Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Metro Vancouver moves to Stage 3 water restrictions: What creative strategies are you using to save water?

July 21st, 2015 · 132 Comments

I worked on commercial fishing boats for six seasons, in my 20s, where water was a precious thing.

We sometimes went out for two or more weeks, knowing we had to survive on the water in the tank. We turned off the tap when brushing our teeth, except for the brief wetting between scrubs, re-used our cooking water in multiple ways, and were just generally miserly about washing. (Yes, it could get as bad as you’re imagining.)

With Metro going to Stage 3 restrictions, I’m hoping everyone is taking these approaches. I’ve heard of some creative ones the last couple of days, like Lindsay Brown rigging up a system to re-use her bathwater. (I’m trying to figure out how to do that from my very high second-floor bathroom, which would entail running a hose over the back porch roof. Hmm.)

Anything wonderful you all have come up with?

You may also use this site to post addresses of people still watering their lawns, by the way, as part of the effort.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • jenables

    Curious to know what climate peeps think of this article
    :http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/22/the-u-n-s-global-warming-war-on-capitalism-an-important-history-lesson-2/

  • Jeff Leigh

    Climate peeps don’t pay much attention to Larry Bell. He states that he is not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist, but that he knows that “Global Warming is a Hoax”. Not sure how he makes that leap of logic.

    He is a self proclaimed “space architect”. That is to say, an earthbound architect by training, but one who founded and is a director of an institute dedicated to “planning and implementing programs that will advance peaceful and beneficial uses of space and space technology on Earth and beyond”

    At least he is thinking ahead, figuring out how to profit from designing a landing pad somewhere else if our earth gets too warm.

    The points that Bell brings up in this several year old article have all been well debunked. He employs a technique known as Gish Galloping, jumping from point to point as if to make his case based on noise and not logic. Consistent with many deniers (see the research), he is not arguing against AGW from a standpoint of scientific research, but rather from an economic and political position.

    He has never published a scientific article. He apparently doesn’t pay much attention to detail. His article quotes Peter Moore, of Greenpeace. Presumably he means Patrick Moore. He is affiliated with the Heartland Institute, and speaks at TexasTeaParty events.

    Lots of analysis of his regular Forbes opinion pieces available on thinkprogress, desmogblog, realclimate, and others, if you want to see what else he has written.

  • A Taxpayer

    I think Patrick Moore summed it up very nicely:

    “When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted fear and what their motives are, he said: “A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.””

    You don’t need a grand conspiracy orchestrated by the UN or anyone else when the self-interest of so many disparate groups are aligned in the same direction. More importantly, no one will criticize anything other groups do or say, no matter how off the wall, because they all have their eye on the same prize.

    However, Mr. Moore missed out a few key players. Developing countries who see that climate change guilt can result in transfers from rich countries, entrepreneurs who see a gravy train of public subsidies for their alternative energy schemes, investment bankers who hope to
    exploit cap and trade markets, and governments who see another revenue stream in carbon taxes. In fact, about the only people who will not have their snout in the trough are the citizens who will have to pay for this unprecedented transfer of wealth.

    Don’t worry, the alarmists cannot prevail and not because the evil fossil fuel companies are spending billions to cast doubt on their settled science. No, they will not succeed because politicians can read the worldwide poll I referenced earlier where climate change ranked 16th out of a list of 16 priorities of people.

  • jenables

    I’m actually more curious what you think of this analysis of the political forces and their context to the issue rather than the climate related credentials held by the author of the piece, if you don’t mind. I realize i posed the question quite broadly, and should have been more specific.

  • A Taxpayer

    I thought you had quit this topic while you were behind but
    clearly I am mistaken and you are up to your old tricks of cherry picking one aspect, in this case Patrick Moore, you feel you can discredit. But why Moore, why not James Lovelock (“father”
    of the Gaia concept) who is a scientist with impeccable environmental credentials. In fact, in 2006 he is quoted as saying:

    “Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where climate remains tolerable.”

    But being the scientist, he has no problem in admitting he was wrong and has changed his position:

    “…we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books…mine included…because it looked clear cut…but it hasn’t happened.”

    What does Denial101 say about apostates like James Lovelock?

  • Jeff Leigh

    “I’m actually more curious what you think of this analysis of the political forces and their context to the issue…”

    Fair enough. The article was titled a history lesson about the UN’s war on capitalism, and used a lot of extreme points to try and make the case for that being the UN’s real plan. I don’t think it brought anything new to the conversation, as it was written two years ago, and used examples dating back to the 90s. The climate credentials only came up because of the author’s use of ‘climate facts’ to try and bolster his case for there being a plot for an overthrow of capitalism.

    I think we collectively need to have an adult conversation about the themes of mitigation, political issues, economic costs, and so on. The trouble is that there are those who want to avoid that discussion at all costs, so they try and debate the science, as a diversionary and delaying tactic.

    For a more recent take on your question, visit desmogblog, and see yesterday’s post from two professors on the cognitive limitations impacting this topic. It discusses personal bias, politics, and so on. There is a section about totalitarian government responses, which links back to Bell’s thesis. They point out that delaying mitigation is more likely to lead to totalitarian government responses that choosing to deal with it earlier.

    http://www.desmog.uk/2015/07/29/10-things-we-learned-reddit-about-understanding-climate-change

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    Matt Ridley is a science journalist. He discusses the damage to science that the politics is causing.

    https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/06/climate-wars-done-science/

  • A Taxpayer

    “I think we collectively need to have an adult conversation”

    This is a bit much coming from someone who promotes a course called Denial 101, brands anyone who challenges “the science” as a denier with all the connotations that entails, and further links those “deniers” with moon landing conspiracy theorists. Very adult.

    Here is a simple, straightforward question that even you should be able to answer without having to refer to scriptures to find the correct answer:

    Do you consider James Lovelock to be a denier?

  • Jeff Leigh

    Challenging the science is not a characteristic of a denier. Ignoring it because one doesn’t like it, is.

    Want to challenge the science? Come up with an alternate theory. Make sure it explains the observed climate changes better than anything we have, and respects fundamental principles that we generally agree on, like the laws of thermodynamics. Then publish your paper. If you are right, in the court of scientific enquiry, there you go. But that is a steep climb in front of you given the extent of our collective understanding of climate change.

    You appear not to like the scientists now studying the characteristics of deniers, and the denial industry. And your continual invocation of religion (scriptures?) suggests climate science is something mysterious, at least to you.

    Lovelock? Which week is it? Check back next month.

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    Even if I were to fall prostrate at the Church of DeSmogBlog, from this expert we clearly see that there is no reason at all to panic.

    Rising seas will send displaced residents from Richmond to the hills of Coquitlam. OK. As the sea moves into Richmond the property values will ‘sink’, shall we say. The houseboat industry will explode with growth, unable to meet demand, thousands will be employed. Living on the constantly changing water will be Uber-trendy. Rowing will again be the height of fashion and style.

    Everyone in Venice will move to Lake Como. OK.

    Bangladeshis will migrate to India and Thailand. OK.

    The Yukon will start growing barley. OK.

    We in Canada will all pay much less and expel CO2 less, because we just won’t freeze in winter as much as now. OK.

    Avocado and orange trees will blanket the prairies.

    Believers will go on believing…

  • A Taxpayer

    “And your continual invocation of religion (scriptures?) suggests climate science is something mysterious, at least to you.”

    Well, not just me. The aforementioned James Lovelock, who even you seem reluctant to trash, had this to say about your version of science:

    “It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion”

    “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use”

    Let’s take a look at a few characteristics of your version of science that have a lot more in common with a religion than what most people recognize as science:

    Doctrine of Infallibility : The Science is Settled
    Tithing : Carbon Tax
    Purchase of Indulgences : Purchase of Carbon Credits
    Religious Writings : IPCC Reports
    Prophets : Al Gore
    Satan : Koch Brothers
    Infidels : Deniers
    Fire and Brimstone : Fire and Brimstone
    Prophesies : Computer models
    Conversion on Road to Damascus : Retired executive converts to eco-warrior atoning for the many years
    spent earning their fortune supplying environment altering enterprises.

  • Jeff Leigh

    Why are you making up fables and attacking people instead of answering Jen’s question? It had to do with the political forces on each side of the issue.

  • A Taxpayer

    The fact that one of the political forces in this issue is prepared to employ tactics more suitable to a religion is very relevant to the discussion about a subject that is supposed to be science based and it has the credibility of being advanced by someone with the credentials of a James Lovelock.

    And describing Al Gore as a prophet is hardly attacking him so I don’t know what you are getting at there. He might even be flattered.

  • Jeff Leigh

    “I’m actually more curious what you think of this analysis of the political forces and their context to the issue…”

    Looks like you got all the response you’re going to get. The other posters don’t want to discuss the article, it appears. They haven’t responded to you yet.

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    Jen, Regarding the Forbes article, yes, it’s a big scam as described. I particularly like, “…“alarmism might even become secretly thrilling”…effectively a form of what they referred to as “climate porn.”.

    This could certainly explain a lot.

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    Jeff, The entire theme of the article is explaining that the whole climate panic is a scam. All you can say is you want an adult conversation about mitigation? The memo you should have got was the one that explains that no mitigation is needed. We’re all being snowed with high-level con artists that admit that their methods are devious, dishonest and designed to meet their agenda, which, they will tell you, is good with a higher order. It also pays them a very nice penny. Any lies are to be skated around because they know they are ‘right’.

    Anyone supporting this ideology from these confessors is clearly an absorbed disciple of the Church of the Ecopocalype.

    With all due respect, I must say that the enviro fear-mongers are having a longer day in the sun (no pun intended) than most trendy fashions.

  • Jeff Leigh

    The question was around the political issues, not the climate science, which you clearly don’t accept. Fine, but irrelevant to the question at hand. And you’re back to religion. Another own goal.

  • A Taxpayer

    On the off chance you read Jeff’s desmog reference, you should also read this post about the two professors, Stephan Lewandowsky and Klaus Oberauer, featured in the article:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/lewandowsky-peer-reviewed-study-includes-someone-32757-years-old/

  • A Taxpayer

    Let’s see. I commented on the common denominator between the disparate alarmist factions, money, and your contribution is a reference to yet another pseudo scientist who included a 32,757 year old individual in one of his peer reviewed studies yet you believe your contribution is the only one on topic.

  • Jeff Leigh

    “included a 32,757 year old individual in one of his peer reviewed studies”

    You can do better than that. In the data entry field for a survey response used in the study, one respondent, when asked their age, wrote in 32757. Some would conclude that the person was born on March 27, 1957, and couldn’t read the question very well. The respondent in question was a self proclaimed denier of the consensus science, but reading comprehension may have nothing to do with it, we don’t know. Others would claim that 32,757 year old individuals were being surveyed, by web form. People such as yourself, apparently.

    What did the study author say? That the entry did not impact the study or results; in other words, it was seen for what it was. The paper was reviewed, and there have been several subsequent papers on the same subject. Some have studied in more detail the response in the science denial community to being studied. What we found out is that it seems that community didn’t much like being studied. Despite threatened legal action, that paper remains available.

    This is an example of not having an adult conversation.

    There was not a reasoned response about the conclusions of the study, just noise around one survey response. And jokes about ancient participants, presumably designed to cast doubt on the conclusions of the study. And so much angst that Jo No No No wrote on this specific study at least 9 times, as documented by one of the opinion blogs following the reaction of the deniosphere. See theidiottracker blog for a tabulation.

    http://theidiottracker.blogspot.ca/2012/09/quantifying-lewandowsky-madness.html

    Don’t take that opinion blog as evidence, it is just a useful summary of the responses of people like Jo No, which can be verified by the links.

    Pseudo scientist? You want to put the credentials of the authors of the study up against those of Joanne Codling, stage name Joanne Nova?

  • Jeff Leigh

    Information on your trusted source:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Joanne_Nova

  • A Taxpayer

    You really don’t get it, do you. It’s not about the ability of those completing the survey but what the scientists do with the results. The issue is that if such sloppiness goes undetected (when it should have been detected), then how can you rely on anything this guy produces. (the survey results also included seven minors – a 5 year old, two 14 years old, two 15 years old and two others). For a complete dissection of the science issues see:

    http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/how-one-paleo-participant-can-change-the-outcome-of-a-study

  • A Taxpayer

    All you can ever do is attack the messenger and ignore the content.

  • Jeff Leigh

    “…you should also read this post about the two professors, Stephan Lewandowsky and Klaus Oberauer, featured in the article”

    “All you can ever do is attack the messenger….”

    A new record. Wasn’t your phrase something like “a bit rich….” just above?

    Suggest you find a real source, not a blog posting or paid infomercial.

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    Did you ever let Jen know what you think of the political forces of the issue, as she asked? One thing that we can be absolutely certain of is that it has become highly politicized. Another is that the science is settled; it’s another hoax. Right up there with pet rocks, broccoli and the Moon in Venus meaning we’ll all get laid.

  • Jeff Leigh

    If I wanted a complete dissection of the science issues I wouldn’t go to the blog of a self described student in psychology, who has no science training. That becomes important when you look at his claims, and see the errors he made. Look at reddit for a fulsome discussion on his article Also note that when asked, Duarte said that yes, he supports the consensus and believes it is high. Inconvenient.

  • boohoo

    You’re both doing that. Get off your horse.

    Watching you guys argue about climate science when none of you know anything about it is painful.

  • A Taxpayer

    “The larger issue here is that there is likely nothing happening in science right now that is of lower quality than climate consensus research. It’s a disaster. Much of the research doesn’t meet anyone’s standards for science. It’s pre-scientific. Many of these studies are politically motivated junk that we couldn’t possibly draw any inferences from.

    The junk studies report the highest consensus figures. They’re inflating the consensus, probably distorting people’s estimates of certainty, given the nature of human minds and how “97%” might be processed. (There is no 97%. That was a scam, as I’ll explain below.)”

    http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/comment-on-verheggen-et-al-climate-consensus-research

    Not much of an endorsement, particularly of your mentor, Cook, now is it.

  • A Taxpayer

    But we are not arguing about climate science. We are arguing about Jeff’s climate science fiction where the bar to be considered an expert is set quite low.

  • boohoo

    Whatever, you both look silly arguing about something you clearly don’t understand and are just trying to make the other person look petty and dumb. You’re both succeeding.

  • jenables

    What do you think of the world business council for sustainable development?
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/07f6ebf1ddbe0b28a65baa63477467729b14d1b880dcc30711f7e21ada7414e4.png

    http://Www.wbcsd.org

  • jenables

    “The 9-foot tall, monumental, headless cast iron figures, gifted to the Vancouver Biennale via the generosity of the artist, the Buschlen Mowatt Foundation and the Vancouver Biennale Legacy Foundation appear menacing and robotic, walking aimlessly without guidance or reason. With these sculptures, Abakanowicz’s Walking Figures addresses the transformation and loss of the individual within a group as a reference to the human condition and the shaping of our world throughout history.”

    I find it so interesting that a sculpture which is essentially a commentary on a fascist or communitarian state wound up just north of city hall, and in north Vancouver. One might think I am reading too much into it, of course… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c27c8884136dc4b35e9f53f9e5fc7aacb5ee779ad80300ba1b83014cf11f5ff5.jpg

←  Older Comments
 →