Hello,
I wish they would make LED light bulbs. It can not be that hard considering that a lot of christmas lights have gone the LED route. This I believe is the best way to light our homes and offices due to the fact that there is such a low power consumption for the light produced and also a very very long life span.
It is also interesting that all that we look at is the power consumption when the product is being used. What about the amount of energy required to make the product? I bet that if we factor in the amount of energy and raw materials consumed in making the flourescent bulbs along with the ballasts required to get the bulbs to work then the incandescant fixture looks pretty good. Let us not forget that the little flourescent which we screw into our light sockets all have electronic ballasts as well in the base.
Not trying to start a flame war but just wanting to point out another angle to the energy consumption debate.
Frank
"If you need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm."
That's a great question. CFL's do require more energy to manufacture, but this factor is offset over the lifetime of the bulb, which is much longer than an incandescent bulb. As well, CFL's use considerably less energy, further offsetting the manufacturing difference.
edited for clarity
da_kraut,
Great name, BTW... The main problem with LEDs right now is that LEDs are unidirectional, almost like a weak laser pointer. LED bulbs have to have little LEDs all over to avoid lighting a room like a stationary disco ball. It's an obstacle, but one that just needs a little more work to overcome. Give it a little time. I'm waiting myself.
You're right about the question of manufacturing... Generally, though, the more of something is made, the less energy per unit it takes to make them, and the cheaper they are to make. Large-scale CFL production is just around the corner as Walmart is trying to push the technology, and even Britain is (I believe) considering banning standard incandescents. I'm not advocating that (I'm an American; I don't like laws telling me what I can't buy -- besides, CFLs are ill-suited for places like bathrooms and closets, as others have noted here, because rapid on-off cycles shorten their lives), but I think it means that they'll be making lots more.
But good point; it takes energy to make things that save energy... At what point do we break even?
Even more important, at what point to we throw up our hands in frustration, go grab a beer, and go run trains? Now!!!
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
da_kraut wrote:I wish they would make LED light bulbs. Frank
I wish they would make LED light bulbs.
Ah, but they do. I don't remember the company name at the moment, but on a recent episode of Mythbusters (in which they test the myth "Is it more efficient to leave the lights on, or turn them off") they obtained and included in the test an LED light bulb. In the on/off cycle test, it proved to be the only one out of 6 types of bulbs that didn't burn out. The other types were: regular incandescent, CFL, metal halide (the "blue" streetlight type, also used in security lights, etc.), regular "tube" flourescent, and a spotlight type (maybe halogen?) bulb. The other test was current draw, and as I recall, the current draw went something like this:
Regular incandescent: 90w
CFL: 10w
Metal Halide: 40w
Tube flourescent: 40w (single tube)
Spotlight (Halogen?): 100w
LED: 1w
Light output was not measured for this test, as it didn't (directly) relate to the myth. I must admit, that LED bulb looked like something from a SCI-FI movie.
I'm in the process of converting my vehicles (cars, trailers) to LEDs. I like both the lower current draw, easing the electrical load on the car, and the nearly forever life expectancy on these. I'll try an LED bulb in the house, if and when I find an affordable source.
Brad
EMD - Every Model Different
ALCO - Always Leaking Coolant and Oil
CSX - Coal Spilling eXperts
Varnet wrote:Minor nitpick: studies estimate that annual man-made CO2 output overwhelms annual volcanic output by a factor of roughly 150 times. snip
Minor nitpick: studies estimate that annual man-made CO2 output overwhelms annual volcanic output by a factor of roughly 150 times. snip
I do recall the green team telling us in 1972 that we had just over 20 more years and we would have depleated every ounce of petroleum on the earth. I heard those reports sitting in line waiting to fill up my tank.
Greenland. . .
Seems to me that the issue is so outrageously hyped by both sides that it is impossible for the fellow in the street to sort fact from fiction.
And Dave, I'm not meaning in any way to offend, but I got to tell you that about every other day or two, some weather person on the radio/tv tells me that something is going to happen and it does not. The weather, inspite of all the applied science still cannot tell us reliably what is going to happen day over day. The five day forecast is at best an approximation from what I see.
So, how about those Rockies?
Better yet, has anyone reserved a Triplex from MTH?
Joe
joe-daddy wrote:Interesting, just today, I heard an 'expert' assure the audience that man made output accounts for less than 4% of all C02 output, nature being responsible for the rest.
Thats probably a correct figure BUT..
The big difference between the 4% and the 96% is that the 4% comes from manmade or more accurate from carbon that have been deposited in the earth for billions of years.
The 96% have always been recycled in the nature. When a plant grows it breath in CO2 and use the C (carbon) for growth and releases th O2 (oxygen). When the plant eventually dies it will be consumed by different biological processes that creates CO2 again (the 96%). As long as we let thoses processes be undisturbed the CO2 produced will not have an impact on climate because there has always been a balance. But man is disturbing that balance when deforesting big areas, for example the Amazonas ond the slopes of Himalaya.
The 4% coming from fossil carbon (coal and oil) will for ever (or at least for a very very long time) disturb the eco system.
Nils-Olov
Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation out there. Also, a lot of people are self-proclaimed experts without any of the academic credentials to back them up (in fact, a recent Nobel-aureate comes to mind...). The trouble is, there's so much noise out there, covering the spectrum from shrieking alarmists pleading that we all live like the Amish to denialist scientists paid by the fossil fuel lobby. The science often gets buried by the noise.
But in this train board, we probably won't be able to sort through the science. While I appreciate that many (including me) have strong opinions on the subject, the crux of my post was that for those who are concerned about their footprint, let's share some ideas.
Lighting - I use 2 48" fluorescent tubes, one daylight and one blue-white (80W total). The color seems to work quite well and I haven't noticed any fading/plastic damage. The fixture hangs from the ceiling and is about 2' or so from the layout top.
I recently installed a CFL floodlight in a recessed fixture in the ceiling over the kitchen sink. I really like how it lights the area. I wonder if a series of recessed CFL floodlights might be able to provide the same lighting as a pair of standard tubes.
joe-daddy wrote: 4 - Enamel - Use of enamel instead of acrylic paint would also fall into the category of being less abusive to the environment.
4 - Enamel - Use of enamel instead of acrylic paint would also fall into the category of being less abusive to the environment.
Huh? Wouldn't oil based enamel be worse than water based acrylics?
I watched a show on Discovery Channel the other night. An atmospheric scientist said the Earths atmosphere only contains .02% CO2. I thought that sounded a little low from what I remember from high school science. Maybe someone can clarify this for me. (maybe a meteorologist or something?)
loathar wrote: joe-daddy wrote: 4 - Enamel - Use of enamel instead of acrylic paint would also fall into the category of being less abusive to the environment.Huh? Wouldn't oil based enamel be worse than water based acrylics?I watched a show on Discovery Channel the other night. An atmospheric scientist said the Earths atmosphere only contains .02% CO2. I thought that sounded a little low from what I remember from high school science. Maybe someone can clarify this for me. (maybe a meteorologist or something?)
Sorry for the typo! You are absolutely correct!
Not necessarily trying to offend anyone, but much of the veiled discussion pro global warming is offensive to me. Frankly, I don't buy into the global warming theory at all. Period. There, the elephant in the middle of the room is green. Save your flames, it just makes your point worse.
Now, having said that, reducing my electric bill IS important to me, and keeping my gas bill from putting me in the poor house is a very good thought. SO I do find the use of power saving devices to be good business, IF they save me money. For example, I can easily justify CFLs. Hybrid cars with their 8-9 year payback, well, I'll pass.
Now, a couple of other thoughts on the practical side of this discussion.
Motion detectors - I use wall switch mounted motion detectors in the hallways of our house. They serve the dual purpose of eliminating those lights being on all the time and makes the halls much safer. I'm putting one in the stairwell this weekend. I also use X-10 stuff to help with weird lighting situations and at Christmas time, where I can turn all the lights and stuff on and off with a button or a motion detector. We have an indoor water feature in the entry way upstairs. The motion detector makes sure that it is always running when company comes and politely shuts itself of after 10 minutes. It also turns on the lights in the curio cabinets and the dining room china cabinet at the same time. (These are lights and features that were either never used or stayed on all the time in my house.)
Watts Up - This inline power meter helps one realize just how much a month it costs to have a computer, printer, DCC system, or anything else running all the time. It has a built in rate calculator and gives you cost per month or cost for the period being used, watts, amps, voltage and is very simple to use. It has saved me several thousand bucks over the past four years i've had it.
Several years ago, I had a season of $600 heating bills and it scared me. The cause, it turned out, was a rusted gas pipe that started leaking at the time gas prices went crazy around 2000 or 2001. It pretty much shocked me into the reality of the situation.
As for gas milage, my 1990's automobiles are paid for and I can purchase a tremendous amount of fuel and make repairs for what new minimum payments would cost. Our next car will likely be something with 30 mpg or more instead of the current 19.
At this point in my life, every buck I can shave off the utilty bill goes into my 401K. That is important to me.
My 2 cents
Joe-Daddy,
Some good tips there! I recently installed programmable thermostats, and they've saved me money too.
The hybrid car thing... If you're out just to save a buck, gas prices will need to skyrocket before the hybrid car truly saves money. I agree there. I drive my Prius for several reasons. The environmental one is one I won't win with you, I know.
But, as a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I hate the idea of my hard-earned cash going back to the Middle East or Venezuela to line the pockets of currupt and despotic governments.
The less of my money going to the likes of Hugo Chavez or the Saudi royal family, the better!
And I don't mean to offend... I'm just trying to share ideas with like-minded individuals. You are free to choose based on your interpretation of the evidence.
I will say this; save for a fringe group called the "Coalition for a Greener Earth," nobody's truly "pro-Global Warming."
Dave Vollmer wrote:Joe-Daddy,Some good tips there! I recently installed programmable thermostats, and they've saved me money too.The hybrid car thing... If you're out just to save a buck, gas prices will need to skyrocket before the hybrid car truly saves money. I agree there. I drive my Prius for several reasons. The environmental one is one I won't win with you, I know. But, as a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I hate the idea of my hard-earned cash going back to the Middle East or Venezuela to line the pockets of currupt and despotic governments.The less of my money going to the likes of Hugo Chavez or the Saudi royal family, the better!And I don't mean to offend... I'm just trying to share ideas with like-minded individuals. You are free to choose based on your interpretation of the evidence.I will say this; save for a fringe group called the "Coalition for a Greener Earth," nobody's truly "pro-Global Warming."
Dave,
Yes, we agree Energy independence is the biggest root cause of the United States' global problems. But there I go, getting suckered into the debate again! My apology for slipping off. . .
Back to the issue!
I'd forgotten about programmable thermostats. Good things, they are!
Here is a tip that has made my heating & cooling bill go down perhaps more than anything else. I live in a house with a large basement. Keeping the door shut between upstairs and downstairs has been really instrumental in keeping an even temperature in the train room as well as the rest of the house while actually keeping the equipment from running all the time! With the door open, the AC cannot get upstairs below about 75 while I can hang beef in the train room. In the winter, the opposite is true. SImple concept I know, but, but, but.
While you do make a cogent case for climate change, I did notice a couple of (let's just call them collectivist) "talking points" that have slipped, unnoticed, in the defense of your position.
1) In your initial post you said, "I have an emotional investment in this topic". When emotions enter a scientific discussion, objectivity often leaves. Without objectivity their is no science.
2) Later you said, "The trouble is, there's so much noise out there, covering the spectrum from shrieking alarmists pleading that we all live like the Amish to denialist scientists paid by the fossil fuel lobby."
The second half of this is right out of the collectivist's playbook. If there is to be an intelligent discussion on climate change and its possible causes, it must be recognized that there are many learned and intellectually honest scientists and laymen who doubt either the cause behind or the extent of global warming. To try an imply that anyone who questions the global warming dogma is either a nut ( like a Holocaust Denier ) or on the pay of "Big Oil" is political propaganda of the lowest sort.
When I hear things like the above as well as Al Gore's talk of a "Planetary Emergency" followed by him saying "it gives us an excuse to do things we should be doing anyway." It makes me wonder, excactly how strong is the science behind their argument, if they have to resort to these sort of "scare tactics" to make their point?
George
"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."
George,
Good points. And again, I'm really, really trying not to beat people over the head with this. The media's doing that already!
I'm in the middle, really. I don't think the end of the world is coming tomorrow; I don't think Greenland's going to collapse and flood NYC next year. But I'm not 100% on the "it's just natural variability" side either. I believe that we should be very careful about changing the composition of the atmosphere, because it's so difficult to know what the consequences for doing so are. I think my academic credentials should be proof that I've developed an informed opinion on the subject.
The emotional investment on my part is that I'm a father, as are many of you. I want my kids to live in a happy, healthy Earth, free from terrorism, conflict, and environmental problems. I'm emotional about it because I feel I owe it to my sons to hedge my bets, and make sure that if there's a chance that this thing might happen, I've tried to not make it worse.
Since my research is not on climate change, but on stratospheric turbulence forecasting, I'm not affecting the climate debate in the field. I've been sprayed by a firehose of seminars and lectures on it, though. But most scientists are passionate and emotional about their work (Einstein, Fermi, Feynman, Teller, etc. come to mind), but we do not discount it because of lack of objectivity. All human endeavors have some subjective element.
The noise part, c'mon... There are charlatans on both sides. My point is that there is misinformation from both sides. This makes the "truth," if there is one, almost impossible for a layman to find. There are many well-respected, independent climate scientists who disagree with the common interpretation of climate change. I'm not questioning them. There are, however, some people with scientific credentials on both sides working toward political agendas, either business-as-usual or radical-left-green-whackjobs, whose credentialed opinions are anything but objective. Such is the danger when science becomes a political issue.
I'm a conservative in the traditional sense (not the political sense). I believe in all things in moderation (except trains!).
Dave Vollmer wrote:I'm a conservative in the traditional sense (not the political sense). I believe in all things in moderation (except trains!).
Now that is good politics!
I am interested in stellar physics, and I feel that our Sun's cyclic output has as much to do with global warming as does anthropogenic gas production and consumption. Also, it would be one thing if we were discussing something less than an order of magnitude in the disparities between the two camps, but that is not the case. Those who insist that global warming is nearly entirely associated with anthropogenic activity are claiming that the CO2 production is nearly 10 times what those opposed claim is actually due to bacterial and volcanic activity. In fact the earlier statment about CO2 from volcanoes is just plain wrong. Their CO2 output vastly outstrips anthropogenic production.
Okay, I have said my piece...and am feeling much better now.
On the subject of energy, I feel that non-cut-off light fixtures meant to make people feel safe in urban centres is one of the greatest and most egregious sustained excesses in the use of energy. Lighting the night sky where no one lives seems senseless to me and to other astronomers and astronomy buffs. A good sized dog is going to be much more effective in terms of personal safety.
Hey Crandell,
I'm looking forward to the next solar minimum... The solar output for the cycle in the 2020s is expected to be as low as during the Little Ice Age. It will be very, very interesting indeed to see what really happens! I'm a snow hound, so I'm hoping it really does counter the CO2 forcing.
Also, the last major glacial advance (the Ice Age ending 11,000 years ago) may have been triggered, in part, by the eruption of Mount Toba in Indonesia. In fact, anthropologists claim that volcano nearly wiped out humanity, reducing us to a mere few thousand breeding pairs. Not sure that gels with my religious beliefs, but it does show that one really big volcano can render this whole debate moot!
Just to keep those wheels turning... All those huge earthquakes off of Sumatra have been only a few hundred km from Mount Toba. Hmm....
Oh, and uh... oh yeah, model trains are great, er uh... they're uh.... really the way... uh to go, yeah...
I think Model Railroaders always have an interest in saving money.
Most of us have grown up on Testor's little enamel bottle paints. Acrylics done in the same colors should have replaced them by now. Then we can get back to the argument about who makes the best ATSF red or whatever proto color you need.
Many of us started with the old Testors tube cement. Then the ACC Super Glues were hot. If the model manufaturers put all the little parts on locos, we have almost no use for them.
For scenery, it may have been the 2nd Kalmback book to use water based acrylic glues, paints, etc. Easier to cleanup with few toxic fumes till it dries.
The subject of the CFL's is a good one. I have heard that they may be too yellow in color. At least they may have no place in the bathroom, but should be fine for entrances & hallways. Perhaps for the layout we do need a mix of daylight & other types to balance the color.
In some stores, I have seen new solar-powered string lights for Christmas decorations.
For me, the talk about Global Warming puts people in charge of saving the planet when the forces of nature are so much stronger. There must be a strong relation to changes in the Sun & our orbit that we don't fully understand yet.
Interesting topic! I never even considered that model railroading might be Eco-UNfriendly! makes one think it does! a lifetime of running trains probably causes as much damage to the environment as driving my car to the store one time! this is serious! obviously, if we REALLY care, there is only one thing we can do:
sell your house.
sell your car.
give up your computer.
use no electricity.
build your own house out of trees you cut down yourself.
re-plant the trees so you can harvest them later for firewood.
if you already have trains and track you bought previously, you might as well keep them, because the damage has already been done..(but dont buy any new ones! plastic manufacturing is bad)
build a new layout on benchwork you build from trees you cut down yourself, all sawed and formed using only hand tools...push the trains around the track by hand...only during the day of course, you cant work at night, its too dark and you dont have electricity...
if you dont do all things, you just dont care enough!
Scot
Of course, were we to resort to an agrarian existence, our numbers would only exacerbate global warming if our contribution is as strong as some claim because we would need more horses, and raise more livestock. I think the secret, or the nasty secret, about methane is well understood, so we appear to be stuck on our evolution-of-technology rollercoaster.
(Insert required MR-related material here...) How about those BLI Blue Line C&O T1's?
Statistically, we are long overdue for a super-nova within 20,00 light years of us. When that happens, if we have their nature right, the gamma ray output will slowly erode our atmosphere and sterilize the planet. So, whether CO2, pure methane, or our current mixture, global warming will take on a whole nuther meaning if that happens before the next Nobel "peace" prize (am I the only one who doesn't giggle over this?) is awarded.
(insert required MR-related material here...) One of these days, one of these days... POW, I'm gonna open that Danby Sawmill kit and read the instructions.
Scottychaos...
Can't build benchwork from wood; after all, trees are a carbon sink! Cutting them down is bad!
You should sell your trains to buy carbon credits to attone for your eco-sin!
You're right, it's hard to think of model railroading as being bad for the planet. Truth be told, it really isn't all that horrible. Sure, when we operate our layouts, we use a lot of power (but then, so does my coffee pot and I CAN'T live with out my coffee!). But all said and done, it's not like we operate a chain of coal-fired power plants.
Am I being hypocritical? Maybe. Too serious? Probably! It's just a really messed up world out there, and I'm trying to make sense of it for me and for my kids. I want to make sure I'm being as least wasteful as possible. That includes the ultimate non-practical pursuit of all; my hobbies. I recently gave up flying small aircraft (there's an environmental no-no) primarily because of the cost. I'm also a golfer, and golf courses... well, they aren't exactly super kind to the environment (think of all that water they use!). So yeah, I'm probably not the best role model in an environmental sense.
Would you believe that a few years ago I was anything but an environmentalist? I used to drive a V8 all-wheel-drive Explorer, and I used to advocate drilling for oil at ANWR! Fatherhood and the war changed my perspective...
Anywho... Thanks for a good laugh, Scotty, and for planting my feet back on the ground. Reality checks are good!
Does having a shelf full of unbuilt kits make me a collectivist?
I agree with Dave and many others here, in that there is so much dogma and rhetoric from both sides of the aisle that it's hard to have a rational discussion about climate change anymore. It has become such a polarized debate that most everyone falls into one camp or the other, which is great for ratings or getting votes or selling books, but not so great for having a rational debate that leads to anything productive; most times the debate devolves into both sides shouting "We're right and they're wrong" with their fingers in their ears. That's why I tend to ignore the talk radio hosts and the politicians (current and former!) and stick with reading boring scientific research. While there is a large (and growing) body of evidence that supports the hypothesis that the overall world climate is in a warming trend, we just don't know enough yet to understand why.
Regardless, as others have wisely pointed out, saving energy equals less dependence on foreign energy sources, and saving energy also equals saving money, which is always a good thing!
Regarding global warming, to say I'm a bit skeptical of it being man-made is putting it mildly.
Especially when many of the crowd crying this alarm, are the same ones who cried how the world would come screaming to a halt due to Y2K problems........which never came to pass.......
I'm thinking that my model railroading hobby MUST be classified as Eco friendly, clean and green all the way. Why? Because since I started this I spend much more time in my basement, I drive about 7 or 8 thousand miles a year less than before and there has been no appreciable increase in the overall use of infrastructure at the house. My previous hobby of building hot rods meant I was heating a 40 X 40 garage so I could build a car that got 10 miles to the gallon. (The basement was already being heated before I started.)
Yes, MRR is waay green.
Mailman56701 wrote: Regarding global warming, to say I'm a bit skeptical of it being man-made is putting it mildly. Especially when many of the crowd crying this alarm, are the same ones who cried how the world would come screaming to a halt due to Y2K problems........which never came to pass.......
I don't think climatologists were the ones crying "Y2K!"
I remember my job during Y2K was to have all of my combat weather systems running at midnight (I was stationed in Korea at the time). Nothing bad happened. Surprise! I missed a darned good party, though...
Now, if I had been running DCC, I might have had a Y2K issue. Picture this; it's December 31st, 1999. You're running modern diesels. Poof! Midnight! DCC thinks it's January 1st, 1900. Your Genesis is now a 4-6-0!
BTW, it's halftime and Penn State is up 24-7 against Wisconsin (it's homecoming weekend at dear old State)... woo-hoo!!!
I remember working on new years eve in a grocery store and everyone was buying water, canned goods, etc. We had a guy that wanted buy 600 cases of tomato soup, why I still don't know. But as the day went on and the new years was being rung in around the world, and nothing was happening people were still buying stock piles of gorceries. I asked someone why they were buying so much stuff, mentioning that nothing bad had happened in places like Japan and other parts of the industrialized world, and their response was, well the Japaneese had been working on this problem for decades and Americans are arrogant and hadn't done anything and only America was going to have problems.
I was shocked at the behaviour exhibted by people and their ruch to plan for the worse, yet knowing nothing of the true problem. I personally at the time had been running mac computers and had set my callender for the year 2001, and never had a problem and wondered why the big deal. I remember the money wasted by the companies to rework all their computers adn software. All of these scare tactics are snake oil salesman, we just think we are too smart to be had, but we continue to be had by them. Remeber global cooling, acid rain, deforestation, etc. All of these were going to end life as we know it. I don't pretend to be a scientist or a learned scholar on these matters, but I do know that history repeats itself! Look to history and you will probably find the answer.
ECOLOGY:
1. Use REAL grass. (Stop smoking it).
2. Use 'windups'.
It WAS your basement.
reklein wrote:Ya mean we're not to sprinkle asbestos fibers in our plaster anymore ,to give it strength and texture??
Heh heh if you remember those days, then you remember the articles about turntable indexing based on drilling holes and filling them with mercury for contacts! And clean those tools with carbon tetrachloride while you're at it. And at the end of the day, it all went down the sink .... Air brush with Floquil ... paint booth? I don't need no stinkin' paint booth ....
Actually most model railroaders are pretty good at trading "carbon credits." For all the electricity and resources we use, most of us are also dedicated dumpster divers and prevent all manner of stuff from ever being sent to the landfill. E.g. has anyone else noticed how the plastic used for bottles of laundry detergent and cat litter containers has a slightly rough texture rather like asphalt or stucco ....
Dave Nelson
Dave Vollmer wrote: Mailman56701 wrote: Regarding global warming, to say I'm a bit skeptical of it being man-made is putting it mildly. Especially when many of the crowd crying this alarm, are the same ones who cried how the world would come screaming to a halt due to Y2K problems........which never came to pass.......I don't think climatologists were the ones crying "Y2K!"I remember my job during Y2K was to have all of my combat weather systems running at midnight (I was stationed in Korea at the time). Nothing bad happened. Surprise! I missed a darned good party, though...Now, if I had been running DCC, I might have had a Y2K issue. Picture this; it's December 31st, 1999. You're running modern diesels. Poof! Midnight! DCC thinks it's January 1st, 1900. Your Genesis is now a 4-6-0!BTW, it's halftime and Penn State is up 24-7 against Wisconsin (it's homecoming weekend at dear old State)... woo-hoo!!!
Not everyone crying global warming is a climatoligist, just as not everyone crying y2k was involved with computers, et al. :)
Dave Vollmer wrote:But, as a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I hate the idea of my hard-earned cash going back to the Middle East or Venezuela to line the pockets of currupt and despotic governments.