RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/1/2010 10:04:24 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

Alright- skipping over the past 5 pages of venom, here are the facts-

The notion of reducing the carbon output and usage is not controversial anywhere but cable news and blogs; in my industry, buildings and construction, (which account for 60% of all energy used), the principles of building sustainably are firmly mainstream, and rapidly becoming the norm by which buildings are built.

Why? not because of Al Gore or any political notions, but because of the bottom line- energy, transportation, the cost of cleaning up fouled land and water are expensive, and will only get more so with no end in sight.

Think of the principle of "embedded energy"- within every single product you own or consume, is energy- used to obatin the raw materials, process them, assemble it into a product, ship it, house it in a store, and so on. As energy grows ever more expensive, those products and processes that use it more efficiently will survive, and those that don't, won't.

If you as a real estate developer/ industrialist don't build/ make things more efficiently, you will be out of business.

Whether you agree or disagree with AGW is irrelevant; the green economy is already seeing huge benefits, financial and otherwise, from building and making things differently than we used to.

It's amazing what happens when we find solutions in the market, ain't it, Animu? My last house was in the traditional style known as "California crackerbox," circa 1955. My utility bills for that 600 odd sq. feet were about the same as for the 2000+ I currently call home. Once the Obamaflation kicks in and puts some equity in the place, the solar panels go up on the big southern exposure. Efficiency is a good thing.

It's when good ideas get put to bad use, that worries me. Assholes with a worthy cause are still assholes that must be stopped. Which kinda sucks for the worthy cause, from time to time.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to AnimusRex)

Post #: 101

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/2/2010 6:05:29 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You seem to be interested solely in protecting your standard of living no matter what happens to later generations.

When in doubt, go for the personal attack. Par for your course, Ken.

Then why precisely do you reject the best available facts based on the available evidence? And just to be clear if you claim that AGW isn't happening I want some evidence.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 102

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/2/2010 6:56:15 AM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

Conversation is really difficult for you, when you don't get to set the parameters, isn't it Ken?

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 103

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/2/2010 10:15:19 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

It's pretty basic logic. If one side has evidence in its favor and the contrary position wants to be taken seriously then it needs evidence in support of its position. Maybe right wingers prefer to base decision making on anecdotes and assertions but the rest of us deal in the real world of facts.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 104

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/2/2010 6:08:41 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

Bullshit, Ken. We are not going to play your game of you telling me what I believe, and then demanding what precise evidence I must present to you to establish what I never said.

The subject here is the impact of nobody caring about AGW anymore, on the rest of the environmental movement. Get with the topic, or get the fuck off my thread.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 105

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/3/2010 1:35:22 AM

Edwynn

Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

FR

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Yet, our govt is using our money to feed hundreds of millions of people in foreign countries.

On the subject of US aid to less developed countries:

Even if the figure were $45B that would be but pocket change in comparison to the hundred-billions in armaments foisted upon many of these same countries by the UN's P5 countries (China, France, Russia, UK, US) and Germany, so they can blow each other to bits and commit various barbarities and atrocities (whether in mid-war or just 'governing') and provide large breeding grounds for disease that are refugee camps and settlements, making anything resembling stable economies or governments a practical impossibility, as that would interfere with the long running profit stream for the arms manufacturers. Don't hold your breath waiting on that to change.

This aside from centuries-old corporate colonization of third world countries and "owning" their natural resources by way of stealing it fair and square, and/or forcing them to buy whatever amount of opium, cigarettes, and liquor the overlords said they will buy.

Then there is the matter of the US and Europe's huge subsidies and price supports for their own farming industries which keep crop prices artificially low, whereas developing countries' governments cannot afford to do likewise so their farmers go out of business in increasing numbers, hence one bad season brings regional starvation ...

Shall I go on?

But hey, if those poor countries can't manage their "own" problems and can't elect a decent leader (well, actually they do every once in awhile but they never live long, thanks to P5 guns), why is the US supposed to worry about it and send them any food? Some of the other arms exporters send a bit more food and other aid as percentage of GDP than does the US, as token recompense for the misery they've caused. Aren't they just sweethearts now.

On to the environmental issue:

Sorry, I can't quite help but see this carbon credit operation as anything much beyond a sham, along with much of the alternative fuels stimulus. That says nothing about the reality of ongoing environmental degradation which is staring us in the face; we don't even need experts anymore to tell us that, forget the media's stupid e-mail 'scandal!!' diversionary tactics to the contrary. Unfortunately, it has indeed become politicized now (how can I even say "unfortunately," as if expecting anything else to begin with in describing something so inevitable and predictable; am I stupid or what?).

Guess who invited themselves to dinner for this one? None other than our old agro-chem friends:

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11563-monsanto-penetrating-carbon-credit-mechanism

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-10-big-ag-waxman-markey/

So now they will succeed in having their existing method of chemo-industrial farming as qualifying for participation in the carbon credit bonanza, with additional bonus of selling even more herbicide in the bargain. Good for the environment.

These same folks did well in the alt. fuel department too, having pushed through corn ethanol as fuel of choice there, being that the energy inputs to growing the corn equal and occasionally exceed the energy obtained from the ethanol itself. Sugar ethanol is a smarter choice from the standpoint of energy yield per inputs alone, but the US subsidizes domestic corn ethanol and tariffs sugar ethanol imports both by 51 cents/gal. each, so making an artificial $1/gal. price advantage for corn.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/11/bad_economic_po.html

I recommend we don't start subsidizing the green technology industries other than credits to home buyers, even that having a time limit. Why? Because the oil and nuclear and industrial farming industries prove that once in place, subsidies never go away. The amount of write offs and tax credits and subsidies and tax investment scams for oil alone cost us billions in tax revenue over the years, and keep gas (petrol) prices artificially low, impeding incentive for efficiency or investment in green technology. Otherwise 30-80 years from now there will be technologies of some sort superior to current solar and wind etc. but held back because of the subsidies to solar and wind etc.

Stop the madness.

< Message edited by Edwynn -- 12/3/2010 2:03:01 AM >

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 106

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/3/2010 7:15:30 AM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

Look at Somalia and Haiti. What do they have that we would steal? Bone necklaces and chocolate covered dung beatles?
And look at countries like Nigeria and others that we get oil from. We're not "stealing" that oil we're *paying* for that oil!
What the governments in those countries do with that money is their own business.
Many people say the U.S. shouldn't be interfering in or invading foreign countries and I agree with them.
Five or six years ago we were giving out $12 B in foreign aid, last fiscal year it was $45 B, I'm sure that Oblunder would like to double that.
Look at Haiti, almost *all* the money that they've received from Western countries was stolen. "Baby Doc" was ousted to France with a reported $675 Million (U.S. Dollars!) You could pour $500 B dollars into Haiti and it wouldn't make any difference.
You're right, "stop the madness!"
The U.S. is not an Empire.
Shall I go on?

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Edwynn)

Post #: 107

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/3/2010 11:36:33 AM

Edwynn

Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

Somalia has an al-Qaeda-friendly Muslim contingency vying for control. The US backs the other contingent. Opposing the unfriendly side and backing the friendly side has been SOP for Western powers for centuries. You are apparently unaware of this basic part of both history and current affairs.

Regarding Haiti, even if the $675M figure were true that would pale in comparison to all the looting of that country that France and Britain and Germany and the US have partaken of for 200 years. The current contribution there is in keeping with the notion that the most advantaged countries lend a hand to the most disadvantaged countries when natural disasters of great magnitude strike.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Five or six years ago we were giving out $12 B in foreign aid, last fiscal year it was $45 B, ...

The U.S. is not an Empire.
Shall I go on?

Indeed you should! Starting with a creditable source for any of these numbers you throw out.

After that, and only after that, you can try your hand at explaining how the US and the other largest economies would like it if they had to start treating these lesser countries in any honest way and pay honest prices for the oil and minerals extracted therefrom with out invading them, and with out killing off elected leaders that look out for their own citizens' interests and replacing them with cheaply bought dictators.

But you really should start your own thread on the matter rather than continually derailing other threads with it.

If you can do that, I'm sure that your born-five-minutes-ago perspective on foreign policy would be most interesting.

< Message edited by Edwynn -- 12/3/2010 11:55:38 AM >

(in reply to popeye1250)

Post #: 108

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/3/2010 3:09:46 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Bullshit, Ken. We are not going to play your game of you telling me what I believe, and then demanding what precise evidence I must present to you to establish what I never said.

The subject here is the impact of nobody caring about AGW anymore, on the rest of the environmental movement. Get with the topic, or get the fuck off my thread.

Actually the subject was

quote:

How long do you think it will take for legitimate environmental concerns to be treated with any credibility again?

Which is only a valid statement if AGW is illegitimate. You still need to establish that underlying claim.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 109

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/3/2010 6:02:31 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

You are confusing legitimacy with credibility, Ken. They are not synonymous. Credibility is a subjective thing. The last time the boy in the fable cried wolf, it was a legitimate claim, but he had no credibility to work with.

You may try again.

< Message edited by TheHeretic -- 12/3/2010 6:03:12 PM >

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 110

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/3/2010 6:15:26 PM

AnimusRex

Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline

I don't know where you are getting this notion that environmental concerns or desire for sustainable processes are "not being taken seriously"; as I mentioned previous, environmental sustainabililty is only controversial on cable news networks and blogs; the building industry and most manufacturers have embraced it as the way to do business;

The idea that we should save energy and limit our impact on the environment is nearly invisible now, if only because only the fringe is still talking about it.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 111

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/3/2010 6:33:31 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

Maybe try coming out of your industry bubble a bit, Animu?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to AnimusRex)

Post #: 112

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/3/2010 6:37:49 PM

Edwynn

Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

Some politico-media slut was trying to make an issue here, trying to impose spoon-fed ideology upon reality.

Nothing new. He was only doing as trained.

PS

Edit to add, a Gallup poll, as recent scientific evidence!

Democracy at its finest.

< Message edited by Edwynn -- 12/3/2010 6:41:33 PM >

(in reply to AnimusRex)

Post #: 113

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/3/2010 6:45:35 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

What a maroon.

And what would you suggest as a recent scientific report on public opinion, Edwy?

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to Edwynn)

Post #: 114

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/3/2010 7:11:58 PM

Edwynn

Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

I actually posses a fondness for the color maroon, being that as the color of my first vehicle. It's wine colored, you know.

The situation as exists here, though, is that only a moron would propose that some media diversion from all the other environmental devastation aside from global warming would somehow preclude any further consideration there.

Corporate cock sucking politicians and rosebud licking media might prevail over actual science in your world, but quit bothering thinking people with this nonsense.

But you are proposing that better poll taking precludes better science any day of the week.

This is exactly how we've wound up where we have.

< Message edited by Edwynn -- 12/3/2010 7:17:19 PM >

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 115

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/3/2010 7:15:42 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

Culture illiteracy will be no excuse, Edwy, and running from one dumbass snark to the next round of attempts at insults will only get you instructed to bring those fat tits over to the 100 watt light bulb.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to Edwynn)

Post #: 116

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/3/2010 7:23:42 PM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

Somalia has an al-Qaeda-friendly Muslim contingency vying for control. The US backs the other contingent. Opposing the unfriendly side and backing the friendly side has been SOP for Western powers for centuries. You are apparently unaware of this basic part of both history and current affairs.

Regarding Haiti, even if the $675M figure were true that would pale in comparison to all the looting of that country that France and Britain and Germany and the US have partaken of for 200 years. The current contribution there is in keeping with the notion that the most advantaged countries lend a hand to the most disadvantaged countries when natural disasters of great magnitude strike.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Five or six years ago we were giving out $12 B in foreign aid, last fiscal year it was $45 B, ...

The U.S. is not an Empire.
Shall I go on?

Indeed you should! Starting with a creditable source for any of these numbers you throw out.

After that, and only after that, you can try your hand at explaining how the US and the other largest economies would like it if they had to start treating these lesser countries in any honest way and pay honest prices for the oil and minerals extracted therefrom with out invading them, and with out killing off elected leaders that look out for their own citizens' interests and replacing them with cheaply bought dictators.

But you really should start your own thread on the matter rather than continually derailing other threads with it.

If you can do that, I'm sure that your born-five-minutes-ago perspective on foreign policy would be most interesting.

I saw those figures in the Wall Street Journal and surely they were in the N.Y. Times although I don't read that paper.
And it's part of the congressional record, public knowledge.

Edwynn, you're a funny guy! You must be a leftist, they always start in with the insults when confronted with facts.
And that was a very anal-retentive insult too. You guys don't even realize you're doing it.

< Message edited by popeye1250 -- 12/3/2010 7:25:56 PM >

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Edwynn)

Post #: 117

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/3/2010 7:25:21 PM

Edwynn

Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Culture illiteracy will be no excuse, Edwy, and running from one dumbass snark to the next round of attempts at insults will only get you instructed to bring those fat tits over to the 100 watt light bulb.

Somebody who informs himself only from the front pages of self-serving banal bacchanalia then speaks to me of cultural literacy.

You are cooler than I thought.

< Message edited by Edwynn -- 12/3/2010 7:28:05 PM >

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 118

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/3/2010 7:28:35 PM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

Somebody who informs himself only from the front pages of self-serving banal bacchanalia then speaks to me of cultural literacy.

You are cooler than I thought.

Well that being the case you may want to run along, it sounds like you are WAY too far highly intellectually *superior* to anyone in here.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Edwynn)

Post #: 119

RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet - 12/3/2010 7:32:23 PM

Hillwilliam

Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

Looks like the scientifically illiterate have begun their self-congratulating circle jerk.

(in reply to popeye1250)

Post #: 120

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Getting back to the basics of saving the planet

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094