Clearly there are environmentalists who lead pretty spartan lives both because they think it’s the right thing to do AND because it sets a good example.
I’ve also read that environmentalists believe one thing we can do to help the planet is to not use toilet paper.
Speaking for myself, if Al would stop using toilet paper I’d have a little more respect for him.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Bergman wrote:
Perhaps he feels as though his increased energy usage is justified by the number of people he reaches. You know… if he consumes 20 times the amount of energy as a “normal” American, he only has to convince 200 people to reduce their footprint by 10% to break even. Any more than that, and it’s a winning situation.
Finally, a good post. Overall this thread has had me shaking my head in disbelief.
People are so deluded and cynical about politics.
I thought he was being sarcastic.
Why? By that logic his message of conservation has already been a success overall. Do you actually believe that Gore doesn’t believe in his own message and is just trying to pull some kind of for-profit scam? If you do believe that, that’s up to you, but it’s idiotic IMO.
Trying to talk people out of doing something to justify his doing more of it is something like a cult leader would do.
And he is making HUGE profits off the whole thing and stands to make more by situating himself right in the middle of the cap and trade scam.[/quote]
I wasn’t being sarcastic. I’m not agreeing with him per se, either. I was just speculating his position, though I would consider such a claim fairly reasonable. Besides, the world is driven by making money. If he makes money ensuring that our children have an earth to live on, what’s so bad about that?
(That whole argument is based on the premise that global warming is actually reversible, which is a hotly debated issue as well…)
[quote]Bergman wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Bergman wrote:
Perhaps he feels as though his increased energy usage is justified by the number of people he reaches. You know… if he consumes 20 times the amount of energy as a “normal” American, he only has to convince 200 people to reduce their footprint by 10% to break even. Any more than that, and it’s a winning situation.
Finally, a good post. Overall this thread has had me shaking my head in disbelief.
People are so deluded and cynical about politics.
I thought he was being sarcastic.
Why? By that logic his message of conservation has already been a success overall. Do you actually believe that Gore doesn’t believe in his own message and is just trying to pull some kind of for-profit scam? If you do believe that, that’s up to you, but it’s idiotic IMO.
Trying to talk people out of doing something to justify his doing more of it is something like a cult leader would do.
And he is making HUGE profits off the whole thing and stands to make more by situating himself right in the middle of the cap and trade scam.
I wasn’t being sarcastic. I’m not agreeing with him per se, either. I was just speculating his position, though I would consider such a claim fairly reasonable. Besides, the world is driven by making money. If he makes money ensuring that our children have an earth to live on, what’s so bad about that?
(That whole argument is based on the premise that global warming is actually reversible, which is a hotly debated issue as well…)[/quote]
So he dedicates his life to making sure the elites have it better than the rest of us? The more people he can hold down the better he can live?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Bergman wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Bergman wrote:
Perhaps he feels as though his increased energy usage is justified by the number of people he reaches. You know… if he consumes 20 times the amount of energy as a “normal” American, he only has to convince 200 people to reduce their footprint by 10% to break even. Any more than that, and it’s a winning situation.
Finally, a good post. Overall this thread has had me shaking my head in disbelief.
People are so deluded and cynical about politics.
I thought he was being sarcastic.
Why? By that logic his message of conservation has already been a success overall. Do you actually believe that Gore doesn’t believe in his own message and is just trying to pull some kind of for-profit scam? If you do believe that, that’s up to you, but it’s idiotic IMO.
Trying to talk people out of doing something to justify his doing more of it is something like a cult leader would do.
And he is making HUGE profits off the whole thing and stands to make more by situating himself right in the middle of the cap and trade scam.
I wasn’t being sarcastic. I’m not agreeing with him per se, either. I was just speculating his position, though I would consider such a claim fairly reasonable. Besides, the world is driven by making money. If he makes money ensuring that our children have an earth to live on, what’s so bad about that?
(That whole argument is based on the premise that global warming is actually reversible, which is a hotly debated issue as well…)
So he dedicates his life to making sure the elites have it better than the rest of us? The more people he can hold down the better he can live?[/quote]
Using cleaner fuel sources keeps people down? Turning off your a/c at night is living below the poverty line? Buying a sedan instead of a SUV sure reeks of destitution, doesn’t it? Turning the lights off when you leave a room just smacks of being held down, I guess. Buying more efficient light bulbs is surely a sign that your life must completely suck.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Trying to talk people out of doing something to justify his doing more of it is something like a cult leader would do.
[/quote]
He is trying to influence society to move in a direction he believes in. This requires resources. Again, I am comfortable speculating that he likely believes he is acting with goodwill. Trying to indict someone’s character really moves the discussion away from the actual issue.
[quote]
And he is making HUGE profits off the whole thing and stands to make more by situating himself right in the middle of the cap and trade scam.[/quote]
Source?
[quote]Bergman wrote:
…
Using cleaner fuel sources keeps people down?
[/quote]
What cleaner sources? My car uses gas, same as his. I just use much less of it.
I keep my house warmer in the summer and colder in the winter than him already and he wants me to pay even more for it while he profits from the cap and trade.
He rides in a ridiculously inefficient SUV and charters private planes while asking me to downsize my already small car.
I am a big boy and I have been turning the lights off my whole life. My father taught me well. Not Al Gore.
[quote]
Buying more efficient light bulbs is surely a sign that your life must completely suck.[/quote]
You are in for a rude awakening when you find out what it truly means to drastically reduce your “carbon footprint”.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Trying to talk people out of doing something to justify his doing more of it is something like a cult leader would do.
He is trying to influence society to move in a direction he believes in. This requires resources. Again, I am comfortable speculating that he likely believes he is acting with goodwill. Trying to indict someone’s character really moves the discussion away from the actual issue.
[/quote]
What is the issue? He tells us to cut our energy usage while he increases his.
“Do as I say, not as I do” does not cut it for me.
[quote]
And he is making HUGE profits off the whole thing and stands to make more by situating himself right in the middle of the cap and trade scam.
Source?[/quote]
The funny thing is that there can really be no argument that dependence on finite sources of energy is really stupid in the long run.
So what do we do? Zap, your answer seem to be to become more dependent. Or perhaps you have a better idea?
Here’s what seem to have been completely lost in an this thread. It actually takes energy to encourage conservation. That is an overwhelmingly obvious fact.
Gore isn’t trying to use the energy you give up. That’s stupid.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
The funny thing is that there can really be no argument that dependence on finite sources of energy is really stupid in the long run.
[/quote]
All sources of energy are finite, even the sun.
[quote]
So what do we do? Zap, your answer seem to be to become more dependent. Or perhaps you have a better idea?[/quote]
We let people sort it out. When gas gets scarce people will figure out diferent ways of doing things. The government should not make gas artificialy scarce.
What is the solution to scarcity? Drill more oil, buld windmills outside Ted Kennedy’s compound, build more nuke plants etc. We cannot conserve our way to more energy.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Here’s what seem to have been completely lost in an this thread. It actually takes energy to encourage conservation. That is an overwhelmingly obvious fact.
Gore isn’t trying to use the energy you give up. That’s stupid.[/quote]
Gore is squandering resources for his personal enjoyment. He doesn’t have to fly around the world to make paid speeches. He wants to.
Gore doesn’t have to teach us anything about conservation. We will conserve when the market dictates we conserve and not a moment before.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
The funny thing is that there can really be no argument that dependence on finite sources of energy is really stupid in the long run.
Why?
[/quote]
Yea … why? Ultimately ALL energy sources are finite (even the sun will run out of fuel eventually). So what matters is HOW long. There are literally trillions of barrels of oil in the ground that we know of. Undoubtedly a lot more is yet to be found. So when you have an abundant, powerful, and relatively cheap form of energy readily available the really stupid thing is to adopt a scarce, or weak or relatively expensive alternative.
I say do it all … why not … but this obsession with getting rid of our best source of energy immediately is … well … stupid.
And I still think Al Gore should stop using toilet paper … like Sheryl Crow and Larry David’s wife … whatever her name is …
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Well said…I wanted stupid to respond before I got into it but as long as you said it…so much the better.
[/quote]
Based on your previous posts I’m sure the irony here escapes you. Do you know what ‘long run’ means?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
The funny thing is that there can really be no argument that dependence on finite sources of energy is really stupid in the long run.
All sources of energy are finite, even the sun.
So what do we do? Zap, your answer seem to be to become more dependent. Or perhaps you have a better idea?
We let people sort it out. When gas gets scarce people will figure out diferent ways of doing things. The government should not make gas artificialy scarce.
What is the solution to scarcity? Drill more oil, buld windmills outside Ted Kennedy’s compound, build more nuke plants etc. We cannot conserve our way to more energy.
[/quote]
Apart from missing the point of the ‘finite’ statement on purpose there is a persuasive argument here. Creating scarcity, especially at this moment, is a bad idea, but tax breaks to encourage innovation is good.
I would also point out that a shift in demand will have the same effect as a shift in supply in terms of pricing. So in that sense conservation will have the same effect as looking for more oil.
[quote]flyboy51v wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
The funny thing is that there can really be no argument that dependence on finite sources of energy is really stupid in the long run.
Why?
Yea … why? Ultimately ALL energy sources are finite (even the sun will run out of fuel eventually). So what matters is HOW long. There are literally trillions of barrels of oil in the ground that we know of. Undoubtedly a lot more is yet to be found. So when you have an abundant, powerful, and relatively cheap form of energy readily available the really stupid thing is to adopt a scarce, or weak or relatively expensive alternative.
I say do it all … why not … but this obsession with getting rid of our best source of energy immediately is … well … stupid.
And I still think Al Gore should stop using toilet paper … like Sheryl Crow and Larry David’s wife … whatever her name is …
[/quote]
Hmmm…it seems you aren’t getting that demand is exponentially outpacing supply. The Saudis can’t pump any more. The amount we we would produce is a drop in that bigger bucket 15 years from now. So because it won’t be cheap or abundant when it happens, we kind of need to focus really,really,really hard on the alternatives. So when McCain’s solution finally happens in 2030 we’ll still need a solution.
Fortunately for sanity’s sake McCain and his advisers are admitting that this coastal drilling won’t actually help (and he’s against ANWR because unlike the coasts it is “pristine”), so theoretically they do have a legitimate alternative plan.
[quote]100meters wrote:
flyboy51v wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
The funny thing is that there can really be no argument that dependence on finite sources of energy is really stupid in the long run.
Why?
Yea … why? Ultimately ALL energy sources are finite (even the sun will run out of fuel eventually). So what matters is HOW long. There are literally trillions of barrels of oil in the ground that we know of. Undoubtedly a lot more is yet to be found. So when you have an abundant, powerful, and relatively cheap form of energy readily available the really stupid thing is to adopt a scarce, or weak or relatively expensive alternative.
I say do it all … why not … but this obsession with getting rid of our best source of energy immediately is … well … stupid.
And I still think Al Gore should stop using toilet paper … like Sheryl Crow and Larry David’s wife … whatever her name is …
Hmmm…it seems you aren’t getting that demand is exponentially outpacing supply. The Saudis can’t pump any more. The amount we we would produce is a drop in that bigger bucket 15 years from now. So because it won’t be cheap or abundant when it happens, we kind of need to focus really,really,really hard on the alternatives. So when McCain’s solution finally happens in 2030 we’ll still need a solution.
Fortunately for sanity’s sake McCain and his advisers are admitting that this coastal drilling won’t actually help (and he’s against ANWR because unlike the coasts it is “pristine”), so theoretically they do have a legitimate alternative plan. [/quote]
He didn’t say it wouldn’t help … he said it wouldn’t help in the short term and I thought you were all about the long term? At the very least quote the man correctly. He just said it a few hours ago and you ALREADY have him wrong.
THERE ARE 1.8 TRILLION BARRELS OF OIL SHALE IN THE ROCKIES.
Shut the fuck up about finite supply. Jesus H. Christ! Of course the Saudis can pump more oil. I read a detailed article TODAY about the Saudi’s production plans over the next 10 years and they’re upping production each and every year by huge amounts and they have over 280 Billion barrels on their own.
Are you STUPID. And you have ALL your facts wrong. We have enough proven reserves in the US to last us 22 years without ever buying another drop of foreign oil. And that’s assuming we don’t discover any more. Brazil just discovered a huge field off their coast which is possibly the largest find in history.
Do you EVER read a paper? I’d suggest you pick one up occasionally.
Get past the damn limited/finite supply obsession. You’re wrong. You’re ignorant. There’s enough world oil to last us for a 100 years and by then we’ll probably be using transporters.
Solar doesn’t cut it. I have customers that build components for those huge solar dishes out by Twenty-Nine Palms. Even the Stirling Engines are very expensive and their plans for filling the desert with those things won’t supply but a fraction of just California’s needs.
I’m all for solar and wind but it’s not enough. Nuclear is awesome. But you guys shut that down. If you hadn’t and we’d built the plants that were on the drawing boards in 1979 we’d be UNDER Kyoto right now without even trying.
Man it’s like talking to a brick.
Oil Shale is not cost-effective to produce. We have little to no real infrastructure for it, because it requires additional processing to obtain usable oil(let alone usable fuel). Additionally, we do not even have a solid idea of how much of the estimated trillions of tons(which is not synonymous with barrels of crude, btw) are even available to us.
I think that we will turn to extracting oil shale, but I think it will be a bad decision, that will do little to nothing to alleviate prices, and only serve to dig the hole we are in deeper.
The oil crisis we are facing is not about running out of oil, there is enough oil to last a long time, the problem, however, is that it becomes increasingly expensive to obtain it. We end up having to pay more to get less, and that is a very dangerous economic outlook for an economy that was cheap oil.
Also, Oil lasting 100 years is pathetic. Just because you’ll be too old or too dead to care by then doesn’t excuse letting your progeny suffer because you were too shortsighted to try an alleviate this inevitable issue.
Banking on a scientific breakthrough that will, click, save us all, is even more irresponsible. Even though increasing financial, political and social pressures could conceivably bring about new innovations in the field of producing cheap power, blindly assuming it will happen does no one any good.