UPDATE: EcoSnoop responds – see below.
Now, you can rat on your neighbors, your company, even your friends and family. Thanks to EcoSnoop, there’s an app for that.
This can also be useful for catching those who talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk. This might just backfire on more than a few people. But since the green movement started this Stasi-esque information gathering campaign on “eco-offenders” [their word], that makes it OK to snap photos of green activists too, right? I could see some examples. Bill McKibben leaves lights on after leaving a room? Joe Romm takes his car instead of the bus? Monbiot lets his car idle at a stoplight? Jim Hansen uses electricity generated by coal? William Connolley leaves his computer on after a frenzied all-nighter of Wikipedia editing? Gore uses the elevator to his penthouse suite in SFO rather than take the stairs? Lots of opportunity there.
Now before the usual suspects get up in arms about my satire, let me say that I’m a fan of energy conservation. As many readers know, I walk the walk with my own energy saving measures. In fact just last week I upgraded part of my office to LED lighting, and I’m so impressed with it I’m going to showcase the product here. I’m not, however, going to turn in my neighbor because he left his porch light on one night or forgot to turn off his sprinkler when it rains. Yet you’ll find examples like that on the EcoSnoop web page. [Update: EcoSnoop has now removed those, saying they were “demo images” – see their note below -A]
Here’s what they say about the iPhone app campaign:
EcoSnoop for iPhone is an activism tool that allows green-aware users to assist and encourage corporate green initiatives.
What’s the big deal?
It has been estimated that as much as 30% of the energy consumed in office buildings is wasted.
This suggests a significant opportunity for energy use reduction, cost savings, and the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions through cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities.
To help identify the best opportunities, both from the perspective of the building owner and the utility, it is important to examine how, where, and when energy is used and the savings are likely to occur. (Excerpt taken from the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency Sector Collaborative on Energy Efficiency Office Building Energy Use Profile)
Q: How can I help using my iPhone?
A: Users locate and report on eco-offenders by submitting pictures and descriptions of blatant abuse and misuse issues.
Q: What happens with my pictures?
A:The EcoSnoop website and iPhone applications are a centralized repository of environmental awareness and a tool for actively promoting energy conservancy and green awareness. By using the EcoSnoop iPhone application, the user becomes an important link in the chain of helping to report and mediate green waste (energy, pollution, etc.). Additionally, by going yourself and encouraging friends to utilize the website to add as much information as possible about the picture (address information, responsible party information, etc.) you are giving the EcoSnoop community the tools to encourage positive change!
EcoSnoop: We need your help saving the world…1 picture at a time.
Online: EcoSnoop.com
Twitter: @EcoSnoop
*An Appency Press Video Promo Reel – www.theappencypress.com*
h/t to WUWT reader Steve Keohane
UPDATE: A response from EcoSnoop who called me personally via telephone. Since their message seems to have missed the mark, I offered to elevate their message here. I believe this to be a sincere and reasonable response, and certainly nobody among us likes to see government or corporations waste energy. But the implementation here invites abuse. They ask for suggestions, let’s offer them some. – Anthony
{Anthony, for a posting to all users}
All,
Thank you for very much for the spirited conversation. We clearly have a lot of work to do to get EcoSnoop tuned into a constructive tool.
EcoSnoop is aimed at helping Government building owners understand when they are wasting energy. Energy efficiency hopefully is a non controversial solution in that it saves money, emissions and enhances national security. Our current policy is to prevent the posting of any information about ones residence. Unfortunately some old demo pictures are on the site, and they will be removed.
Our objective is to educate people on energy waste, not call them out. Our newer version which is still in work masks the location to all but the person who submits and the person who owns the building.
EcoSnoop is an evolving social community. As community, we need to maintain a certain decorum to assure everyone benefits from the “networks” observations to eliminate waste. As such, we ask that everyone follow some basic rules:
•Respect the Views of Others – EcoSnoop is not a political platform. EcoSnoop is about using technology and social networking to help people, companies and communities understand how awareness can eliminate waste, reduced CO2 output, and save money.
•No Personal Attacks – Do not use EcoSnoop to single out and attack people or companies. The best way to help people understand is through better information and cooperation. In taking pictures and making notes on the EcoSnoop site, think about what information will help a person or company understand how energy efficiency and waste reduction can help them improve profitability and community appeal.
•Avoid Mentioning Company Names – It is helpful to identify opportunities and describe ways to improve, but EcoSnoop finds the property owners take action quicker if they are not threatened or attacked. Sometimes when lights are left on at night it might be a simple instance of light night maintenance rather than persistent waste. The EcoSnoop community assumes everyone is well meaning, so given them a chance to take action. If they take no action, assume there is a good reason or work to better educate.
Since we are evolving, we are open to your ideas and suggestions. Please feel free to send your comments to us at snoop@ecosnoop.com.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
C.S. Lewis
Eco Snoop:
Yes. In the interest of honesty, I suggest the much more accurate label “Eco Snitch”. That name fits you perfectly.
It is only a matter of time before kids are encouraged to rat out their parents and neighbors. Heck, you’re already doing that.
The most decent and honest thing you could do is admit you’re being anti-American by encouraging people to snitch on other folks’ entirely law-abiding behavior, by copying the erstwhile Soviet Union and having your own political eco-commissar in most homes and in every neighborhood. If you believe in freedom and individual liberty, you need to immediately shut down your creepy site.
But you won’t, because you are truly evil busybodies who believe that by turning in family, friends and neighbors – who are doing nothing wrong – you will ‘save the planet’. You could simply talk about your concerns with them, but no: your plan is to encourage anonymous snitching.
Your proposal to rat out honest folks will be promptly abused by the same hate-America crowd you belong to, and eventually by federal, state and local governments. Truth be told, you think that would be just fine, and like James Hansen and his ilk, you’d love to conduct public show trials in your own eco-kangaroo courts. Really, could you be any more despicable?
There is a special place in hell reserved for people who encourage snitching on their law abiding family and friends. Honest folks just want to be left alone by you conniving do-gooder bullies who infest the enviro movement, and who try to control everyone they don’t agree with. How would you like it if we set up a website that encouraged people to take pictures of you and your fellow greenshirts, post them and condemned you on line?
Now ask me what I really think of you.
/rant
“I believe this to be a sincere and reasonable response”
Sorry, Anthony, but that statement causes me to drop my estimate of your IQ by about 70 points. There’s simply no way EcoSnoop’s response was sincere. They’re talking about eco-OFFENDERS on their website, for crying out loud! And this excuse about the homes being part of a “demonstration”, along with the claim that the actual target is government office buildings is patently absurd. If you’re going to “demonstrate” how to use something, then you don’t put up pictures showing exactly the wrong way to use it. They’re lying to you, Anthony. They WANT home residences to be reported. They WANT private citizens to be snitched on by their neighbors.
Also, the following statement in the “response”:
“Our newer version which is still in work masks the location to all but the person who submits and the person who owns the building.”
is DIRECTLY contradicted by the original statement on the website, which reads, in part:
“by going yourself and encouraging friends to utilize the website to add as much information as possible about the picture (address information, responsible party information, etc.) you are giving the EcoSnoop community the tools to encourage positive change!”
The latter passage, from the website, clearly shows that the plan was to make “as much information as possible”, including, specifically, “address information” and “responsible party information”, available to “the EcoSnoop community”, not to just the submitter and the owner of the building. Also, how could “friends” add any information to a picture if they could not see what information was already there? No way! That statement only makes sense if EVERYONE can see all of the information (including, even ESPECIALLY including, name and address) that was already posted.
Come on! If their original intentions were half as honorable as they are claiming now, they would have said some of this on the website. Their goal all along was to set up a snitch board. And you can bet your bottom dollar they would applaud any government action to punish those caught by the snitchers. Heck, the name of the website alone should be enough to convince any semi-intelligent person of their intentions.
You are correct, of course, that, irrespective of intentions, the system invites abuse. But you cannot seriously give these SOBs a pass on their intentions. Anthony, you are far too smart to be this stupid. Please tell your loyal readers that you only SAID you believed EcoSnoop’s response because you were being nice. If you can’t put that in black and white, for the same reason, just give us a wink or a nudge. Some hint that you haven’t drunk the koolaid. Personally, I would prefer that you come right out and call them liars, because that’s what they are. No doubt about it. They got caught, and their changing their story now. And who knows, they might even stick to the later statement of their intentions. But that later statement was not at all what their original intentions were, and you know it.
Regards,
Trevor
REPLY: You didn’t talk to the man on the telephone, I did. Thus you are arguing from a position of inferior data. Insult me with “70 points less” if you must, but it won’t change anything except my own and others perception of your manners. – A
In reply to crosspatch:
I agree with your statement about the idiocy of this plan 100%, with one exception. The last line of the newspaper article says, “The reason: Trees clean the air of heat-trapping gases better than farming does.”, to which your replied, “While this is true initially when you first plant trees,”.
My problem with your statement is that the idiotic statement from the newspaper isn’t even true initially. All plants absorb carbon dioxide, including agricultural crops. But young, fast-growing crops absorb more carbon dioxide than older crops. Now, if you planted a tree and a corn seed at the same time, the corn would grow more quickly (gain biomass faster) than the tree, which means the corn has to absorb more carbon dioxide. But also, on a per acre basis, there are a hell of a lot more individual corn plants (tens of thousands) on an acre of planted corn than there are individual trees (maybe a thousand, if you pack them in tight) on an acre of planted trees. So, even initially, crops absorb far more carbon dioxide per acre than trees.
Of course, when the crop is harvested, the carbon stored in its tissue will eventually (probably by next summer) make it back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, one way or another. But, if you KEEP the field planted, every year, that field, over whatever time span you want to consider, is a far better carbon storage device than an equally-sized plot of forest, even when the forest is young. Because 1) crops are ALWAYS young (they never spend more than 7-8 months in the field before harvest), 2) there are more plants per acre in a crop field, and 3) crops grow faster than trees, even when the trees are young too.
Regards,
Trevor
This is when a progressive agenda (like athnropogenic global warming) is essentially “forced” upon a society.
“EcoSnoop is not just an iPhone app. It’s a social networking and awareness tool wrapped into one,” said the overly made up talent beaming into the camera lens – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDs7gWO-ggU .
Not only is this web site’s mission identical to East Germany’s Stasi, but it’s also an extreme example being a hypocrite!
“Hey, kids! Be the best hypocrite you can be by using your electric-charged iPhone or iTouch to record your community’s energy waste! Just imagine, you can tell that construction firm that their crane light is a form of “light pollution” and emits ugly carbon into the atmosphere! Boldly tell them that the crane light MUST not stay on all night!
“Oh, and just ignore the firm’s lame excuse about FAA requirements for the lighting temporary obstructions that may present an aviation hazard – of course, they’re lying and YOU know it! Why? Because you’re an EcoSnooper!” – http://ecosnoop.com/index.php?option=com_ecosnoop&view=list&Itemid=66 .
What a load of unmitigated cow manure! Of course that crane light is an evil offender that must be shut down!
This is the precise “silliness” I discussed in my posts below regarding the cliché “taxation on exhalation”.
Here’s another example of the web site’s outright ignorance:
“Have you ever….. Complained about street lights left on all day?” If you have, then you’re an idiot. The solar sensors on street lights are designed to fail in the lighted position so that utility workers know which ones need to be replaced – http://ecosnoop.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17&Itemid=69 .
Oh… and then there’s this dandy:
“Have you ever….. Noticed a door that never closes properly, wasting heat or air conditioning?” If you have, then why didn’t you close the &#$%@ur momisugly door rather than walking through it day after day only to rat on the building owner or manager?
EcoSnoop.com is prima facie evidence that progressives are… whacked – totally and completely! So, who’s the Mensa graduate promoting this… social networking and awareness tool? Well, according to Whois.com, it’s James Niemann from QSAccess, LLC in Kirkwood, MO – http://www.opti-schedule.com/ .
Jim is 55 years old and lives in St. Loius, MO – http://www.ussearch.com/consumer/index.do?&adID=619100D460&adsource=9&TID=5&searchtab=home … He’s also a devoted member of the Apple cult, so that starts to explain some things – http://www.databeast.com/comments.html . Jim is social networking savvy – http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Niemann/626984919 . And he was married in 1976 – the year of the Nation’s bicentennial celebration – http://www.lopiccolofamily.org/bigpapa/aqwg05.htm#255 .
So, Jim… How does it feel to be snooped? Not what it’s cracked up to be, huh?
I vomit.. after seeing this video with that hidious woman promoting nazi type neighbourhood watching, recording and publishing.. It is part of a digital addicted world we live in.. But in the end it wont work.. Maybe a few fanatics might use this as a way of living, but the masses will not give their selfs in for snooping around others.. They have their own lives to live, make up their own mind, remember?
“You didn’t talk to the man on the telephoNe, I did. ThUs you are arguing from a position of inferior Data. Insult me with “70 points less” if you must, but it won’t chanGe anything excEpt my own and others perception of your manners. – A”
Whew! Thanks for the “NUDGE”, as hidden in the text of your reply, Anthony (there’s a “WINK” in there too, but not quite in order). I will, of course, understand if you have to deny that you intended that hidden message. I’ll even play along, with the following apology:
I’m sorry, Mr. Watts. It was not my intention to insult you. My post (or at least those parts regarding your intelligence) was intended as tongue-in-cheek. But perhaps, instead of implying (even jokingly) that you are unintelligent (which you clearly are not), I should have called you “naive”. But please keep in mind that I honestly believed that you were only putting on a show of believing the sincerity of EcoSnoop’s response, and that you would, in some way, deliver the punch line of your little joke when put on the spot. Apparently, that is not the case, and you honestly believe the sincerity of their reply.
Personally, I don’t see how hearing someone’s voice over a telephone could convince you of that person’s sincerity, no matter how sincere he SOUNDED, especially when their printed words are so blatantly in opposition to their verbal statements. Millions of people make a living making people THINK they are sincere in their verbal statements. Actors, politicians, car salesmen, and lawyers come to mind off the top of my head. And most of the time, the targets of this feigned sincerity can even SEE the pretenders, and all the possible nonverbal cues of insincerity, yet the pretenders still pull off the deception flawlessly.
So, no, I didn’t talk to the guy on the telephone – you got me there. But I’m sorry, I just can’t imagine anyone sounding sincere enough for me to buy this story and reject the hard evidence in front of my eyes. Tell me, Anthony, what did you hear in this guy’s voice that convinced you he was so much more sincere than every actor, politician, car salesman, lawyer, global warming alarmist, and every other professional liar who has ever lied to you?
Again, I apologize for insulting your intelligence. Clearly you are not stupid. Naive, perhaps, if you truly believe the “sincerity” of EcoSnoop’s response. But definitely not stupid. And I apologize for stating or implying anything of the sort.
Speaking of which, I did not read the words “apology”, “apologize”, or “sorry” in the response from EcoSnoop. Nor did I see any of those words in your description of the telephone conversation. Did this guy apologize to you or not? Clearly, he did not think that we, your loyal readers, were due an apology, or he would have included it in the response. The response comes really, really close (but not quite) to an admission of bad judgement in the language used in the original statement on the website, but it falls well short of any form of apology. I would think that a clear apology (as well as an unmistakable admission of error) would be a key part of any “sincere” response on the part of EcoSnoop. But that’s just me. Call me jaded if you will, but I need a little more than a sincere voice on the telephone to convince me.
Regards,
Trevor
Trevor,
“Of course, when the crop is harvested, the carbon stored in its tissue will eventually (probably by next summer) make it back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, one way or another.”
And there lies the rub. If all the CO2 ends up back in the atmosphere (it will) then you have gained precisely – nothing. Even if a tree fixes CO2 at only one tenth the rate, as long as it is not burnt or allowed to rot, the CO2 remains sequestered.
Once the activist has notified the offender about the unacceptable burning of energy, and the offender says: “Ah, but I have the necessary carbon offsets – official permission to pollute,” as someone like Al Gore will surely do, what is the poor activist to do?
Vo ist der papers!
Wikip on Useful Idiots:
“The term is commonly attributed to Vladimir Lenin, sometimes in the form “useful idiots of the West”, to describe those Western reporters and travelers who would endorse the Soviet Union and its policies in the West. In fact, the earlist known usage is a 1948 New York Times on Italian politics. In the spring of 1987, before the fall of the Soviet Union, Grant Harris, senior reference librarian at the Library of Congress, said “We have not been able to identify this phrase [useful idiots of the West] among [Lenin’s] published works.”
The central requirement for an idiot to be useful is that they should be sincere. That’s their whole point. The idiot part requires that they be completely oblivious of the consequences of the position they are promoting. The useful part is obvious enough, but is necessary to distinguish them from useless idiots, who are otherwise the same.
The unncessary extension of the quote saying that the phrase can’t be found in Lenin’s writing is an example of a useful idiot going about their work.
Smokey
Regarding your response to Eco Snoop; Your post is one of those rare ones that makes me want to stand up and cheer. I wish I could have the honor of shaking your hand.
The Eco Snoops are socialist busy bodies who would happily turn our once magnificent country into a police surveillance state. To hell with all of them!
Anthony – I work for a company making energy management systems for buildings. Selling this stuff is hard work, even when the savings pay for the system in 6 months!
In australia, and parts of the USA, it is soon to become law for buildings to have occupancy sensors and to turn lights off when there is nobody present. No harm in all this – waste for the sake of waste is just silly and costs money.
Simple measures like this, implemented fairly cost effectively, make a difference immediately in the pocket – reduced utility bills. ETS’s and carbon taxes are all indirect things that are supposed to have an effect, and don’t – it’s all TOO COMPLICATED.
This one IS fun… Eeko-Stooper is flailing wildly as are some posts here. Should anyone take pictures of private property without permission and display it publicly at a profit – they subject themselves to breach of privacy and property tort. In such a legal action the Stooper would need to explain to a jury why harassing private citizens who do little more than leave their lights on – for which they pay a fee – should be subject to mob rule.
One or two fat six figure damage awards against Stoopers will set the public straight. If there is no law breaking going on – or corruption of statute – get out of my home. I have a club called the Fourth Amendment and I will not hesitate to use it to put you out of business.
The parking lots have to be lit at night, as well as entries to the buildings. Lawyers are quite expensive when a person trips going down a set of stairs, even when lit, and blames it on the lighting not being sufficient.
Well , I’m way late to the party – been away from a computer for a few days and haven’t read the responses , but any suggestions I would have for Eco-Snoop would not get past the moderators .
great app, used it before, very handy
Vincent:
“If all the CO2 ends up back in the atmosphere (it will) then you have gained precisely – nothing.”
First of all, my point was about the very short term. The original post on the subject said that trees INITIALLY (can someone tell me how to bold stuff?) absorb more carbon dioxide than farming, then went on to show that, over the long term, net carbon absorption by trees is zero. I disagreed with the “initially”. And it is true that, initially, in the very short term, agricultural crops absorb more CO2 (and subscripts too?) than trees.
However, it is also true over the longer term. You see, as long as the crop land is planted again, year after year, with agricultural crops, the carbon will remain sequestered. Oh sure, it won’t be the SAME carbon atoms year after year. But every acre of actively growing crops absorbs carbon dioxide. When the crop is harvested, the carbon will be released (into the atmosphere as the non-edible tissue rots, or, if the residue is “plowed under”, into the soil). But the next crop will absorb it right back. So, while a given corn plant is not an effective long-term carbon-sequestration device, an acre of cropland, planted year after year, is quite effective at storing carbon for the long term. More so than an unharvested forest, at any rate.
But, the best really-long-term use of land for carbon sequestration is to plant fast-growing trees with economically profitable uses (like pine trees), and harvest and replant on a regular schedule. The carbon would be more-or-less permanently locked away in whatever product is made from the trees, as long as it was not allowed to rot. The problem with that, however, is that there’s just not nearly enough demand for lumber and paper for it to be economically profitable to harvest enough trees to put a serious dent in atmospheric carbon dioxide. I guess you could just BURY the trees miles underground (and in the really, really, REALLY long term, this is great, because after millions of years, our supply of fossil fuel would be replenished), but the expense involved in this would be gargantuan.