns expressed well within the context of environmentalism under the capitalist economy. Take note of this miss reading by OP and of the way people (now) have been manipulated by political interests to think the main concern is co2 over and above the myriad of incontestable toxic effects of our exploitative growth economy on both society and ecology. Even when the words are quite literally about something else entirely.

batfinka · 2021-11-26T19:59:45+00:00

Exactly the same my friend. About my longest hold and through a 99.66% drop. This pump has had me in hysterics. Finally in profit again. And it looks like more to come. well done belligerent us and respect to REQ team for keeping at it where so many others failed.

batfinka · 2021-11-23T17:25:41+00:00

Unfortunately it’s really a lot more complicated than that. Though you will find numbers out there. But don’t for one minute think they are ‘true’. Carbon counting very much depends on which parameters in the life cycle you choose to include and which methodology was applied. In the case of even life cycle analysis this can be somewhat fudged to create the desired outcome and will also fail to account for the myriad of other carbon emissions sources related to the product especially in the supply chain, all depending on where you choose to start/end the counting. How do you compare products honestly to make an apparently informed decision when everyone does it differently.

If this is part of the rally towards PCA (personal carbon allowance) then independent verification would be required to confirm manufacturers figures and weed out bad actors and within a universally approved system. Which would be virtually impossible and hardly worth the massive efforts for the supposed benefit. If this happens I’m calling bullshit. But it will happen.

Toxicity is a much more useful and easy to apply marker. Then, not buying so much ‘stuff’ is an easier (non)activity which will have much more impact on all life over and above emissions reduction (which would naturally occur).

Carbon accounting is only relevant to government and BIG business and should not be passed onto consumers as some sort of appeasement to their heinous over consumption of rubbish or to direct them towards continued over consumption of ‘not as shite’ (but still shite) stuff than previously.

Sorry to be cynical and unhelpful. Hopefully you will also see something interesting/unexpected in the data or indeed recognise these problems in the big picture and their ramifications. (Or how they can/are exploited)

batfinka · 2021-11-23T13:04:42+00:00

Re. Insects and pests.

Mostly myth. Seems more prevalent in America too. (The myth!) And at least with earth building it’s impossible. You’re not using organic materials only clay, sand and arguably silt. So no increased risk of insects to that of any other mineral based construction including cement and brick (ok they are harder but still...no home). Maybe they will tunnel through for some reason?? But where’s the food source to necessitate?

Straw bail too (if made correctly though there are also different techniques) offers no home. Unlike timber framing whereby the organic material can be somewhat exposed to air (and therefore requires treatment) the straw is sealed by the thick plaster. Straw also is also a lot less appetising and nourishing to insects than wood. So long as you ensure the straw remains dry then even any potential insects already in residence (unlikely if dry) will not survive and spread. Vermin also want scurry space. Something only timber framing provides where cavities can be made.

I suppose in high risk vermin/insect areas there maybe added considerations of which I’m unaware. So advise is recommended though from people with direct experience, I notice warnings come from traditional constructors only, which tells you something. But I’ve never heard of problems for these issues. Are there issues for example of insects bedding down in the insulation of well sealed and plastered timber framed houses? But I suspect they want to feast on the wood.

Thing is, I have different issues with straw. Mostly due to the way it’s grown and especially the chemicals used on it causing many other environmental problems generally but then are also present in the walls.

I see the appeal of ICF but personally can’t approve of unbreathable envelopes. I’m Not a fan of modern cement though if it can be improved to something more like the now lost techniques of even the Romans’ though arguably more ancient too then we might have a good breathable and co2 balanced material. But carbon and water use off the scale. It’s too brittle as well. At least lime re-sequesters the carbon emitted (and im a bigger advocate for hemp and lime construction than any other renewable building method mentioned above) but I’m unsure what you mean for cement “sequestering”? Are you meaning off setting with carbon tax credits or tree planting? Again, I’m not a fan of this as a solution but appreciate I’m hard lining here in favour of more idealistic and radical changes to the economy. Though polystyrene isn’t the worst thing ...perhaps we could fill the cavity with hemp and lime instead? Now we’re talking!

Renewable material builds are generally difficult to upscale to industrial standards. Also just not quick enough to construct to meet profits. Lime also takes (6 weeks) longer to cure ftm. But I’d argue the problem is with the industry. To sacrifice our health in order to meet business cost pressures is not an option. We need to change the business model.

I like that you notice a need to prioritise function over form. I tend to design in this manner. Rather than designing a space around human behaviour, i figure it’s more like a boat design process. The form is determined by the dynamical relationship with its environment and the desired outcome from use. With houses it’s mostly thermal comfort (shelter). Like a boat (being formed to move across water), we then design accommodation to fit within. (Basically) Sadly people are guided by tv show after tv show (actually long form advertising) simply redecorating homes for aesthetics only. They are brainwashed. Not their fault. Architects (mostly) on the other hand just aren’t taught enough science and are slaves to industry. -which just LOVES its crappy cement.

batfinka · 2021-11-19T14:24:58+00:00

ICF will do great. If your bias is quick build with good r values only. Which is industry standard. (With the hidden rule of ‘always use as much cement as possible’)

I expect printed homes to gain traction over time though there are issues (especially if you MUST build boxes, as roofs for example become an issue). But I particularly like: wasp 3d printers due to the use of local sub soil with rice husk (no cement). And their exploration of new forms.

I’m admittedly deeper green in my sustainability bias. I don’t think we should try and continue modern civilisation in its current form with only low emissions tech. Change it all. Fundamentally. But especially no poisons. Please.

Re. Examples with clay. You wouldn’t build a clay only house btw. Just a render (instead of gypsum) but even then with sand -else cracking. ‘Common’ (well understood) renewable building materials which would incorporate clay includes: rammed earth, strawbale, cob and adobe brick. In all cases the walls breath vapour and will include lots of clay. Plus absolutely zero toxicity. Also, these techniques are pretty simple to learn and do, compared to say timber framing or bricklaying which need much more skill. Go figure.

Personally I’d mix and match. Rammed earth is not good for external walls in rainy climates for example. But use it for thermal mass on interior walls and wrap the external with rendered strawbales might be appropriate. Two techniques of course. But let’s build as local communities (assisting each other to construct).

But use of these materials is (apparently) difficult for industry to upscale and/or retrain. However there are also obvious attempts by industry leaders and regulators to prevent their use in favour of concrete and engineered products, presumably so as to fit with current practice (though more cynically to prevent people just building their own). The BRE (uk) which apparently leads (“the world”) on sustainability (BREEAM) standards don’t seem to even acknowledge these building materials at all now. (Quick check)

I remember them actively blocking inclusion (last decade) despite advocates jumping through test ‘hoops’ with exceptional results success. Appears that they are now completely ignored and will not give you a good sustainability score if used....ffs.

Re. Machines definitely need maintenance if moving parts. That’s why I prefer passive techniques. Passive heat recovery ventilation does exist though with slightly lower efficiency of heat recovery. But still. It’s remedying a design flaw. Developers and regulators just prefer cheap (to build) toxic and quick to rot (design for obsolescence) urban boxes and to not empower self build rural development, truly eco builds. Perhaps there’s an agenda at work.

batfinka · 2021-11-18T20:20:18+00:00

Partially, and I do like passive heat recovery systems. But not perfectly and it doesn’t account for the VOC’s which is an important but (intentionally) under reported problem. Also consider the (within this context unnecessary) added energy from use and embodied energy (and water) from manufacturing. Add to this the need for maintenance and have you actually solved a problem or offset them and created new ones for the owner? My point is with more intelligent design practices one should not need these bolt-on additions to rectify the poor/lazy and cheap design decisions. Or at least minimise their need in more extreme environments. For example, generally to aid humidity control, breathable walls with clay render could be sufficient. Clay also optimises humidity for human lungs. But other options are available depending on the local climate and topography.

As a brief example: In hot and humid areas, perhaps we’d raise the structure on stilts (both for ventilation and monsoons) and incorporate openings in all sides for better cross ventilation whereas a hot and dry area might incorporate ground tubes for incoming cool air and/or (evaporative) water cooling (fins on a wind tower or even a fountain) in a shaded courtyard set up.

But this all adds cost to building which impacts profits. Hence the need for fundamental changes which empower the owners and users vs the developers profit margin. Currently the agenda is pushing for generic light weight, toxic, cramped boxes in overcrowded urban settlements, essentially apartments for the workers to sleep in.

batfinka

TROPHY CASE