| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/07/2007 07:06:57 PM · #301 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
What would you like as a poster child? Someone who lives in a grass hut off the grid and walks everywhere? |
.
Ed Begley, Jr.!! He at least PRACTICES what he PREACHES. |
Gore does practice what he preaches. Do some reading on what carbon neutral is (If it's on Fox it's BS). Watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and listen to what he says. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 07:09:37 PM · #302 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
And the problem with most of the visibly "green" celebrities out there is that they are perceived as too weird to be taken seriously. |
I don't think Kermit is weird. That's an unfair characterisation. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 07:14:10 PM · #303 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Rebecca:
And the problem with most of the visibly "green" celebrities out there is that they are perceived as too weird to be taken seriously. |
I don't think Kermit is weird. That's an unfair characterisation. |
It's not easy being green :) //www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/green.htm |
|
|
|
03/09/2007 08:55:25 AM · #304 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
So you're saying we should shoot the messenger? Nice.
I do think Gore does what he can. A former vice president pretty much can't walk to work or take public transit. It's a national security risk to expose him to that degree. The green energy credits is controversial, but it's something. It's not just about emissions.
But then, what are YOU doing? Are you looking to use Gore as a scapegoat to justify your own inaction? |
You should be commended for your efforts.
However, by giving Gore a pass and stating that "he does what he can", then please explain why everyone does not get the same attaboy due their own "doing what they can"?
Please define for me what the acceptable limit for energy units used. If it is several thounds of dollar per month as Mr. Gore uses, then I am well within my energy units used.
Once you have defined how many energy units a "responsible" person can use, then we can determine who is and who is not responsible. In other words, once the energy units are determined, then anyone can pick and choose where they want to use their energy units. They can use some to have a larger lawn (thus a larger mower and more fuel consumption), but drive more fuel efficient vehicles or live closer to work. They can choose to heat their home (smaller than an estate) but perhaps not aircondition it in the summer. They could choose to drive one of those evil HUMMERS but live in a smaller home, smaller yard and other efficient energy unit savers to offset their vehicle bills. If this is all you ask, then please define how many energy units I get. Then we can judge everybody.
I suspect however, that you do not wish to define the number of energy units that a "responsible" person can use, since if you do, then you will have to accept the choices of some to offset their units to drive what you likely perceive to be "evil" machines.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2007 09:09:49 AM · #305 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You should be commended for your efforts.
However, by giving Gore a pass and stating that "he does what he can", then please explain why everyone does not get the same attaboy due their own "doing what they can"? |
Because everyone else isn't buying green energy, buying carbon offsets to be carbon neutral and inspiring millions of people to do the same.
Originally posted by Flash:
Please define for me what the acceptable limit for energy units used. If it is several thounds of dollar per month as Mr. Gore uses, then I am well within my energy units used.
Once you have defined how many energy units a "responsible" person can use, then we can determine who is and who is not responsible. In other words, once the energy units are determined, then anyone can pick and choose where they want to use their energy units. They can use some to have a larger lawn (thus a larger mower and more fuel consumption), but drive more fuel efficient vehicles or live closer to work. They can choose to heat their home (smaller than an estate) but perhaps not aircondition it in the summer. They could choose to drive one of those evil HUMMERS but live in a smaller home, smaller yard and other efficient energy unit savers to offset their vehicle bills. If this is all you ask, then please define how many energy units I get. Then we can judge everybody.
I suspect however, that you do not wish to define the number of energy units that a "responsible" person can use, since if you do, then you will have to accept the choices of some to offset their units to drive what you likely perceive to be "evil" machines. |
Once again you are failing to see what Gore is trying to say. Might as well switch over to communism if we are going to ration out energy units.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2007 09:23:29 AM · #306 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Please define for me what the acceptable limit for energy units used. If it is several thounds of dollar per month as Mr. Gore uses, then I am well within my energy units used. |
This is why you can buy "credits." It makes you feel better about all the energy you suck up and spit out. To me, these "credits" do not make you neutral. Yes, you are paying back in to green technology, some, but you are not conserving energy, etc.
I would like to know what the responsible "units" per person to use, is also. I could guess I am under.
I keep my house cold in the winter and warm in the summer (mainly to reduce bills), My landscaping is almost all waterwise, except one small patch of grass in the back (and all hand landscaped by myself), I use a push mower (by choice, not because it is green), I bought a motorcycle to increase MPG for going to work, etc., BUT, I do drive a 2004 Ford F150. I love my truck and it gets me out to do the things I enjoy, hiking, camping, and backpacking in remote locations.
When I find the mountain property I want and build on it, I will be off the grid, also...Wonder what my "units" would be? Less than Gore, for shore.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2007 09:42:20 AM · #307 |
There's a fundamental misunderstanding here about what "green energy credits" really are. Do a google search. Many cities will let you choose to have the energy you pay for come from clean sources instead of more traditional pollution-generating sources. The one price description I found was 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour more. Most programs aren't selling "credits", that I could see. But if you choose to participate in green program, your share of the power that is generated and sent to the grid will come from a "green" source. This encourages the development of more clean, renewable energy sources. While looking into it, I popped over to my own local power company. They don't offer a green energy program, but proposed the development of one in late 2006.
But the REALLY big misunderstanding being perpetuated here by the poo-pooers is that energy MUST equal pollution. But it DOESN'T. Energy from traditional sources? Yes. Energy from green or clean sources? No. So does it matter how much the Gore family likes to leave the lights on, since one sensationalized electric bill is all anyone has to go on? NO. They pay for their share of it to come from a source for which such a thing matters only to their checkbook, not to their environmental ideology.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2007 11:09:46 AM · #308 |
Originally posted by poonaka:
Once again you are failing to see what Gore is trying to say. |
No, I clearly hear what he is trying to say. However, he doesn't walk the talk.
If all that is needed is to support an idea verbally, then many should get accolades for their speeches. Politicians in particular should be some of the most revered people in the land, as they certainly qualify as giving lip service to support ideas that they do not personally adhere to.
My point is very specific. Define the amount of energy "allowable" by any responsible person, and we can then judge/grade everyone. This to me seems fair. Without it, we simply have emotional banter and hyperbole regarding man's burning of fossil fuels, with the activists zeroing in on specific vehicles/actions.
If burning gasoline is a significant contibutor to the "global warming" event, then should we outlaw recreational vehicles. ATV's, snowmobiles, personal watercraft, pleasure/recreational fishing boats, off road vehicles, etc? Do we legislate only human powered craft like bicycles, canoes, hiking, snow shoeing, running, etc? What happens to all the industries that will be affected and lives/families without income wages? What about the taxes paid by enthusiasts that will not be collected? What inpact does that have versus the ACTUAL impact of using gasoline?
It is one thing to mouth a position for the populace to hear. It is something completely different to be responsible for and the impact of the words spoken.
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread...man's burning of fossil fuels is NOT a significant contributor to the earths current global warming "crisis" . However, if you wish to claim it is, then please define how many energy units I get, so I can get you all off my back for driving whatever vehicle I choose to drive.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2007 11:27:04 AM · #309 |
Originally posted by Flash:
What happens to all the industries that will be affected and lives/families without income wages? |
This is one of the fallacies stated by the opposition with great frequency, but it's just that - a fallacy. You're not killing jobs, you're creating them. If green technology expands, who is going to run it? It creates temporary hardships for the people who have to transition from a coal plant job to something else, but the number of jobs created actually more than offsets the number of jobs lost.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2007 11:29:47 AM · #310 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by poonaka:
Once again you are failing to see what Gore is trying to say. |
No, I clearly hear what he is trying to say. However, he doesn't walk the talk.
If all that is needed is to support an idea verbally, then many should get accolades for their speeches. Politicians in particular should be some of the most revered people in the land, as they certainly qualify as giving lip service to support ideas that they do not personally adhere to.
My point is very specific. Define the amount of energy "allowable" by any responsible person, and we can then judge/grade everyone. This to me seems fair. Without it, we simply have emotional banter and hyperbole regarding man's burning of fossil fuels, with the activists zeroing in on specific vehicles/actions.
If burning gasoline is a significant contibutor to the "global warming" event, then should we outlaw recreational vehicles. ATV's, snowmobiles, personal watercraft, pleasure/recreational fishing boats, off road vehicles, etc? Do we legislate only human powered craft like bicycles, canoes, hiking, snow shoeing, running, etc? What happens to all the industries that will be affected and lives/families without income wages? What about the taxes paid by enthusiasts that will not be collected? What inpact does that have versus the ACTUAL impact of using gasoline?
It is one thing to mouth a position for the populace to hear. It is something completely different to be responsible for and the impact of the words spoken.
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread...man's burning of fossil fuels is NOT a significant contributor to the earths current global warming "crisis" . However, if you wish to claim it is, then please define how many energy units I get, so I can get you all off my back for driving whatever vehicle I choose to drive. |
You clearly don't understand what he is saying. He walks his talk!
This whole idea you have in your head about having to have a hard limit for everything is just asinine. Conserve what you can, buy green energy and you'll be doing a lot more than most people. |
|
|
|
03/09/2007 01:05:26 PM · #311 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Originally posted by Flash:
What happens to all the industries that will be affected and lives/families without income wages? |
This is one of the fallacies stated by the opposition with great frequency, but it's just that - a fallacy. You're not killing jobs, you're creating them. If green technology expands, who is going to run it? It creates temporary hardships for the people who have to transition from a coal plant job to something else, but the number of jobs created actually more than offsets the number of jobs lost. |
You did not address the context of the sentence you pulled. My comment had nothing to do with coal jobs versus "green" energy jobs. My comment had to do with the manufacturing jobs lost, if recreational vehicles were banned, due to alarmism from the greenies. Those are the jobs and families that must be addressed.
Originally posted by poonaka:
This whole idea you have in your head about having to have a hard limit for everything is just asinine. Conserve what you can, buy green energy and you'll be doing a lot more than most people. |
Does this mean that you support the use of recreational vehicles (as they burn fossil fuels) or is this in the category of elimination due to your "do what you can" position?
If you support the use of recreational vehicles that burn gasoline simply for "pleasure" pursuits, then how can you criticize someone who does not use recreational vehicles but choose a less fuel efficient daily driver? If you are against the use of recreational vehicles, due to their sinful and irresponsible violation of the enviornment, then what is your proposal for the jobs eliminated and taxes forfeited due to their elimination?
|
|
|
|
03/09/2007 01:24:47 PM · #312 |
My proposal for the jobs eliminated would be not to eliminate them at all. Instead, you start using cleaner fuels for rec vehicles as well as autos. Switching to bio diesel and ethanol would not eliminate jobs, it would just change them.
What is most frustrating and depressing about the Global Warming issue is people deny that it exists, they call it a "theory". That is assinine. How can people deny that all the gasoline we burn is not doing damage to the earth? Just because we don't see dramatic changes doesn't mean that we are not destroying our environment slowly. This should be an important issue no matter where you fall politically. The damage we are doing to the earth effects everyone equally, democrat or republican. |
|
|
|
03/09/2007 01:29:23 PM · #313 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Does this mean that you support the use of recreational vehicles (as they burn fossil fuels) or is this in the category of elimination due to your "do what you can" position?
If you support the use of recreational vehicles that burn gasoline simply for "pleasure" pursuits, then how can you criticize someone who does not use recreational vehicles but choose a less fuel efficient daily driver? If you are against the use of recreational vehicles, due to their sinful and irresponsible violation of the enviornment, then what is your proposal for the jobs eliminated and taxes forfeited due to their elimination? |
Recreational vehicles are fine, can't expect people to give up their RVs, motor boats etc. The only people I criticize about driving less fuel efficient vehicles are the ones who go out of their way to drive the biggest vehicle on the road. Seriously there's no need to drive a Hummer, it's a military vehicle for God's sakes. What's needed is for the automotive industry to embrace green technology. That way when it's time to buy a new car/truck you'll be able to pick (hopefully) something that isn't a fossil fuel pig.
There's always going to be taxes, if they can't make enough taxing fuel, they'll raise taxes on something else like licenses or vehicle registration, or make up a new tax altogether.
With people moving towards green technology there will be a ton of new jobs created. |
|
|
|
03/09/2007 02:03:29 PM · #314 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
What is most frustrating and depressing about the Global Warming issue is people deny that it exists, they call it a "theory". That is assinine. How can people deny that all the gasoline we burn is not doing damage to the earth? |
I sense that you have not read this thread through. There is agreement that Global Warming exists, has existed for millenia, and is currently in effect. What is argued, is the cause of it. Some, like Gore, and you based on your references to the burning of gasoline, believe that man's use of fossil fuels is a significant part of the cause. Other's argue that it is not.
Originally posted by poonaka:
Recreational vehicles are fine, can't expect people to give up their RVs, motor boats etc. The only people I criticize about driving less fuel efficient vehicles are the ones who go out of their way to drive the biggest vehicle on the road. Seriously there's no need to drive a Hummer, it's a military vehicle for God's sakes. What's needed is for the automotive industry to embrace green technology. That way when it's time to buy a new car/truck you'll be able to pick (hopefully) something that isn't a fossil fuel pig. |
What I read you saying here, is that it is OK to recreationally burn fossil fuels, but driving a hummer is irresponsible to the enviornment because it is a fossil fuel pig. This is precisely the reason I started this thread, to expose those who in my opinion, have no clue what they are arguing. If it is permissible to recreationally burn fossil fuel (ie. snowmobiles, ATV's, watercraft, etc), then a person who did not recreationally consume fossil fuels (due to their conservation by hiking, canoeing, snow shoeing or cross country skiing), then they should have energy credits (kind of like Gore) to which they could apply them towards a less fuel efficient vehicle like a Hummer. My guess is that you, like so many others in the greenie stable, cannot see the forest through the trees. You are fixated on a "symbol" without realizing the hypocracy in your stance.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2007 02:39:30 PM · #315 |
Originally posted by Flash:
What I read you saying here, is that it is OK to recreationally burn fossil fuels, but driving a hummer is irresponsible to the enviornment because it is a fossil fuel pig. This is precisely the reason I started this thread, to expose those who in my opinion, have no clue what they are arguing. If it is permissible to recreationally burn fossil fuel (ie. snowmobiles, ATV's, watercraft, etc), then a person who did not recreationally consume fossil fuels (due to their conservation by hiking, canoeing, snow shoeing or cross country skiing), then they should have energy credits (kind of like Gore) to which they could apply them towards a less fuel efficient vehicle like a Hummer. My guess is that you, like so many others in the greenie stable, cannot see the forest through the trees. You are fixated on a "symbol" without realizing the hypocracy in your stance. |
Recreational vehicles fill a need. Someone wants to buy an RV or a camper to go on vacation is fine by me. I can't pick on someone for buying something they want when NO green alternative is available in the marketplace. Vehicles used for everyday use is different, there are many alternatives out there. There's no need to buy a Hummer so you can drive 5 minutes to the store.
What's sad is people like you who find one point to pick on and then dismiss the whole idea altogether. I can't see how you can call my stance hypocritical. I'm being realistic, I can't expect the world to change over night. This all or nothing ideology is BS!
Message edited by author 2007-03-09 14:39:48. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 09:58:25 AM · #316 |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:06:14 AM · #317 |
From the article:
"Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician."
I know most (all?) politicians lie but are we really getting to the point where we accept it and think it is "reasonable"?
Sad. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:09:38 AM · #318 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I know most (all?) politicians lie but are we really getting to the point where we accept it and think it is "reasonable"?
Sad. |
Americans have been doing that forever with Bush...
Sad. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:31:31 AM · #319 |
Originally posted by poonaka:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I know most (all?) politicians lie but are we really getting to the point where we accept it and think it is "reasonable"?
Sad. |
Americans have been doing that forever with Bush...
Sad. |
Good defense. I guess it's okay then. Bush lies so Gore can too. When is recess? |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:47:56 AM · #320 |
Originally posted by poonaka:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I know most (all?) politicians lie but are we really getting to the point where we accept it and think it is "reasonable"?
Sad. |
Americans have been doing that forever with Bush...
Sad. |
and before then with clinton, then the other bush, then reagan and carter, ford, nixon, etc. etc.
sad. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:51:41 AM · #321 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by poonaka:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I know most (all?) politicians lie but are we really getting to the point where we accept it and think it is "reasonable"?
Sad. |
Americans have been doing that forever with Bush...
Sad. |
and before then with clinton, then the other bush, then reagan and carter, ford, nixon, etc. etc.
sad. |
Exactly! So then why hold Gore to a higher standard? |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:52:52 AM · #322 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
When is recess? |
my dad can beat up your dad ;) |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:55:17 AM · #323 |
hold gore to a higher standard? i hold him at the same standard i hold for all of the guys. tell the truth. it's not that hard to do. unless you are trying to hide something, or don't think the whole truth will support you. then telling the truth is more difficult.
dishonesty is unacceptable. period. politician or not. there is no "within reason" in my opinion. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 11:00:38 AM · #324 |
Originally posted by karmat:
hold gore to a higher standard? i hold him at the same standard i hold for all of the guys. |
You are one of the few and I applaud you for that. Unfortunately others hold him to a higher standard because he is asking them to do something they don't want to do. It's easier for them to try and discredit him instead of being responsible for their footprint on the environment. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 11:03:46 AM · #325 |
Originally posted by poonaka:
Originally posted by karmat:
hold gore to a higher standard? i hold him at the same standard i hold for all of the guys. |
You are one of the few and I applaud you for that. Unfortunately others hold him to a higher standard because he is asking them to do something they don't want to do. It's easier for them to try and discredit him instead of being responsible for their footprint on the environment. |
OR the opposite could also be said. They agree with him so it is okay for a little mistruth to be spoken "for the cause." |
|
