Article relevancy
It strikes me that this article about climate change has little relevancy to appropriate technology. The Kyoto-protocol however did have relevancy to AT, since its "flexible mechanisms" allowed to finance development projects, and were even in their current form (without funding other projects) also useful for increasing the livelihoods of people in the developing world. As such, I think it may be best to convert this article to an article about the flexible mechanisms (CDM, JI, ET) and perhaps include info aswell on the follow-up (probably going to be discussed in either Kopenhagen or later meetings). I would however scrap the section of the climate talks, ... as they generally have no relation to AT, and the accords themselves are also usually top-down rather than bottom-up. 87.64.41.73 09:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Appropedia (Appropedia:About) is about much more than appropriate technology - climate and environment are also within the scope. So this article as a feed is quite suitable here, though it would be great to also have an article to an article about the flexible mechanisms (CDM, JI, ET). --Chriswaterguy 12:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- A small remark on this: indeed AT also takes into account the environmental effects of technology, something btw which convinced me of engaging myself in it. However, the remark whas directly focused on the way on which climate change is adressed by the convention. Rather than following a bottom-up approach, it simply follows a top-down approach (eg rather than allowing people to adapt their current technologies, it makes the use of current (polluting) technology stricter (eg engines that are allowed to emit ... co²/km, ...). I referred to this as not being AT, nor in any way suitable for combination with it. A suitable method is eg allowing conventional engines to be adapted in workshops (an idea I mentioned previously) or eg trough the flexible mechanisms (aldough also a bit lacking). As the current initiatives (eg reduced co²/km from engines, ...) are not really usable for AT-projects, and as most possible initiatives are merely a framework of annoying measures that do not adress the problem efficiently and also financially cost a great deal (allowing their sole use in the developed world, and even then with the downside that far more efficiency could have been gained if the money was relayed to other solutions), I think it is best to scrap them entirely from Appropedia.
- --KVDP, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Very briefly... I'd like to see Appropedia cover all solutions and proposed solutions to climate change. Whether or not some of those solutions are actually bad ideas, there is space for an in-depth, rigorous analysis of each idea, its track record and potential impacts. As such, what happened in Copenhagen was very important and needs to be understood, even if it was mostly broken promises, evasion of responsibility and hot air. --Chriswaterguy 05:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Even within a narrowly interpreted scope of "appropriate technology", the climate in a given region determines which technologies can work at all, and therefore which technologies can possibly be appropriate there. Given that human activity is now one of the leading causes of climate change, if not the leading cause, anything which impacts climate change impacts appropriate technology. Given that humans as of 2011:
- have not agreed to cap the amount of fossil fuel combustion products which will ultimately be released the atmosphere, and
- remain on the most rapid emissions-growth trajectory,
- we are still solidly on course to burn nearly all the Earth's recoverable fossil fuels within a century or two. If this happens, global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrationW will increase to 750 ppm, 1000 ppm, or even higher. If that happens, it will negate present attempts to assist the developing nations with what we have traditionally viewed as "appropriate technology." Given the existential threat posed by uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels (and deforestation), the most "appropriate" technologies of all are those which could give humans some chance of agreeing to leave most remaining fossil fuels safely unburned. If we don't stop adding to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and soon, everything else we do might just amount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. --Teratornis 20:44, 8 January 2011 (PST)
- We are used to thinking locally. A technology seems "appropriate" if its costs and benefits are appropriate to the locality in which it is used. However, when a technology pumps additional carbon dioxide into the carbon cycle, negatively impacting people thousands of kilometers away and decades into the future, then that technology is not "appropriate" for its distant victims. Any zero-carbon technology or lifestyle change adopted by developed nations today is "appropriate" for the inhabitants of developing nations who will not then fall victim to the high-carbon technology so displaced. Think of these future victims as essentially being under attack by today's fossil fuel burning. Technology which can mitigate this attack is appropriate to them. --Teratornis 20:52, 8 January 2011 (PST)
- These are great thoughts on appropriateness! I totally agree. --Chriswaterguy 01:15, 9 January 2011 (PST)
- Very good! Thanks for making me think of the timescale! Appropriate technology right now, and sustainable practices that will work as well and be as relatively cheap to sustain coming generations. Solidarity with future people!
- Some renewable energy generation have been considered extremely expensive, but those are comparisons to the price of oil or coal in average price estimations of 2000, and does not at all compare to price levels of over 100$ per oil-barrel-equivalents. Or how do we compare price efficiency of renewables the day the oil, coal, gas and uranium is depleted? And we can really afford to take the majority of the expensive investment and research costs now! just think micro-credits and look at how it works wonders on energyincommon.org and kiva.org --Yeahvle 03:03, 11 January 2011 (PST)