OMG! You are so right (except not 'simply'). I had petitioned the universe for help to not be a hater before you made this comment. I *do* indeed try to use my best for the rest (looong stories - I am 60 years old). Bless you.
Sad thing about the world we created is we only care about sustainability if it's profitable. The majority of the time it's not. The incentive to make money has distorted our values.
John...After reading the province of manitoba was giving U of M 3 million for future innovative projects, I talked with an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering about a collaboration with my private sector business, and I was told to not waste my time with all the political red tape...He basically bled me for information(which I was willing to share, as I am not greedy) and tried to get me to hook up his Tesla Powerwall...Sadly a mass cleansing from permafrost germs will be our future, it looks like!!!
Gah! We decide the details of our eating, breathing, sleeping. Would that all had the leisure to reflect but alas the power-brokers have impoverished the lives of others.
All this positive thinking stuff may well fit a majority‘s desire. But approaching a ten billion world population there is no way of completely avoiding mind sets of sufficiency and cutting back. And the first and foremost country this applies to is the US.
You are talking about UBC. You give reason #1 we are the single owner occupier, reason #2 we are a public institution, reason @3 we teach and reason #4 we do research as your qualifications to do what others can't. You can't be the single owner because it is a public institution. Reason #2 contradicts reason #1 and cancel each other so they are void and and not applicable. That leaves teaching and research. Anyone can teach if he as something to teach and anyone can do research. It amounts to a pack of lies or delusions of grandeur. "That is the UBC campus. You can get your hands around it. You can play with it turn it into a sandbox." That is sheer nonsense. To do that the person would have hands mile long, have super, super strength and the power of alchemical transmutation. You did not sequester 600 tons of CO2 in that building. The trees that the lumber was made from sequestered it while they were growing. The carbon emitted to build it must be subtracted from the already sequestered carbon to get what the equivalent remaining sequestered carbon is. If you have ten dollars and spend $2 you are left with $8 not $12 like your math suggests. The building is carbon negative not carbon positive. Regenerative is tending to or characterized by regeneration. Regeneration is the process of regenerating or being regenerated, in particular the formation of new animal or plant tissue. Since energy is neither animal nor plant and has no tissue regenerative energy is a fallacy. The same applies to a building or any other thing that is not alive. If the 7 percent decrease of emissions claimed at 10;48 is based on the distorted math you used to for the carbon sequestered in the building, it probably increased by 7 percent or more. Burning wood gas instead of natural gas does not change the emissions from the motor. But it decreases the number of trees that that would have been sequestering carbon. The process is carbon negative not carbon positive. Chunking the wood and transporting it is is carbon negative. $37,000,000 was robbed from the people so you could have a sense of place and a sense of engagement with the building and the people in it. If you have no sense of engagement with people you are a very insensitive person and no building is going to give it to you. For 18 minutes you keep saying we but never say who is we. You make contradictory and false statements. You make claims and offer no evidence to support them. You have destroyed your own credibility. Why should we believe you?
![BRASIL vs. PERÚ [4-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tbyOJKXfQnI/mqdefault.jpg)
OMG! You are so right (except not 'simply'). I had petitioned the universe for help to not be a hater before you made this comment. I *do* indeed try to use my best for the rest (looong stories - I am 60 years old). Bless you.
Sad thing about the world we created is we only care about sustainability if it's profitable. The majority of the time it's not. The incentive to make money has distorted our values.
Thanx for the pointing to the positive! People like yourself will guide those who will survive.... oh the mess.
Well said.
It does not appear that there is a down side with this video.
John...After reading the province of manitoba was giving U of M 3 million for future innovative projects, I talked with an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering about a collaboration with my private sector business, and I was told to not waste my time with all the political red tape...He basically bled me for information(which I was willing to share, as I am not greedy) and tried to get me to hook up his Tesla Powerwall...Sadly a mass cleansing from permafrost germs will be our future, it looks like!!!
Gah! We decide the details of our eating, breathing, sleeping. Would that all had the leisure to reflect but alas the power-brokers have impoverished the lives of others.
All this positive thinking stuff may well fit a majority‘s desire. But approaching a ten billion world population there is no way of completely avoiding mind sets of sufficiency and cutting back. And the first and foremost country this applies to is the US.
You are talking about UBC. You give reason #1 we are the single owner occupier, reason #2 we are a public institution, reason @3 we teach and reason #4 we do research as your qualifications to do what others can't. You can't be the single owner because it is a public institution. Reason #2 contradicts reason #1 and cancel each other so they are void and and not applicable. That leaves teaching and research. Anyone can teach if he as something to teach and anyone can do research. It amounts to a pack of lies or delusions of grandeur.
"That is the UBC campus. You can get your hands around it. You can play with it turn it into a sandbox." That is sheer nonsense. To do that the person would have hands mile long, have super, super strength and the power of alchemical transmutation.
You did not sequester 600 tons of CO2 in that building. The trees that the lumber was made from sequestered it while they were growing. The carbon emitted to build it must be subtracted from the already sequestered carbon to get what the equivalent remaining sequestered carbon is. If you have ten dollars and spend $2 you are left with $8 not $12 like your math suggests. The building is carbon negative not carbon positive.
Regenerative is tending to or characterized by regeneration. Regeneration is the process of regenerating or being regenerated, in particular the formation of new animal or plant tissue. Since energy is neither animal nor plant and has no tissue regenerative energy is a fallacy. The same applies to a building or any other thing that is not alive.
If the 7 percent decrease of emissions claimed at 10;48 is based on the distorted math you used to for the carbon sequestered in the building, it probably increased by 7 percent or more.
Burning wood gas instead of natural gas does not change the emissions from the motor. But it decreases the number of trees that that would have been sequestering carbon. The process is carbon negative not carbon positive. Chunking the wood and transporting it is is carbon negative.
$37,000,000 was robbed from the people so you could have a sense of place and a sense of engagement with the building and the people in it. If you have no sense of engagement with people you are a very insensitive person and no building is going to give it to you.
For 18 minutes you keep saying we but never say who is we. You make contradictory and false statements. You make claims and offer no evidence to support them. You have destroyed your own credibility. Why should we believe you?