|
|
Joined:
September 2003
Posts: 9301
Location: south east Michigan | stewArds? Or is it... stewErds? Oh.. you get the idea.
Come on cruster... your bustin' my chops here trying to pick fly-poo out of the pepper.
And.. BTW.. I agree with you. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2007
Posts: 325
Location: Texas | ONLY one week after Live Earth, Al Gore's green credentials slipped while hosting his daughter's wedding in Beverly Hills.
Gore and his guests at the weekend ceremony dined on Chilean sea bass - arguably one of the world's most threatened fish species.
-------------------------------
I supposed Mr. Gore only cares about those pesky carbon emmisions.
We have to worry about terrorist, tainted food products, our disrespect for the earth but thank God we don't have to worry about the Chilean Sea Bass - Thank you Mr. Gore for clearing that all up for us. It is okay to dine on endangered fish.
Texas - prime time for tornadoes - March through June - 25 years ago, we had one roar through in December - That had never been recorded before - but it happened - Weather does what it wants to do whether it has never happened in a certain area in recorded history. We can't blame everything on carbon emmisions created by humans - the earth puts out it's own naturally and much more than humans could ever do. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2004
Posts: 629
Location: Houston, Texas | Hey, I'm with you all. F@#k the next generations, what have they done for me? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2003
Posts: 425
Location: SE Michigan | Weather (sic) or not global warming turns out to be true and man made, the needed fix is the same thing we need to solve our energy issues;
(1) conserve more by driving less, driving more efficient vehicles, building more efficient buildings and applicances
(2) develope alternative sources of energy
DUH!!! It's win-win. Why wouldnt we want to do this? Even if global warming was a myth and out of our control?
Because the self-centered ME-FIRST generation that populates most western countries refuses to conserve or suffer even the slightest in-convienince in the name of improving the planet for future generations. You can have my SUV when you pry it off my cold dead ass!
Also, Tupperware, I challange you to sit in a closed room for 15 minutes with a running SUV or a farting vegetarian tree hugger. Let me know the results so we can tell which generates more harmful pollution. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 4832
Location: Campbell River, British Columbia | The sun causes the great majority of the global warming.
Lighting strikes create more NOx
than all the SUVs and Industrial plants in the world.
It is the same egocentricity that says the world is here for us to exploit as part of 'gods plan', that says we are responsible for everything bad that happens.
Ecofreaks are just a new religion. Just like any other religion, all you are really required to do is believe to make it so. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 8307
Location: Tennessee | Originally posted by fillhixx:
Ecofreaks are just a new religion. Just like any other religion, all you are really required to do is believe to make it so. And like any other religion, if you don't believe what we believe, you are dead wrong, stupid, and must be punished. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2007
Posts: 325
Location: Texas | I am not saying to screw the generations to come. We do need to find alternative energy sources that are more conducive in keeping a healthy environment. Texas is leading the nation in wind turbine energy which is one source that will help however this is a modern world. People drive cars…could they buy hybreds instead of SUV- Yes… However, those 18 wheelers that bring the products to your stores or food to your plates might have trouble building a hybred truck of that size. Airlines - that take you to your favorite vacation spot - what do you suggest they run on?
Fertilizer that you put on your lawn for that beautiful greening effect, poison to kill those fire ants that are meaner than snakes, aerosol can products of any kind. Air conditioners that use freon - mine is the newer model that doesn’t use it - so I am doing my small part. The list is too long to continue - look around your home and see what is in your cabinets. You might be surprised what you are innocently doing that is adding to the problem.
What is the answer - I do not have a clue - but since my niece just had triplets, I do care about future generations. Now we need someone who can magically come up with a solution that will turn everything around in 15 years. Good luck on that one. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2003
Posts: 425
Location: SE Michigan | People drive cars…could they buy hybreds instead of SUV- Yes… However, those 18 wheelers that bring the products to your stores or food to your plates might have trouble building a hybred truck of that size. Airlines - that take you to your favorite vacation spot - what do you suggest they run on? It is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Conserving frivolous waste means there are resources available for things that cannot easily be done another way,
Sure we need 18-wheelers and airliners (we can build better ones). But next rush hour look at how many cars have exactly one occupant. Look how many people live in McMansions located 50 mile from their place of work. Look how many cities in the U.S. completely lack any type of effective mass-transit.
And improving these things isnt only about global warming, look how much blood has been spilled in the mideast largely over oil. Look how much of a familie's budget goes to energy when often there are no alteratives. All we need is a little common sense and a willingness to sacrifice just a lttle bit.
FWIW, I support the responsible use of nuclear power. And I am not a vegatarian or a tree hugger. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 15677
Location: SoCal | As a firm conservative, it kills me to agree with Brian (a known liberal), but he's right. Conserving makes good sense. I'm thinking about a new car and want one that betters the 25 mpg that I'm now getting. It will probably end up being a smaller car, but that's ok. I like the thought of 30 mpg.....
Nuclear power is also good (wine, cheese,and nuclear power --- 3 things that France does very well). We should also drill offshore, up in Alaska, and other places. The U.S. should be much more energy non-dependant than we are. Produce more and better energy, use less, and buy much less from the middle east. Good for us, good for the enviroment, bad for terrorists. A winner all the way around. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2003
Posts: 9301
Location: south east Michigan | Yep... More efficient cars, applicances, and buildings. More nuke power. Make wind turbines practical. I'm all for that as long as it's not mandated by the government. It's right in line with being a responsible steward or stewerd, or stewart... or what-ever.
But let's not allow third world nations and the likes of China to be the tail that wags the dog.
Over the 200 & some odd years as nation, we have worked hard, made sacrafices, and earned our way of life. Other countries can do the same for themselves in time if they want.
I'm really tired of being blamed as the bad guys.
sidebar... IMO this thread has been a good example of an exchange of ideas between members. I think my post above nudges up to "that line" and personally, I won't take it any farther than that. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2005
Posts: 12759
Location: Boise, Idaho | We have 750,000 acres going up in smoke right now, most caused by lightning strikes. It sure isn't helping the problem. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 8307
Location: Tennessee | The government needs to outlaw lightning!
I'm with you, Brad. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 4832
Location: Campbell River, British Columbia | Ah, common ground while still holding on to our differences.
Ain't civilization grand?
.........................................
I am a staunch Capitalistic Libertarian who just happens to think that, as the leading user of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to maintain a stupid lawn! - fergoshsakes - homeowners should get their lawn off drugs!
I grow a loverly mixed crop of fescue, bluegrass, rye, along with various creeping flowers, and the occasional dandelion to bring up mineral from deeper in the soil. I seldom water my lawn. (In the summer, it looks like it too.) In the fall it springs back to life like grass has done since before the bison/buffalo roamed.
But I'll hack a thousand trees to the ground before I hug a single one! (though I do lie beneath them sometimes looking for pictures in the clouds. We have clouds today.) |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2004
Posts: 1330
Location: ms | Down south we`ve had very mild winters for about 15 years and untill the last month have been in a serious drought. The weather lately is more like when i was a kid, warm humid mornings, so hot you can`t breath midday and thunder storms every afternoon but the water table is coming back up. I think their is something to global
warming but we better hope the earth can heal itself theirs just to much money at stake for people like Bush to give a crap, and its most likely too late for us to fix it anyway. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 1126
Location: Omaha, NE | Originally posted by Brian T:
DUH!!! It's win-win. Why wouldnt we want to do this? Its not that simple. You also have to tell the two billion people living on earth without electricity that they will be required to live perpetually in the dark, without refrigeration, without electric pumps to enable deep water wells, and having their children die early deaths from respiratory ailments caused by the smoke produced from kitchen fires in their mud huts.
And even if you do that, you still don't solve the problem. If every person in the industrialized world switched to fluorescent bulbs (never mind the mercury contamination) and drove a hybrid (never mind the environmental damage caused by their batteries and short life span) you still wouldn't cut carbon emissions enough to alter global warming, at least if you believe the Al Gore scenarios.
As I said earlier, if you believe the urgency of the global warming scenarios, you have no choice but to either embrace nuclear energy big time, pray for a miracle of new technology, or hope that five billion people die soon. The 'solutions' being promulgated by the Live Earth crowd are, so to speak, a fart in the wind. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 1126
Location: Omaha, NE | Originally posted by Mark in Boise:
We have 750,000 acres going up in smoke right now, most caused by lightning strikes. It sure isn't helping the problem. Not to worry.
Carbon involved in the biosphere (eg, trapped inside of living organisms) is not a problem. All the stories you read about cow farts and termites being a problem for methane emissions related to global warming are not to be taken seriously.
The carbon in the tree was carbon dioxide in the air before it became part of the tree. Its just getting put back to where it was before. And once there is more carbon in the air (think of it as 'air born fertilizer') it will be quickly re-absorbed by some other plant.
Which BTW is why the idea of planting trees as 'carbon offsets' is so insane. It is not possible to sequester carbon inside of the biosphere. The aggregate amount of plant matter on the planet is a function of the environment's ability to support that plant matter. If that support level increases because of increased atmospheric CO2, then the total mass of plant material will increase to match, whether or not you plant a tree. Which is to say, the carbon that your tree scrubs from the atmosphere would have been scrubbed by some other plant, except your tree stole it first. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2007
Posts: 325
Location: Texas | But next rush hour look at how many cars have exactly one occupant. Look how many people live in McMansions located 50 mile from their place of work. Look how many cities in the U.S. completely lack any type of effective mass-transit.
_________________________________________________
I am with you on that Brian - too many people do not utilize car pooling or mass transite. One reason I feel that most do not car pool - insane work schedules - it is almost impossible for 2 to 4 people to be ready to leave at the same time. It isn't an 8 to 5 work day anymore. The mass transit we have in Dallas (Dart Rail) will not take most people anywhere near their place of buisness because Dallas is so spread out - if every city was like Chicago or New York where people actually live downtown that would work but most cities, the people live outside of the downtown areas so mass transit is of no help.
Unfortunatly, the unstable middle east has the never ending supply of oil...if the US would start those pumps back up - we could put them under in a very short period of time by not buying their oil - then that would cause even more hatred for the US by destroying what ecomony they have - it is a damned if you do and damned it you don't type of situation. It is insane the amount of lives lost to oil but it will not stop anytime soon.
I try to do my best - I have a car that gets 34 miles per gallon, I only shop near my home to lessen the amount of gas I use. Spent 12,000 on an enegery efficent air conditioner void of freon, recycle until I am blue in the face. I have a beautiful hot tub - haven't use it in two years because it wastes electricity and water. Use ceiling fans instead of turn down the air and that is not fun in Texas heat.
My only other option is to sell it all and build a tree house with no electricity or running water and pray for rain to drink and lightning to show me the way. ;) |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 1126
Location: Omaha, NE | Originally posted by Brian T:
Conserving frivolous waste means there are resources available for things that cannot easily be done another way The problem is that things cost money. Energy efficiency isn't free. If you prioritize on reducing carbon emissions, you do so at the expense of other options.
Swedish economist Bjorn Lomborg has made quite a study of this. This article provides a brief intro to his views. A typical quote: Global warming has become the obsession of our time. From governments and campaigners meeting for the climate summit in Buenos Aires right now we hear the incessant admonition: making global warming our first priority is the moral test of our age.
Yet they are wrong. Global warming is real and caused by CO2. The trouble is that the climate models show we can do very little about the warming. Even if everyone (including the United States) did Kyoto and stuck to it throughout the century, the change would be almost immeasurable, postponing warming by just six years in 2100.
Likewise, the economic models tell us that the cost is substantial. The cost of Kyoto compliance is at least $150billion a year. For comparison, the UN estimates that half that amount could permanently solve the most pressing humanitarian problems in the world: it could buy clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care and education to every single person in the world. Does that seem like a good proposition? Implement Kyoto at tremendous cost, and the benefit is delaying the warming that would have occurred in 2100 until 2106? And in the mean time, billions continue to live in poverty and die needlessly because the very technologies (eg, cheap, efficient power systems) that western nations are railing against will continue to be denied to the third world. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2007
Posts: 325
Location: Texas | I believe I would prefer to give people fresh water, sanitation, basic health care and education instead of letting them die. Good post Jeff! |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2004
Posts: 2850
Location: Midland, MI | Originally posted by Brian T:
...
Because the self-centered ME-FIRST generation that populates most western countries refuses to conserve or suffer even the slightest in-convienince in the name of improving the planet for future generations. You can have my SUV when you pry it off my cold dead ass!
... 
( I took the panniers, handlebar bag and rack trunk off it so it didn't look so 'granola muncher.' You should see it all decked out. :p )
I bicycle commute to work, so I'm allowed to be cynical and condescending. ;) |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 15677
Location: SoCal | I'm sorry, but when an economist insists that global warming is real and is caused by CO2, I wanna puke.
I would rather believe somebody like Reid Bryson, who thru his extensive research says that CO2 has followed warming, not the other way around.
Read this Reid Bryson interview
You know, 30 years ago everybody was saying we were heading into an ice age. Now it's global warming and what are we going to do about it. Hell, nobody can say with certainty what the weather is going to be next week, let alone the day after tomorrow. And people are panicking over what might happen in 50 years???? Is everybody nuts?
Besides, what's "normal" climate? What each of us grew up with? What it's been the last 50 years? It changes constantly.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy the hysteria. My sister, who's a liberal, insists I'm wrong because she gets all her info from NPR (no kidding, she said this). I rest my case.
Click. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2007
Posts: 325
Location: Texas | Cruster - is that a pickup and SUV in your garage? Just kidding. :D :D :D |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2003
Posts: 425
Location: SE Michigan | Does that seem like a good proposition? Implement Kyoto at tremendous cost, and the benefit is delaying the warming that would have occurred in 2100 until 2106? And in the mean time, billions continue to live in poverty and die needlessly because the very technologies (eg, cheap, efficient power systems) that western nations are railing against will continue to be denied to the third world.
Its not that simple. You also have to tell the two billion people living on earth without electricity that they will be required to live perpetually in the dark, without refrigeration, without electric pumps to enable deep water wells, and having their children die early deaths from respiratory ailments caused by the smoke produced from kitchen fires in their mud huts.
I am not a staunch Al Gore global warming proponent. But there does seem to be some evidence to some of what he says. Maybe Kyoto is not the answer, but does that mean we stop trying and give up? How can we (Americans) ask people living in huts to stop burning charcoal when we are the highest energy users on the planet? Shouldn't we lead by example? At least a little bit?
Why is there no room for moderation? Why do we (in the U.S.) drive each other to extreme points of view in a debate? This is why nothing gets done in Washington.
The truth lies somewhere in-between. Good sensible energy policies also move us in the right direction in terms of carbon emissions and economics. Where is the harm in that? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2004
Posts: 2850
Location: Midland, MI | Originally posted by vision:
Cruster - is that a pickup and SUV in your garage? Just kidding. :D :D :D It's an itty-bitty Ford Ranger SuperCab with 4.0L engine, 5-speed automagic transmission and shift-on-the-fly 4-wheel-drive transfer case. Because, you know, I go offroad a lot. :rolleyes:
Winters up here in the wastelands (anything north of Auburn Hills is considered wasteland, just ask one of those southeastern city-slickers!) can be nasty...have to have the 4WD (although I have a busted hub, so really I only have 2.5WD...can't be arsed to get it fixed).
The Fisher, though, that's a SAV...Suburban Assault Vehicle. :D
EDIT: And the green machine is a mini-van...with four boys from 17 down to 1, you need some room. Can't get around it. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2007
Posts: 325
Location: Texas | No harm in that Brian - there has to be a mid ground - somewhere between disaster and nothing will happen. Debates are what get people thinking but the reason is dosen't get done in Washington is that they are all bought and sold - all have their own agenda and that agenda is not coming to an agreement on what to do at any given time. That includes them all - Republican and Democrats |
|
| |
ot: weather / climate is changing
