NationStates Jolt Archive

If you're like me, you've been recycling, driving LEVs, setting your A/C at 80 and generally trying to minimize your impact on the environment insofar as you are able. And you've been doing this for years.

Now, all of a sudden, everything's going green - it's suddenly become the big fad, the style.

Green is a fashion statement, a design statement, a food statement. Its in!

And this annoys me. Suddenly green has become a very public bandwagon. They even have a green channel on TV!

Why? Because they can make money from it.

What happened to being "green" because it was the right thing to do?

If you're like me, you've been recycling, driving LEVs, setting your A/C at 80 and generally trying to minimize your impact on the environment insofar as you are able. And you've been doing this for years.

Now, all of a sudden, everything's going green - it's suddenly become the big fad, the style.

Green is a fashion statement, a design statement, a food statement. Its in!

And this annoys me. Suddenly green has become a very public bandwagon. They even have a green channel on TV!

Why? Because they can make money from it.

What happened to being "green" because it was the right thing to do?


I couldnt agreen (ha-ha, play on words, get it? get it?) more.

Ive seen teenagers wearing those stupid T-shirts that look like they are from the 80's and two sizes too big with the massive writing on the front in fluro saying things like 'Go Green' or 'Save the Environment' etc from over priced crappy stores.

Since when did these kids care about that stuff? Truth: most of them don't. Yet they will buy these t-shirts because they are 'cool' or popular or whatever they are saying these days.

People are stupid. Green is not a fashion statement. Going Green is so that in the future we will actually have an Earth left to live on and there will be a whole new bunch of dickhead kids wearing crappy t-shirts.

yeah, I refuse to support any green mobs now because I know the money is just ending up in some politicians back pocket.

I will reduce my consumption myself, rather than pay some politician to pretend to care about the cause.

*snip*

It's gone further than that - the new 'green' is now 'blue'.

Marketers think that 'green' elicits the very reaction you've just shown, that's it's becoming tired, commercialised etc.,

So 'blue' is better because it brings to mind fresh air, water and is, apparently, a 'friendlier' colour than green.

The mind boggles, the consumer pays up.

Public awareness is important. I'm quite sure a "fashion statement" was never the plan since fashion trends change too often.

As for someone making a buck, at least it's better than the pet rock! :D

Be happy in China giving a man a green hat or shirt suggest that his wife will cheat on him.
So thats the reason why China isn't green since green is a color of bad luck.

I was thinking the same thing too.

My family has been doing the little extra things that people are doing nowadays for years.

You know, I know that there's this natural reaction if you're 'early' to a scene to reject it as soon as the rest of the crowd arrives, but to be honest 'green' activities had no real hope of impact unless a whole lot of people were going to do it, so if you wanted your recycling, LEV 80 degree air-conditioner to have any impact, you had to hope that a bunch of you were doing it. So now that people are on board and it can have an effect, you're done with it? C'mon...this isn't a scene to be dismissed once it's too 'crowded,' it's something that needs a lot of people on board.

So it goes. If people actually start getting off their asses and walking the ten extra feet to the recycle bin instead of throwing everything in the garbage, I'm willing to pay the price of being annoyed.

The only thing cooler today than being green is adopting kids, but it shouldn't keep people from adopting them because don't want to look "trendy".

In general, I avoid anything overtly described as "green", "environmentally friendly", or anything of the sort.

The vast majority of the time it is purely an advertising ploy and there is no way to verify any of their deliberately vague claims.

Greenies (people obsessed, to a greater or lesser degree, with the Green fad) annoy me, a lot. :sniper:

The vast majority of the time it is purely an advertising ploy and there is no way to verify any of their deliberately vague claims.


Use the spiral light bulbs then look at the utility bill. Verification validation!

You may want to reconsider some of what you're doing and what you support. You see, a lot of the environmental movement these days isn't made up of rational, reasoning or informed people. They do things because it looks good or makes them feel good but a lot of what people are doing in the name of environmental conservation isn't helping at all and some of it is actually doing harm.

Let's start off with recycling.
Glass is made of sand. There will never be a shortage of sand so it will probably not be profitable to recycle most kinds of glass until you're in a situation where sand isn't plentiful. Recycling glass doesn't really do much, if anything for the environment.

Paper is another feel-good action. Recycling paper is a manufacturing process that involves a lot of transportation and sorting before it gets shredded, bleached, de-inked and chemically treated. These harsh chemical treatments can damage the paper resulting in a lower quality product and produce a lot of toxic crap that has to be disposed of.

A lot of people like to think that they're saving trees by recycling paper but the fact is they're just not. Most virgin pulp in the US comes from trees grown specifically for making paper, trees that get replanted so there isn't much threat to old-growth forrests. It's like potatoes. We use potatoes to make fires so we grow potatoes to replace what we eat. Should we be worried about endangered potato fields? Are there any virgin potatoes out there? Not if Mr. Potatohead has anything to say about it.

Now let's talk about food.
Organic is often hailed as being the environmentally-friendly, sustainable alternative to modern farming but it's actually bad for the environment. Organic means lower yeilds per acre so the fields have to be bigger to produce the same overall yeilds of modern farming. That means more water, more fertilizer, more pesticides, and more land being plowed. That brings up another common misconception about organic food, that it doesn't use pesticides. It does, they're just natural poisons like nicotine and rotenone and can be very harmful to people, causing cancer and Parkinson's and other diseases.

There are quite a few other problems with the modern environmental movement that I could go through but I'll be going to bed soon so I'll save them for tomorrow. I do agree with you that this has become a fad and I too am not at all pleased with it.

If you're like me, you've been recycling, driving LEVs, setting your A/C at 80 and generally trying to minimize your impact on the environment insofar as you are able. And you've been doing this for years.

Now, all of a sudden, everything's going green - it's suddenly become the big fad, the style.

Green is a fashion statement, a design statement, a food statement. Its in!

And this annoys me. Suddenly green has become a very public bandwagon. They even have a green channel on TV!

Why? Because they can make money from it.

What happened to being "green" because it was the right thing to do?


Let's see... I drive a Jeep, have my Thermostat set to 73 and do absolutely nothing to "minimize my impact on the environment". Know why? Cause I have no deluded sense of grand importance in the scheme of the world at large.

Good ol' mama earth is an incredibly tough matrix of systems. Belief that lil ol' humankind can actually have any kind of meaningful impact in any way is unbelievably egotistical... She's fine now, and will be long after we're gone.

Most guys who actually start into "believing" this silliness do so for one reason... They want to impress some chick that's a greenie. As previous posters stated... It's about looking "cool". Back in the 70's, it was all the rage to be worried about the coming Ice Age...

Newsweek, Apr 28, 1975 (http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf)
Time, Jun 24, 1974 (http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf)

Nowadays, it's worrying about your "carbon footprint". Want to do something truely useful for the environment that isn't just so much "hot air"? Support capitalist ventures near you to build new Nuc power plants. They are about the only truely sustainable, cheap, clean power systems we have availible now...and entertainingly, most of the greenie protestors who used to hate them have switched over to supporting them... So you wouldn't even have to feel guilty about doing the right thing. ;)

Organic means lower yeilds per acre so the fields have to be bigger to produce the same overall yeilds of modern farming. That means more water, more fertilizer, more pesticides, and more land being plowed.

Have you thought this sentence through properly?

Let's see... I drive a Jeep, have my Thermostat set to 73 and do absolutely nothing to "minimize my impact on the environment". Know why? Cause I have no deluded sense of grand importance in the scheme of the world at large.

Good ol' mama earth is an incredibly tough matrix of systems. Belief that lil ol' humankind can actually have any kind of meaningful impact in any way is unbelievably egotistical... She's fine now, and will be long after we're gone.

Most guys who actually start into "believing" this silliness do so for one reason... They want to impress some chick that's a greenie. As previous posters stated... It's about looking "cool". Back in the 70's, it was all the rage to be worried about the coming Ice Age...

Newsweek, Apr 28, 1975 (http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf)
Time, Jun 24, 1974 (http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf)

Nowadays, it's worrying about your "carbon footprint". Want to do something truely useful for the environment that isn't just so much "hot air"? Support capitalist ventures near you to build new Nuc power plants. They are about the only truely sustainable, cheap, clean power systems we have availible now...and entertainingly, most of the greenie protestors who used to hate them have switched over to supporting them... So you wouldn't even have to feel guilty about doing the right thing. ;)

Oddly enough, I think it's unbelievably arrogant to think that we can do whatever we want and and think that it will have no consequence or affect, especially in light of the visible and measurable affects that we have had, from extinctions to the dust bowl. Different lenses, I guess...

Are you complaining because you don't feel special anymore? Surely if you were doing these things for the right reasons you would be glad that more people are actively involved.

-snip-

That's an astonishingly arrogant attitude. I'm in no way a great supporter of the 'green' movement and remain somewhat sceptical of the whole thing, but I still think to dismiss it out of hand is dangerous and reckless.

My own view is that I cannot hope to understand the science behind global warming, as I am not a scientist. At the same time, I cannot hope to understand the science behind the people who say it doesn't exist. As such, it's best to just err on the side of caution and, while retaining your doubt, accept that there is a possibility that this is happening.

That means that while I don't make any major changes to my lifestyle, I'm not deliberately reckless about it either, and will do what I can to reduce my impact where it's a simple change.

Ultimately, I would rather our great-grandchildren looked back at us in a hundred years time and thought we were foolish for worrying about nothing than they look back and hate us for wasting their planet when we had the chance to do something about it.

Why? Because they can make money from it.

What happened to being "green" because it was the right thing to do?
Green is the color of money. In the US at least. Also, green is the color of this smiley --> :D

Let's see... I drive a Jeep, have my Thermostat set to 73 and do absolutely nothing to "minimize my impact on the environment". Know why? Cause I have no deluded sense of grand importance in the scheme of the world at large.

Good ol' mama earth is an incredibly tough matrix of systems. Belief that lil ol' humankind can actually have any kind of meaningful impact in any way is unbelievably egotistical... She's fine now, and will be long after we're gone.

Most guys who actually start into "believing" this silliness do so for one reason... They want to impress some chick that's a greenie. As previous posters stated... It's about looking "cool". Back in the 70's, it was all the rage to be worried about the coming Ice Age...

Newsweek, Apr 28, 1975 (http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf)
Time, Jun 24, 1974 (http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf)

Nowadays, it's worrying about your "carbon footprint". Want to do something truely useful for the environment that isn't just so much "hot air"? Support capitalist ventures near you to build new Nuc power plants. They are about the only truely sustainable, cheap, clean power systems we have availible now...and entertainingly, most of the greenie protestors who used to hate them have switched over to supporting them... So you wouldn't even have to feel guilty about doing the right thing. ;)


I agree for the most part. I learned to manage my thermostat during the oil embargo in the late 70s. That habit never left me. Not to mention not littering, turning lights off, and conserving fuel have been a way of life.

It isn't that I don't believe I am making any difference, it is that I don't believe there is anyone who needs to tell me to do what I have always done. It seems lots of people act like they are noobs and didn't know to be doing these measures already. :rolleyes:

When did common sense disappear? Not to mention when you hold a world festival for awareness but there seems to be no awareness of the gigantic footprint that left behind, well it feels a wee bit like "do as I say, not as I do" by many of these celebrity types.

And yeah I sooo remember being taught in school all about the coming ice age. :p

I live in a city that is promoting electric cars as transportation, yet our electricity is provided by coal to tune of 200 coal rail cars a day in summer. Perhaps some basic math should be taught first before we hard sell so much 'green' nonsense.

If you're like me, you've been recycling, driving LEVs, setting your A/C at 80 and generally trying to minimize your impact on the environment insofar as you are able. And you've been doing this for years.

Now, all of a sudden, everything's going green - it's suddenly become the big fad, the style.

Green is a fashion statement, a design statement, a food statement. Its in!

And this annoys me. Suddenly green has become a very public bandwagon. They even have a green channel on TV!

Why? Because they can make money from it.

What happened to being "green" because it was the right thing to do?

Meh don't tell me you didn't exepect it to happen? You know 'they' will take any marketing oppertunity to make cash.

Why? Because they can make money from it.


So?

Use the spiral light bulbs then look at the utility bill. Verification validation!

Yeah, and those bulbs also contain mercury. Don't break one!

Have you thought this sentence through properly?

Did you read his whole post through properly?

"green is the colour of corruption and mould" thats my input.

And this annoys me. Suddenly green has become a very public bandwagon. They even have a green channel on TV!

Why? Because they can make money from it.

What happened to being "green" because it was the right thing to do?

I don't have a problem with people making money from green initiatives. I happily recycle as much of my waste as possible, and if someone can make a buck/pound/euro from it then good on them. These people are earning a living yet having a low impact on the environment and its resources.

A local company collects all our waste paper (newspapers, junk mail etc). It employs people who might otherwise be claiming benefits. I would rather see them doing this than felling trees to make new paper.

I also question your original 'green' morals if you can drop them as soon as other people start following suit - were you doing it for green reasons or for being trendy/different?

You may want to reconsider some of what you're doing and what you support. You see, a lot of the environmental movement these days isn't made up of rational, reasoning or informed people. They do things because it looks good or makes them feel good but a lot of what people are doing in the name of environmental conservation isn't helping at all and some of it is actually doing harm.

Let's start off with recycling.
Glass is made of sand. There will never be a shortage of sand so it will probably not be profitable to recycle most kinds of glass until you're in a situation where sand isn't plentiful. Recycling glass doesn't really do much, if anything for the environment.Landfills. Recycling glass reduces the amount that gets disposed of, and since you can't really burn glass, that's what would happen otherwise.
Paper is another feel-good action. Recycling paper is a manufacturing process that involves a lot of transportation and sorting before it gets shredded, bleached, de-inked and chemically treated. These harsh chemical treatments can damage the paper resulting in a lower quality product and produce a lot of toxic crap that has to be disposed of.The main chemical treatments are bleaching and deinking, and there's an easy way around that: buy non-bleached, non-deinked recycled paper. Also, recycling it takes less energy than creating paper from pulp-wood.
A lot of people like to think that they're saving trees by recycling paper but the fact is they're just not. Most virgin pulp in the US comes from trees grown specifically for making paper, trees that get replanted so there isn't much threat to old-growth forrests. It's like potatoes. We use potatoes to make fires so we grow potatoes to replace what we eat. Should we be worried about endangered potato fields? Are there any virgin potatoes out there? Not if Mr. Potatohead has anything to say about it.
Now let's talk about food.
Organic is often hailed as being the environmentally-friendly, sustainable alternative to modern farming but it's actually bad for the environment. Organic means lower yeilds per acre so the fields have to be bigger to produce the same overall yeilds of modern farming. That means more water, more fertilizer, more pesticides, and more land being plowed. That brings up another common misconception about organic food, that it doesn't use pesticides. It does, they're just natural poisons like nicotine and rotenone and can be very harmful to people, causing cancer and Parkinson's and other diseases.Synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Yes, it would need more to reach a similar output to a field that doesn't forgo such things. Aside from that, nicotine certainly beats DDT.
There are quite a few other problems with the modern environmental movement that I could go through but I'll be going to bed soon so I'll save them for tomorrow. I do agree with you that this has become a fad and I too am not at all pleased with it.There's a number of problems with your one-sided view of "green" solutions.

I also question your original 'green' morals if you can drop them as soon as other people start following suit - were you doing it for green reasons or for being trendy/different?

Indeed, if you actually cared about the environment, you would view all this massive widespread attention as an absolute god send.

Let's start off with recycling.
Glass is made of sand. There will never be a shortage of sand so it will probably not be profitable to recycle most kinds of glass until you're in a situation where sand isn't plentiful. Recycling glass doesn't really do much, if anything for the environment.

It takes far less energy to melt down and re-use old glass than it does to produce new glass. Also, it reduces waste. Not that glass will seep or anything, but it does take up space and will take a very loong time indeed to decompose.


Paper is another feel-good action. Recycling paper is a manufacturing process that involves a lot of transportation and sorting before it gets shredded, bleached, de-inked and chemically treated. These harsh chemical treatments can damage the paper resulting in a lower quality product and produce a lot of toxic crap that has to be disposed of.

Paper made from trees is chemically treated and bleached as well.
Most paper used between the end of the 19th century and the 1990s is decomposing badly, costing libraries and archives millions each year in trying to save their historical documents.

Let's see... I drive a Jeep, have my Thermostat set to 73 and do absolutely nothing to "minimize my impact on the environment". Know why? Cause I have no deluded sense of grand importance in the scheme of the world at large."Steady drops of water hollow the stone."
Good ol' mama earth is an incredibly tough matrix of systems. Belief that lil ol' humankind can actually have any kind of meaningful impact in any way is unbelievably egotistical... She's fine now, and will be long after we're gone.Yes indeed. We won't damage the planet itself. Course some people worry about all the lovely critters that run around on its surface, partly because we're one of those.
Most guys who actually start into "believing" this silliness do so for one reason... They want to impress some chick that's a greenie. Patently untrue.
As previous posters stated... It's about looking "cool". Back in the 70's, it was all the rage to be worried about the coming Ice Age...

Newsweek, Apr 28, 1975 (http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf)
Time, Jun 24, 1974 (http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf)Yeah. That's exactly why ASD is angry that people are doing things to be hip without bothering to take a look at whether it really helps.
One of your links is Junkscience, by the way.
Nowadays, it's worrying about your "carbon footprint". Exactly. Curbing methane is completely ignored because we can assure ourselves that we're doing good if all we're doing is curbing CO2.
Want to do something truely useful for the environment that isn't just so much "hot air"? Support capitalist ventures near you to build new Nuc power plants. They are about the only truely sustainable, cheap, clean power systems we have availible now...and entertainingly, most of the greenie protestors who used to hate them have switched over to supporting them... So you wouldn't even have to feel guilty about doing the right thing. ;)Sustainable means not jeopardizing future generations' well-being. They will have to deal with the waste. Nuclear power isn't "sustainable" due to the limited amount of waste being produced easily being outweighed by the time it must be treated as such.

Nuclear power isn't "sustainable" due to the limited amount of waste being produced easily being outweighed by the time it must be treated as such.

Can you elaborate on this?

Whilst its never going to happen giving birth and living in general is the true crime to the enviroment.
You require water that in turn requires dams to be constucted = CO2
you require food that is grown upon farms = CO2
You require warmth (clothing or heating) which uses energy = CO2
You require land to live (Must be cleared) = CO2
You want medicene which requires procedures and experiments = CO2
You want transport (Which unless by walking) = CO2
You want to live longer = CO2
You want to have children = CO2

Sure around the edges you can lessen the impact but really this is all an impact of being human. Climate change may be slowed by adopting green policies but the quickest and cheapest way of lessening climate change is by having less people upon earth. How this occurs is the problem. Most people dont want to change their life style dramatically when they are less then a billionth of the total CO2.

You know, I know that there's this natural reaction if you're 'early' to a scene to reject it as soon as the rest of the crowd arrives, but to be honest 'green' activities had no real hope of impact unless a whole lot of people were going to do it, so if you wanted your recycling, LEV 80 degree air-conditioner to have any impact, you had to hope that a bunch of you were doing it. So now that people are on board and it can have an effect, you're done with it? C'mon...this isn't a scene to be dismissed once it's too 'crowded,' it's something that needs a lot of people on board.

QFT

Can you elaborate on this?Sustainable is about meeting the needs of the present without jeopardizing the needs of future generations. In other words, meet your needs without creating a future problem for posterity. Nuclear power cannot be done without creating said problem: Where will the waste go? Nuclear waste will remain dangerous for a time that makes long lasting pollutants like CFCs or plastic waste seem biodegradeable by comparison.

Whilst its never going to happen giving birth and living in general is the true crime to the enviroment.
You require water that in turn requires dams to be constucted = CO2
you require food that is grown upon farms = CO2
You require warmth (clothing or heating) which uses energy = CO2
You require land to live (Must be cleared) = CO2
You want medicene which requires procedures and experiments = CO2
You want transport (Which unless by walking) = CO2
You want to live longer = CO2
You want to have children = CO2Hilariously enough, until steam power came about the impact of all of these was negligible.

Sustainable is about meeting the needs of the present without jeopardizing the needs of future generations. In other words, meet your needs without creating a future problem for posterity. Nuclear power cannot be done without creating said problem: Where will the waste go? Nuclear waste will remain dangerous for a time that makes long lasting pollutants like CFCs or plastic waste seem biodegradeable by comparison.

There is no reason to completely dismiss nuclear power off hand just because of this one particular challenge, I don't believe its a challenge that is impossible to overcome. In fact there is actually a solution which is already being implemented, just bury it underground, simple, but as long as you dig deep and as long as the site is not somewhere where ground water flows (such as Yucca Mountain which is already starting to be used for this), it poses no threat. The only problem with this is that its expensive.

There is no reason to completely dismiss nuclear power off hand just because of this one particular challenge, I don't believe its a challenge that is impossible to overcome. In fact there is actually a solution which is already being implemented, just bury it underground, simple, but as long as you dig deep and as long as the site is not somewhere where ground water flows (such as Yucca Mountain which is already starting to be used for this), it poses no threat. The only problem with this is that its expensive.

Given the time it takes for some of the stuff to become safe to resurface, and the general tectonic activities of the planet, I personally am not very happy with burying nuclear waste on a grand scale. Or even on a small scale.

Given the time it takes for some of the stuff to become safe to resurface, and the general tectonic activities of the planet, I personally am not very happy with burying nuclear waste on a grand scale. Or even on a small scale.

The places they are planning to bury it are specifically chosen to be in areas where there is no danger of dangerous tectonic activities, and some argue that an earthquake would not even pose a serious threat since the rods will be buried so deep.

The places they are planning to bury it are specifically chosen to be in areas where there is no danger of dangerous tectonic activities, and some argue that an earthquake would not even pose a serious threat since the rods will be buried so deep.

I still don't think everything would stay buried for as long as it would need to be.
After all, we're not talking about a few decades or a few centuries here. We're talking millenia. A few hundred, if memory serves me right.
An awful lot can happen in that time, both biologically and geologically, but one thing is absolutely certain to happen : People WILL forget where that stuff is buried. And that in itself is a massive danger.

You may want to reconsider some of what you're doing and what you support. You see, a lot of the environmental movement these days isn't made up of rational, reasoning or informed people. They do things because it looks good or makes them feel good but a lot of what people are doing in the name of environmental conservation isn't helping at all and some of it is actually doing harm.

I agree completely.

Let's start off with recycling.
Glass is made of sand. There will never be a shortage of sand so it will probably not be profitable to recycle most kinds of glass until you're in a situation where sand isn't plentiful. Recycling glass doesn't really do much, if anything for the environment.

One issue with recycling glass is more of the different colors of glass bottles; this goes the same with plastic bottles. You can not mix different color of glass/plastic bottles and expect them to be recycled. They needed to be separated in order for them to be recycled.

Paper is another feel-good action. Recycling paper is a manufacturing process that involves a lot of transportation and sorting before it gets shredded, bleached, de-inked and chemically treated. These harsh chemical treatments can damage the paper resulting in a lower quality product and produce a lot of toxic crap that has to be disposed of.

It is better to burn your paper and use it in a compost heap, or if you don’t want to feed trees with the carbon emissions there is another option. When you make you compost bin and use paper in it, make sure you use a lot of water so the paper can dissolve.

A lot of people like to think that they're saving trees by recycling paper but the fact is they're just not. Most virgin pulp in the US comes from trees grown specifically for making paper, trees that get replanted so there isn't much threat to old-growth forrests. It's like potatoes. We use potatoes to make fires so we grow potatoes to replace what we eat. Should we be worried about endangered potato fields? Are there any virgin potatoes out there? Not if Mr. Potatohead has anything to say about it.

Another thing about saving trees is to clear out the under brush in forests. By doing this you decrease the threat of forest fires, and thus reduce the smoke emissions, although a volcano emits more.

Now let's talk about food.
Organic is often hailed as being the environmentally-friendly, sustainable alternative to modern farming but it's actually bad for the environment. Organic means lower yeilds per acre so the fields have to be bigger to produce the same overall yeilds of modern farming. That means more water, more fertilizer, more pesticides, and more land being plowed. That brings up another common misconception about organic food, that it doesn't use pesticides. It does, they're just natural poisons like nicotine and rotenone and can be very harmful to people, causing cancer and Parkinson's and other diseases.

Don’t think I can say more on this.








As an edited side note: I only recycle aluminum because they pay me for it

I don't have a problem with people making money from green initiatives. I happily recycle as much of my waste as possible, and if someone can make a buck/pound/euro from it then good on them. These people are earning a living yet having a low impact on the environment and its resources.

A local company collects all our waste paper (newspapers, junk mail etc). It employs people who might otherwise be claiming benefits. I would rather see them doing this than felling trees to make new paper.

I also question your original 'green' morals if you can drop them as soon as other people start following suit - were you doing it for green reasons or for being trendy/different?

That's quite a jump you've made, since in my original post, I never said anything about dropping my "green" activities. I simply asked what had happened to going green because it was the right thing to do.

Nor do I ask that people avoid "greenness" simply because it's my thing and I don't want to share.

What I'm saying is that people are running to green, like lemmings to the ocean, not because it's the right thing to do, but because some celeb is now doing it. They're doing it without thinking, without researching what actually works. Some celeb designs and sells shoes that are free of animal products (leather) and everyone ooohs and aaahs and rushes out to buy a pair of $300 shoes because they're "green." Never mind that, since they aren't made of leather, they must be made of something else - that something else probably being petroleum based.

The problem is that it's all a trade off, and you have to ask if the trade off could be just as bad as the original action. You take your own bags to the grocery store so you don't use plastic or paper (good), but you do spend money laundering the bags (they get dirty, animal blood for instance) using water and detergent (not good).

Get my point? Green may be good, but celebs are not the final arbiters of what works and what doesn't. I resent the implication that they are and I'm annoyed that people will listen to an uninformed celebrity when they won't listen to an informed, trained ecologist.

I won't stop doing proven environmentally sound things just because idiots are now doing them. I just am annoyed that the idiots are making such a loud lot of noise about it.

I still don't think everything would stay buried for as long as it would need to be.
After all, we're not talking about a few decades or a few centuries here. We're talking millenia. A few hundred, if memory serves me right.
An awful lot can happen in that time, both biologically and geologically, but one thing is absolutely certain to happen : People WILL forget where that stuff is buried. And that in itself is a massive danger.

Well I think many of the rods actually become safe in only a few hundred years, but true some of stay dangerous for about 10,000 years. However, the idea for many is to store them safely until new and better ideas are developed on how to store them or perhaps how to remove their radioactivity, remember science is progressing at a very fast rate as well.

What I'm saying is that people are running to green, like lemmings to the ocean, not because it's the right thing to do, but because some celeb is now doing it. They're doing it without thinking, without researching what actually works. Some celeb designs and sells shoes that are free of animal products (leather) and everyone ooohs and aaahs and rushes out to buy a pair of $300 shoes because they're "green." Never mind that, since they aren't made of leather, they must be made of something else - that something else probably being petroleum based.

Exactly. I often get annoyed at all the products marketed as "green", when probably the lowest-impact option is just not buying as much stuff in the first place. I don't think celebrity-driven culture is as much the root of the problem as consumerist you-are-what-you-buy culture in general.

Not that I'm all anti-capitalist, I just get neurotic about how much disposable stuff is being pushed through our economy. When you think about how many millions of years it took for oil deposits to form, and then how much energy is used drilling the oil and transporting it and turning it into plastic and transporting the plastic around, just so your lunch can be handed to you in a plastic bag which you immediately throw away....it's a bit mind-boggling.

Well I think many of the rods actually become safe in only a few hundred years, but true some of stay dangerous for about 10,000 years. However, the idea for many is to store them safely until new and better ideas are developed on how to store them or perhaps how to remove their radioactivity, remember science is progressing at a very fast rate as well.

so you quite literally burying your head in the sand :D

Have you thought this sentence through properly?
You've obviously never heard of organic pesticides. Organic farming doesn't mean not using pesticides, it just means that those used have can't be synthetically derived.

Landfills. Recycling glass reduces the amount that gets disposed of, and since you can't really burn glass, that's what would happen otherwise.
It's cheaper to landfill in almost every case and it's not like we're running out of room. A single 35-mile x 35-mile landfill could hold hundreds of years of America trash. No one is suggesting that such a landfill actually be constructed but if it were it would be just a tiny dot on a map of the contiguous 48.

The main chemical treatments are bleaching and deinking, and there's an easy way around that: buy non-bleached, non-deinked recycled paper. Also, recycling it takes less energy than creating paper from pulp-wood.
Actually, no, it doesn't. When you factor in the transportation and sorting costs, recycling paper is usually no better and sometimes worse than using virgin pulp from a tree farm. I would say that you should consider composting but that releases methane, a strong greenhouse gas. Fortunately there is a solution to even that problem; landfills need to siphon methane to keep the landfill from exploding and since methane is an energy gas a landfill can use it to provide power to homes and businesses.

Synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Yes, it would need more to reach a similar output to a field that doesn't forgo such things. Aside from that, nicotine certainly beats DDT.
Synthetics are cheaper and many are less toxic and have fewer side-effects than their organic counterparts.

Using more land, energy and other resources than you have to for food production is bad for the environment so organic farming is bad for the environment.

There's a number of problems with your one-sided view of "green" solutions.
I just took off the blinders everyone else seems to be wearing. You may not like what I have to say but the truth isn't always pleasant.

It takes far less energy to melt down and re-use old glass than it does to produce new glass.
Actually it's about the same. See, because the glass is just melted sand it takes about the same temps to melt it again. Except you might need more because when you're heating sand the grains don't have room to move the heat around but glass bottles can. Ever notice how steel wool will burn real easy but steal plates won't? This is because the steel wool can't disperse the heat as easily as the plates can.

Hold a piece of paper above a lit candle and time how long it takes to burn. Then take an identical piece of paper and wrap it around an empty can and time how long it takes to burn. You'll notice that it takes longer when wrapped. This is because the can is an excellent conductor of heat and draws the heat away from the paper.

Also, it reduces waste. Not that glass will seep or anything, but it does take up space and will take a very loong time indeed to decompose.
Sand doesn't decompose. Glass is most often made of silica, it's what quartz is made of. Have you ever seen a decomposing block of quartz? Neither have I.

To everyone who has carefully tried to preserve the environment through their actions i have this to say:

You've been wasting your time.

Chine and India, consisting of several billion people, have developed a car which can be afforded by anyone. That means people that several billion EXTRA cars are going to be pouring out a hefty amount of pollution which will make all of the green minded peoples efforts completely wasted.

Anyone care to join me as i burn down a forest?

If you're like me, you've been recycling, driving LEVs, setting your A/C at 80 and generally trying to minimize your impact on the environment insofar as you are able. And you've been doing this for years. no car, reuse, recycle and refrain (from wasting too much), don't dirve, no AC...

Now, all of a sudden, everything's going green - it's suddenly become the big fad, the style.

Green is a fashion statement, a design statement, a food statement. Its in!

And this annoys me. Suddenly green has become a very public bandwagon. They even have a green channel on TV! anything to get people to pick up the habits.

Why? Because they can make money from it. that is a good reason you know...

What happened to being "green" because it was the right thing to do? as you said... no money in doing it because it's the right thing to do.

yeah, I refuse to support any green mobs now because I know the money is just ending up in some politicians back pocket.

I will reduce my consumption myself, rather than pay some politician to pretend to care about the cause.

Exactly the way to go.

To everyone who has carefully tried to preserve the environment through their actions i have this to say:

You've been wasting your time.

Chine and India, consisting of several billion people, have developed a car which can be afforded by anyone. That means people that several billion EXTRA cars are going to be pouring out a hefty amount of pollution which will make all of the green minded peoples efforts completely wasted.

Anyone care to join me as i burn down a forest?

Actually, IIRC, China has higher standards on cars than the US does. So its not AS bad?

It's cheaper to landfill in almost every case and it's not like we're running out of room. A single 35-mile x 35-mile landfill could hold hundreds of years of America trash. No one is suggesting that such a landfill actually be constructed but if it were it would be just a tiny dot on a map of the contiguous 48. glad you quanified it by saying contiguous 48. some places are rather low on land for landfills.

Actually it's about the same. See, because the glass is just melted sand it takes about the same temps to melt it again. Except you might need more because when you're heating sand the grains don't have room to move the heat around but glass bottles can. Ever notice how steel wool will burn real easy but steal plates won't? This is because the steel wool can't disperse the heat as easily as the plates can.

Hold a piece of paper above a lit candle and time how long it takes to burn. Then take an identical piece of paper and wrap it around an empty can and time how long it takes to burn. You'll notice that it takes longer when wrapped. This is because the can is an excellent conductor of heat and draws the heat away from the paper. which is why the first thing they do is crush the glass bottles and other stuff into sand-like particles.

Sand doesn't decompose. Glass is most often made of silica, it's what quartz is made of. Have you ever seen a decomposing block of quartz? Neither have I.no, but I have seen glass worn down by erosion. the eroded particles have to go somewhere. ;)

It takes far less energy to melt down and re-use old glass than it does to produce new glass. Also, it reduces waste. Not that glass will seep or anything, but it does take up space and will take a very loong time indeed to decompose. and what uses less energy than recycling or making new glass? washing the old ones and refilling them! :p

I think it's lame, too...

but mainly because of how little an impact our conservations actually have on the whole save-the-planet ideal. We're forced to make sacrifices on energy usage and buy over-priced "green friendly" cars, appliances, and other junk while large corporations make huge profits with no effort to change their own habits. It's a fricken joke.

What we really need to do is replace all existing coal and oil power plants with nuclear plants. That'll do a lot to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

and what uses less energy than recycling or making new glass? washing the old ones and refilling them! :p

That, of course is the best way to go ;)

Let's start off with recycling.
Glass is made of sand. There will never be a shortage of sand so it will probably not be profitable to recycle most kinds of glass until you're in a situation where sand isn't plentiful. Recycling glass doesn't really do much, if anything for the environment.

My boyfriend (who is fanatical about recycling plastic) says it actually takes more resources to recycle glass than it does to create new glass. I don't know if that's true cause I've been too lazy to look it up, but it makes sense with what you say.

Well you shouldn't be using plastic at all. Mind you we can't help it since all products use packaging made out of plastic. A long while back things used to be in paper bags and glass bottles.

What is the most logical environmentally friendly solution?

1) Get everyone in the world to use electric/hydrogen cars
- A pollution testing station in Tokyo showed that about 60% of pollution on one day was from cars and only 40% from factories

2) Find an alternative oil for factories to use, and fast

3) Stop using plastic, where you can.

4) Shove Al Gore in a dumpster (the Carbon Credit scheme is like the 1920s scheme to resolve the depression in Europe - it works in principle but not in practice).

If you're like me, you've been recycling, driving LEVs, setting your A/C at 80 and generally trying to minimize your impact on the environment insofar as you are able. And you've been doing this for years.

Now, all of a sudden, everything's going green - it's suddenly become the big fad, the style.

Green is a fashion statement, a design statement, a food statement. Its in!

And this annoys me. Suddenly green has become a very public bandwagon. They even have a green channel on TV!

Why? Because they can make money from it.

What happened to being "green" because it was the right thing to do?

I saw some fiberglass insulation at Lowes yesterday that was called "GO Green Insulation"

Its getting a bit ridiculous now.

I guess its so popular because people have been told that they are saving the world by using less energy. Rubbish. If anyone is saving the world, its the nameless scientists and engineers who work for large companies across the world. Technology will solve every problem we face, not people who recycle and sweat because they refuse to use their A/C.

I saw some fiberglass insulation at Lowes yesterday that was called "GO Green Insulation"

Its getting a bit ridiculous now.

I guess its so popular because people have been told that they are saving the world by using less energy. Rubbish. If anyone is saving the world, its the nameless scientists and engineers who work for large companies across the world. Technology will solve every problem we face, not people who recycle and sweat because they refuse to use their A/C.

I don't know who's more unrealistic - the technophobe who thinks technology is the source of all evil or the technophile who thinks technology is the source of all salvation.

Technology will solve, given time, a great many of the world's ills. In the process, it will create a great many more problems. That's the issue, for every problem solved, ten problems are created.

To everyone who has carefully tried to preserve the environment through their actions i have this to say:

You've been wasting your time.

Chine and India, consisting of several billion people, have developed a car which can be afforded by anyone. That means people that several billion EXTRA cars are going to be pouring out a hefty amount of pollution which will make all of the green minded peoples efforts completely wasted.

Anyone care to join me as i burn down a forest?

Exactly.

Also, Nuclear is the answer, if we built Thorium fuelled reactors have none of the disadvantages of Uranium and Plutonium.
Thorium reactors are incapable of producing a catastrophic meltdown.
Thorium cannot be enriched to produce weapons grade nuclear material.
Thorium reactors produce a tiny fraction of the hazardous waste Uranium does.
Thorium reactors can be used to burn up much of the waste produced by Uranium reactors.
Waste from Thorium reactors is only radioactive for a few hundred years instead of 10,000+ years.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348

If you're like me, you've been recycling, driving LEVs, setting your A/C at 80 and generally trying to minimize your impact on the environment insofar as you are able. And you've been doing this for years.

Now, all of a sudden, everything's going green - it's suddenly become the big fad, the style.

Green is a fashion statement, a design statement, a food statement. Its in!

And this annoys me. Suddenly green has become a very public bandwagon. They even have a green channel on TV!

Why? Because they can make money from it.

What happened to being "green" because it was the right thing to do?

Just more proof, if any was needed, that capitalism works :D

So let's all give capitalism and my first post on these forums a big and resounding huzzah!

glad you quanified it by saying contiguous 48. some places are rather low on land for landfills.
Whichspaceisspacewhyspaceyouspaceshipspaceitspacetospacewastelandscommaspaceplacesspacethatspacedona pstorphetspacehavespacemuchspacetospaceofferspaceexceptspaceemptyspacespaceperiod

which is why the first thing they do is crush the glass bottles and other stuff into sand-like particles.
AndspacethatspacetakesspaceenergyperiodspaceEitherspaceyouspacemeltspaceitspacewithspaceaspacehotter spacefirespaceorspacegrindspaceitspaceintosandspaceandspacemeltspaceitspaceagainperiodspaceNospacema tterspacewhatspaceyouapostrophevespaceusedspaceasspacemuchspaceifspacenotspacemorespaceenergyperiod

no, but I have seen glass worn down by erosion. the eroded particles have to go somewhere. ;)
Thatapostrophesspacenotspacewhatspaceweapsotropherespacetalkingspaceaboutspaceandspaceyouspaceknowsp aceitperiod

and what uses less energy than recycling or making new glass? washing the old ones and refilling them! :p
Trueperiod

Suddenly green has become a very public bandwagon. They even have a green channel on TV!

Why? Because they can make money from it.

What happened to being "green" because it was the right thing to do?

Because economic self-interest is far more effective than moralizing and preaching in altering behavior.

I don't care why people go green. It is the end result that is important.

I agree that it's become a fad. Being on the lower end of the economic food chain, there's only two things that convince me to go "green" on anything.

1) If it is *directly* beneficial to me in some way, meaning, it immediately saves me time, money, effort, etc.

2) If it is cheaper up front than the current process.

Anything else, and the money could be better spent on things we actually need, and a few things we want every now and then.

That being said, most of the "green" crap that people are pushing does not fall into either of those categories. Once in a blue moon, there is something that is practical that I actually implement.

Use the spiral light bulbs then look at the utility bill. Verification validation!

I replaced all my light bulbs witht hose a year ago... I have not replaced my light bulbs sense and my bill fell by about $20 a month.

We did those light bulbs too. Unfortunately, the house we rent is so energy inefficient that it made no cost difference other than not having to replace them anywhere near as often. That, and I like the whiter light.

I don't know who's more unrealistic - the technophobe who thinks technology is the source of all evil or the technophile who thinks technology is the source of all salvation.

Technology will solve, given time, a great many of the world's ills. In the process, it will create a great many more problems. That's the issue, for every problem solved, ten problems are created.

So your saying that technology creates more problems than it solves? Tell me, what are the problems with your tooth brush? Why do diabetics need to be weary of synthetic insulin? Why should farmers scrap their modern equipment and pick vegetables by hand? It is in fact, very rare that technology creates a problem worse than the one it solves. In fact, I can't think of many. Nerv gas comes to mind. And if you think coal power is doing more harm than good. Stop using electricity and stop buying things that were made using energy from a coal plant (i.e your computer, your clothes, almost everything you own).

If future technology is anything like past and present technology, then I would expect energy to become cheaper and transportation to become faster, easier and less polluting. And if you think CO2 emissions from cars are the biggest world crisis since Hitler, you should ride a horse for a while and tell me which is less polluting. CO2 may be slowly warming our atmosphere but try keeping giant horse turds out of watersheds or drainage divides. We would have one hell of a clean water problem, not to mention the streets would be filled with urine and feces.

To everyone who has carefully tried to preserve the environment through their actions i have this to say:

You've been wasting your time.

Chine and India, consisting of several billion people, have developed a car which can be afforded by anyone. That means people that several billion EXTRA cars are going to be pouring out a hefty amount of pollution which will make all of the green minded peoples efforts completely wasted.

Anyone care to join me as i burn down a forest?

Yeah I don't really understand why people pick on cars so much. Massive ocean freighters produce as much CO2 as 300,000 SUVs will in a year. Not to mention that most CO2 emission comes from factories and manufacturing plants. I guess politicians like to focus on cars because its a way of making people feel guilty directly. "Oh, see that hot air coming out of your tail pipe, thats destroying the earth. Yeah, your fucked unless you vote for me."

I still don't think everything would stay buried for as long as it would need to be.
After all, we're not talking about a few decades or a few centuries here. We're talking millenia. A few hundred, if memory serves me right.
An awful lot can happen in that time, both biologically and geologically, but one thing is absolutely certain to happen : People WILL forget where that stuff is buried. And that in itself is a massive danger.

Why dont you do some basic science regarding radioactivity?

Plutonium... nasty stuff.... 1/2 life 25000 yrs or so, which means its stays radioactive for ages.... however since plutonium is an alpha particle emitter, the shielding needed for it is a plastic bag......

High level waste is of course nasty stuff emitting lots of radioactivity, however why does it emit so much radioactivity? because the elements in it have a very short 1/2 life and therefore decay and emit stuff.
So if the waste has an average 1/2 life of 100 yrs, then in 100 yrs time 1/2 of it will have decayed, and then another 1/2 disappears in another 100 yrs. give it 1000 yrs and a lot of it will be no more radioactive than a lump of cornish granite.

But if you see how long it takes arsenic, cadminium , and other heavy metals to decay, you find they pollute forever

If you're like me, you've been recycling, driving LEVs, setting your A/C at 80 and generally trying to minimize your impact on the environment insofar as you are able. And you've been doing this for years.

Now, all of a sudden, everything's going green - it's suddenly become the big fad, the style.

Green is a fashion statement, a design statement, a food statement. Its in!

And this annoys me. Suddenly green has become a very public bandwagon. They even have a green channel on TV!

Why? Because they can make money from it.

What happened to being "green" because it was the right thing to do?

Some people are such dipshits that they need to do the in thing, and wouldn't consider doing the right thing unless it's in.

Seriously, I'm going green for a very selfish reason. Compact fluorescent lights use loads less electricity than incandescent, and despite my initial resistance to them -- they don't appear to have any difference in color, tone, or annoying flicker. The only fixtures I have not put them into are ones where they simply don't fit because the design won't allow it.

But they do save me money on my electrical bill. Money I could better use on food, rent, trips, clothes, entertainment, etc.

I'm fortunate in that my apartment is VERY sunny. I don't have to turn on a light, other than in the bathroom, from sunrise to sundown. I've put up insulated drapes in my bedroom to block light and heat from getting in in the summer, and block cooler air-conditioned air from getting heated. In the winter they'll help trap warm air in my room.

My electrical bill is less than half my parent's. :)

Have you thought this sentence through properly?

actually it does make sense. Organic fields use "natural pesticides . . . .and anyway the point he's making is valid. Organic Farming is for shit . .. . the only people who do it right are the . . .. Mormons? I think??? . . . . and even they only get a 1/3 yeild

Whichspaceisspacewhyspaceyouspaceshipspaceitspacetospacewastelandscommaspaceplacesspacethatspacedona pstorphetspacehavespacemuchspacetospaceofferspaceexceptspaceemptyspacespaceperioddoesn'thtatdefeatth epurposeifallyoudoismakeitsomeoneelse'sproblem?andwherewouldyouputit?
AndspacethatspacetakesspaceenergyperiodspaceEitherspaceyouspacemeltspaceitspacewithspaceaspacehotter spacefirespaceorspacegrindspaceitspaceintosandspaceandspacemeltspaceitspaceagainperiodspaceNospacema tterspacewhatspaceyouapostrophevespaceusedspaceasspacemuchspaceifspacenotspacemorespaceenergyperiodn otreally,thesameconveyerbeltcould,bywayofgears,havecrushersthatcanpulverisetheglasswithminimalincrea seofenergy.
Thatapostrophesspacenotspacewhatspaceweapsotropherespacetalkingspaceaboutspaceandspaceyouspaceknowsp aceitperiodthat'swhytherewasa;)there.alsoisn'terosionalsoaformofdecomposition?

So your saying that technology creates more problems than it solves? Tell me, what are the problems with your tooth brush? Why do diabetics need to be weary of synthetic insulin? Why should farmers scrap their modern equipment and pick vegetables by hand? It is in fact, very rare that technology creates a problem worse than the one it solves. In fact, I can't think of many. Nerv gas comes to mind. And if you think coal power is doing more harm than good. Stop using electricity and stop buying things that were made using energy from a coal plant (i.e your computer, your clothes, almost everything you own).

If future technology is anything like past and present technology, then I would expect energy to become cheaper and transportation to become faster, easier and less polluting. And if you think CO2 emissions from cars are the biggest world crisis since Hitler, you should ride a horse for a while and tell me which is less polluting. CO2 may be slowly warming our atmosphere but try keeping giant horse turds out of watersheds or drainage divides. We would have one hell of a clean water problem, not to mention the streets would be filled with urine and feces.

So, when the car was invented, became mass produced and, thus, accessible to everyman, it eliminated the need for horses and people with brooms who pick up the horseshit, and created no problems itself - just emissions, disposal of chemical waste (oil, anti-freeze, transmission fluid), disposal of solid waste (old tires, used parts).

I'm not a luddite. I don't advocate going back to a pre-technological era. I just think people should be aware that the solutions to one problem inevitably lead to more problems.

And, just for your information, the waste from cars is much less easily recyclable than animal and human waste. Night soil (human waste) was processed and used as fertilizer, so was animal waste. Urine was used in processing cloth - nothing went to waste. Try using automotive waste like that.

Environmentalism can only be mainstream when it's...uh...mainstream.

That means goofy-ass t-shirts and people buying green in order to look trendy. It takes capitalism to make environmentalism work, otherwise, it's all a bunch of Birkenstocked tilting at windmills.

Environmentalism can only be mainstream when it's...uh...mainstream.

That means goofy-ass t-shirts and people buying green in order to look trendy. It takes capitalism to make environmentalism work, otherwise, it's all a bunch of Birkenstocked tilting at windmills.

If only the bandwagon greenies weren't so full of misinformation.

The celeb who markets "green" shoes (i.e. not leather) isn't really green - she's confusing "animal rights" with "green." Leather is biodegradable and comes from a renewable resource and is, hence, green. Her plastic shoes are petroleum based and, hence, not green. The whole faddish green movement is full of idiocies like this. You want to go green, good, but get your facts right - many things that are being touted as green at best, do no harm and, at worst, not only separate people from much needed money, but actually harm the environment.

So, when the car was invented, became mass produced and, thus, accessible to everyman, it eliminated the need for horses and people with brooms who pick up the horseshit, and created no problems itself - just emissions, disposal of chemical waste (oil, anti-freeze, transmission fluid), disposal of solid waste (old tires, used parts).

I'm not a luddite. I don't advocate going back to a pre-technological era. I just think people should be aware that the solutions to one problem inevitably lead to more problems.

And, just for your information, the waste from cars is much less easily recyclable than animal and human waste. Night soil (human waste) was processed and used as fertilizer, so was animal waste. Urine was used in processing cloth - nothing went to waste. Try using automotive waste like that.

Yeah, cars do produce a considerable amount of waste. But with modern waste management and state-of-the-art landfills, disposing of said waste products is almost a non-issue. At least, it costs money. This is why I am going to make my own electric car. No fluids, no oils, no exhaust system or engine noise, only a few gallons of toxic battery acid.

Green really annoys me too, which is what is so nice about her departure:
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/125203

Good ol' mama earth is an incredibly tough matrix of systems. Belief that lil ol' humankind can actually have any kind of meaningful impact in any way is unbelievably egotistical... She's fine now, and will be long after we're gone.

You are exactly correct in about half of what you say. The Earth doesn't give a crap about us or anything living on it, doesn't need us, and could care less when we die out. The reason we should be concerned about the things you think have no "kind of meaningful impact" is because they lessen our and a plethora of other creatures quality of life on this planet.
Most guys who actually start into "believing" this silliness do so for one reason... They want to impress some chick that's a greenie.
I also see no problem with this unless the guys are complete assholes about it. For example, using an eco-friendly tote bag and then shooting an elephant and burning down a forest.

If only the bandwagon greenies weren't so full of misinformation.

The celeb who markets "green" shoes (i.e. not leather) isn't really green - she's confusing "animal rights" with "green." Leather is biodegradable and comes from a renewable resource and is, hence, green. Her plastic shoes are petroleum based and, hence, not green. The whole faddish green movement is full of idiocies like this. You want to go green, good, but get your facts right - many things that are being touted as green at best, do no harm and, at worst, not only separate people from much needed money, but actually harm the environment.

Understood. I had not heard of anyone touting animal products as "not green" -- that makes my head hurt. To then tout plastic as "green" makes my ass hurt.

Good ol' mama earth is an incredibly tough matrix of systems. Belief that lil ol' humankind can actually have any kind of meaningful impact in any way is unbelievably egotistical... She's fine now, and will be long after we're gone.

*nukes world, points and laughs at how unbelievably wrong APT now obviously is*

gahexclamationpoint
allcapsgahexclamationpointexclamationpoint

ohspacegodspacepleasespacestopspacedoingspacethisspaceitspaceisspacetospacepainfulexclamationpoint

When the human population began there were a few individuals. This raised to a a few hundred million and then maintaned for years. Then came the industrial development. 1 Billion, 2 Billion, 3 Billion .... Over 6 Billion and this is projected to rise to over 9 Billion. Can anyone think of how much more food, water, energy and so on 9 Billion people consume to less then 1 Billion.

What large mammals (that arnt human pets) are in such large numbers as humans? There arnt any. Our numbers are the problem. The push to continue eating, drinking and maintaining warmth are still where most energy and utilities go towards.

The industrial development made us consume more and the improvments in technology have been too small to reduce the increasing impact.

Unless the human population enforced a limit upon the number of children people can have or somehow reduces the population without targeting any group (politically impossible and would cause war creating ALOT more damage) the situation will just get worse.

By the time I die the human population will have increased by 50%. Can anyone realisticly claim that they will even be consuming 2/3rds as many resources before their death. Thats the minimum if you believe we are sustainable now.

This problem only worsens when you consider the developing world rightly wants what we want.

When the human population began there were a few individuals. This raised to a a few hundred million and then maintaned for years. Then came the industrial development. 1 Billion, 2 Billion, 3 Billion .... Over 6 Billion and this is projected to rise to over 9 Billion. Can anyone think of how much more food, water, energy and so on 9 Billion people consume to less then 1 Billion.

What large mammals (that arnt human pets) are in such large numbers as humans? There arnt any. Our numbers are the problem. The push to continue eating, drinking and maintaining warmth are still where most energy and utilities go towards.

The industrial development made us consume more and the improvments in technology have been too small to reduce the increasing impact.

Unless the human population enforced a limit upon the number of children people can have or somehow reduces the population without targeting any group (politically impossible and would cause war creating ALOT more damage) the situation will just get worse.

By the time I die the human population will have increased by 50%. Can anyone realisticly claim that they will even be consuming 2/3rds as many resources before their death. Thats the minimum if you believe we are sustainable now.

This problem only worsens when you consider the developing world rightly wants what we want.

I think everyone here knows this. The reason it's not addressed is because it's the one thing over which we have the least control, because it's the most knee-jerk issue in the whole "green" movement. People who will buy the green light bulbs, drive green vehicles, do everything with the intent of minimizing their impact on the environment will balk at limiting reproduction - because reproduction is, as they perceive it, a "right."

You might also note that, in "first world" countries, the birth rate is pretty much at ZPG. It's in the developing countries where the birth rate is exploding, so go to Ethiopia or another developing country and try to educate them about "green," it's an alien concept to them. They're just trying to survive.

It's cheaper to landfill in almost every case and it's not like we're running out of room. A single 35-mile x 35-mile landfill could hold hundreds of years of America trash. No one is suggesting that such a landfill actually be constructed but if it were it would be just a tiny dot on a map of the contiguous 48.Oh, yes, America. The only place in the world that exists...:rolleyes:
Plus, what'll happen when the landfill leaks (which, given we live in a real world, will happen eventually)?
Actually, no, it doesn't. When you factor in the transportation and sorting costs, recycling paper is usually no better and sometimes worse than using virgin pulp from a tree farm. I would say that you should consider composting but that releases methane, a strong greenhouse gas. Fortunately there is a solution to even that problem; landfills need to siphon methane to keep the landfill from exploding and since methane is an energy gas a landfill can use it to provide power to homes and businesses.Did you factor in transportation for the virgin pulp as well, or has that been conveniently ignored?
Synthetics are cheaper and many are less toxic and have fewer side-effects than their organic counterparts.Prove it.
Using more land, energy and other resources than you have to for food production is bad for the environment so organic farming is bad for the environment.Depends on how much land is available. It certainly isn't sustainable on massive basis.
I just took off the blinders everyone else seems to be wearing. You may not like what I have to say but the truth isn't always pleasant.Physician cure thyself. You're so run
Actually it's about the same. See, because the glass is just melted sand it takes about the same temps to melt it again. Except you might need more because when you're heating sand the grains don't have room to move the heat around but glass bottles can. Ever notice how steel wool will burn real easy but steal plates won't? This is because the steel wool can't disperse the heat as easily as the plates can.No need to generate extra waste, then.

Environmentalism can only be mainstream when it's...uh...mainstream.

That means goofy-ass t-shirts and people buying green in order to look trendy. It takes capitalism to make environmentalism work, otherwise, it's all a bunch of Birkenstocked tilting at windmills.

By relying on capitalism, we will continue to use oil to generate those trendy t-shirts and hybrid cars until the price of oil becomes higher than alternative energy sources. This can occur either through some serious breakthrough in science or when we deplete the oil resources to the point where it is no longer profitable. So the only thing capitalism will do is burn every single profitable fossil fuel into the atmosphere, while simultaneously pumping out their not so green merchandise to sell to those who think they are making a difference.

Being an activist and a consumer are 2 different things.

Just more proof, if any was needed, that capitalism works!

Your evidence that capitalism functions effectively is that people can make money selling T-shirts with "environmentalist" slogans?

In general, I avoid anything overtly described as "green", "environmentally friendly", or anything of the sort.

The vast majority of the time it is purely an advertising ploy and there is no way to verify any of their deliberately vague claims.Actually, it can be the other way around. An example would be, err, washing machines. Modern ones are incredibly 'Green' (Infinitely more so than 80s-era 'Environmentally Friendly' ones that were actually advertised as such), but nobody says so. Why? Because everything 'Green' has an aura of 'Hippie Love' on it, which has troubles selling to the average customer.

So this aspect of certain products isn't advertised. At all. Although it's of course 'Hidden' in statistics such as energy/ water requirements.

et's see... I drive a Jeep, have my Thermostat set to 73 and do absolutely nothing to "minimize my impact on the environment". Know why? Cause I have no deluded sense of grand importance in the scheme of the world at large.

Good ol' mama earth is an incredibly tough matrix of systems. Belief that lil ol' humankind can actually have any kind of meaningful impact in any way is unbelievably egotistical... She's fine now, and will be long after we're gone.http://enrin.grida.no/aral/aralsea/images/picture/aral2.jpg
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/images/ozone_hole.jpg
http://www.unit5.org/christjs/chernobyl.jpg

Sand doesn't decompose. Glass is most often made of silica, it's what quartz is made of. Have you ever seen a decomposing block of quartz? Neither have I.glass is unstable, and will slowly (VERY slowly. We're talking dozens of millions of years, here) de-glassify itself into, erm, sand, I believe.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/suv.png (http://xkcd.com/437/)

Oh, yes, America. The only place in the world that exists...:rolleyes:
The only place in the world that matters.:cool:

Plus, what'll happen when the landfill leaks (which, given we live in a real world, will happen eventually)?
You don't know much about modern landfill construction, do you? Federal regulations for landfill design are very stringent. It's not just a big rubber sheet in a hole, it's also several feet of clay and impermeable stuff and then get topped with pipes and shit to extract methane to prevent an explosion. The desings today are all about preventing ground water contamination and when a landfill is capped it looks like a well-groomed constuction site and will eventually get turned into a park or golf course.

Did you factor in transportation for the virgin pulp as well, or has that been conveniently ignored?
Not all that much transport is required when your paper mill is in the middle of the company-grown forest.

Prove it.
Nicotine is a powerful neurotoxin. So powerful that a gram of the stuff is more than the median lethan dose for adult humans. It's more toxic than cocaine. Spilling the liquid on your skin would probably kill you. DDT is way less than that. DDT is even sometimes used as a medication for barbituate poisoning. In other words, you can take DDT in pill form and it won't kill you. Synthetics can be made less toxic than organics.

Depends on how much land is available. It certainly isn't sustainable on massive basis.
I'm glad you agree. Maybe you can explain then why so many self-proclaimed greenies demand the world go organic.

Physician cure thyself.
Well what did you think of my performance?

No need to generate extra waste, then.
It doesn't generate extra waste and recycling it can easily and likely does consume more power which does create more waste. If you pulverize it it becomes an aggregate (sand!). If you really wanted to avoid creating any glass waste or waste through extra energy expended in the recycling process you'd just wash and refill the containers. Not a bad idea, eh? I suggest you try it.

Linker Niederrhein,
Glass is an amorphous solid composed primarily of silica (sand) and I don't think it de-vitrifies.

The only place in the world that matters.:cool:Bad example when trying to analyze waste management, though. Entirely unrepresentative of most of the world.
You don't know much about modern landfill construction, do you? Unfortunately for you, I do. I generally pass by two models of modern landfills on my way to class every day, since the chair of waste management has their offices there, along with the other chairs of the faculty of environmental sciences and process engineering. I've also had plenty of opportunity to chat with the people that design such installations. Interestingly enough, they don't share your delusion about the infallibility of their designs.
Not all that much transport is required when your paper mill is in the middle of the company-grown forest.Many aren't. Likewise, not many transportation costs when your paper recycling plant is in a city.
Nicotine is a powerful neurotoxin. So powerful that a gram of the stuff is more than the median lethan dose for adult humans. It's more toxic than cocaine. Spilling the liquid on your skin would probably kill you. DDT is way less than that. DDT is even sometimes used as a medication for barbituate poisoning. In other words, you can take DDT in pill form and it won't kill you. Synthetics can be made less toxic than organics.Indeed. DDT is more of a "make your life miserable" poison because its soluble in fat and doesn't get excreted.

Doesn't answer the question though. Nicotine is not representative for biological pest control. Nor is DDT really the only synthetic pesticide. Show that "many [synthetics] are less toxic and have fewer side-effects than their organic counterparts." Also, statistics on how much they each get used would be very helpful. If nicotine isn't widely used, then it's rather irrelevent to the discussion of whether organically grown food is healthier than non-organically grown food.
I'm glad you agree. Maybe you can explain then why so many self-proclaimed greenies demand the world go organic.Delusion. It's certainly healthier because they don't use all of those fun non-biological pest controls. The fertilizer issue is something else entirely. (Over)fertilization cause massive damage to the environment, moreso than using larger amounts of land.
Well what did you think of my performance?You raise a bunch of valid points, which is why it's a pity that you only focus on those instead of weighing the whole issue. A lot of things are not going to make sense if you focus on a small part of it, but if you take everything into account, usually they do. You've been missing that whole with some of the issues you're ranting against.
It doesn't generate extra waste and recycling it can easily and likely does consume more power which does create more waste. If you pulverize it it becomes an aggregate (sand!). If you really wanted to avoid creating any glass waste or waste through extra energy expended in the recycling process you'd just wash and refill the containers. Not a bad idea, eh? I suggest you try it.If you don't recycle or reuse glass and throw it away instead, it creates more waste. Reuse is the best option, until a bottle has run its lifetime to the end (usually 6-8 uses, if I'm not much mistaken). Then it can be recycled, which prevents the smelting of additional sand as well as the generation of additional waste that would take up unnecessary space on landfills.

T-Stat is at 68F

I own 4 cars.

1. Honda Civic SI 2007
2. 1995 Chrysler Lebaron V6 Convertible ( Weekend car )
3. 1990 Volvo 740 Turbo ( Toy car, its a on going project. )
4. Drag Car ( Old Merc Couger )

I don't recycle, its a waste of my time.

I don't buy organic.

I don't car pool.

I don't turn the heat down in the winter.

I don't buy " green " anything, its a waste of my money.

Hell, my father owns 12 cars, many of them getting sub 10mpg.


Heres why, because I don't care. I love my cars, and I am not going to drive around in a little shitbox that I hate just to save a few bucks on gas.

T-Stat is at 68F

I own 4 cars.

1. Honda Civic SI 2007
2. 1995 Chrysler Lebaron V6 Convertible ( Weekend car )
3. 1990 Volvo 740 Turbo ( Toy car, its a on going project. )
4. Drag Car ( Old Merc Couger )

I don't recycle, its a waste of my time.

I don't buy organic.

I don't car pool.

I don't turn the heat down in the winter.

I don't buy " green " anything, its a waste of my money.

Hell, my father owns 12 cars, many of them getting sub 10mpg.


Heres why, because I don't care. I love my cars, and I am not going to drive around in a little shitbox that I hate just to save a few bucks on gas.

And every time you rev that engine, you can congratulate yourself on (http://www.edf.org/documents/2656_MotorAirPollutionCancer.pdf)giving (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCN-47GPJHT-6&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6d47f4cc287c78259d3548281afece66) cancer to (http://www.mothersforcleanaircolorado.org/5099Evidenceofhealtheffectsfromhighwaypollution.pdf) kids (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070125185843.htm)!

And every time you rev that engine, you can congratulate yourself on (http://www.edf.org/documents/2656_MotorAirPollutionCancer.pdf)giving (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCN-47GPJHT-6&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6d47f4cc287c78259d3548281afece66) cancer to (http://www.mothersforcleanaircolorado.org/5099Evidenceofhealtheffectsfromhighwaypollution.pdf) kids (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070125185843.htm)!

So your saying I should buy a shitbox like a Prius because I care about other peoples kids? Which I don't.

I don't much buy into this global warming crap either.

I'll keep buying the cars I want, and theres not a damn thing anyone can do to stop me.

Laerod, you missed it. So I'll give you another shot. Kobayashi Maru.

Until 2005 '98 was the hottest year on record. Does that mean we're in a cooling phase? The BBC says that the next decade may see no warming so should we be preparing for a coming ice age?

Global warming is part of a Communist conspiracy to take over the world and ruin the global economy. They couldn't win in Russia, not while people had technology to make their lives easy, so now they're going to get rid of it by spreading liez of impending doom. DOOM!

Until 2005 '98 was the hottest year on record. Does that mean we're in a cooling phase?

no

The BBC says that the next decade may see no warming so should we be preparing for a coming ice age?

no


this has been another edition of "simple answers to stupid questions"

No. Just no. You should have realized by the third section of that post that it was in jest. You, Free Soviets, are a myopic, impotent, arrogant ass and we'd be better off without your petty parochialisms and condescending attitude. Do us all a favor and become an hero.

I saw a wonderful little article in TIME that touched on the subject of the OP. The columnist was discussing how being an environmentalist has morphed into not just an effort by some people to do what we can to help keep our Earth clean and healthy, but many environmentalists seem to use the movement as a way to try to make everyone else live like they do. They only accept ways to be "green" that fit into their (in my observance openly liberal) vision.

I like the way Mike Rowe put it in an environmentally-themed episode of Dirty Jobs when he explained that there are a lot of blue-collar workers in this world who work for private businesses AND get down and dirty every day to help keep our environment clean.

It doesn't have to be massive cultural changes led by governments and/or NGOs that save our planet, as many environmentalists would have you believe. They have their own political agendas they attach to environmentalism. The issue does not have to be so politically charged. This is the same point the columnist in TIME was making. If someone says you have to start tie-dying shirts different shades of green, use hemp and soy for everything, and wear Birkenstocks all day to be an environmentalist, they're wrong. There's lots of environmentalists out there of all sorts of political and cultural stripes. It may sound corny, but it's going to take all of them to make it work for everyone.

their (in my observance openly liberal) vision.

:eek:
They should be locked away!

:eek:
They should be locked away!

Well, no, the point was that you don't have to be liberal and/or buy into the whole "teh Corporashunz R 3BIL!1!1!" stuff to take care of the environment.

I don't much buy into this global warming crap either.
This, plus the rest of your ...compost ... demonstrate a certain kind of standard by which a few other things should be judged. Any guesses? Someone will get back to you, certainly.

Laerod, you missed it. So I'll give you another shot. Kobayashi Maru.Prove it.
Until 2005 '98 was the hottest year on record. Does that mean we're in a cooling phase? The BBC says that the next decade may see no warming so should we be preparing for a coming ice age?

Global warming is part of a Communist conspiracy to take over the world and ruin the global economy. They couldn't win in Russia, not while people had technology to make their lives easy, so now they're going to get rid of it by spreading liez of impending doom. DOOM!And this is why I will stop taking you seriously.

I don't much buy into this global warming crap either.



You don't have to "buy into this global warming crap" to care about the environment and try to do things to maintain or improve it. Even without global warming we are using petroleum for everything from fuel to makeup and thereby depleting the supply. Even without global warming, every day emissions from travel, manufacturing, and just living are getting into the atmosphere. Even without global warming, chemicals from manufacturing, farming and just living are getting into the water. Every day species become extinct when it isn't their time to become extinct. Global warming isn't the be all and end all of environmental concern.

By relying on capitalism, we will continue to use oil to generate those trendy t-shirts and hybrid cars until the price of oil becomes higher than alternative energy sources. This can occur either through some serious breakthrough in science or when we deplete the oil resources to the point where it is no longer profitable. So the only thing capitalism will do is burn every single profitable fossil fuel into the atmosphere, while simultaneously pumping out their not so green merchandise to sell to those who think they are making a difference.

Being an activist and a consumer are 2 different things.

Fair enough. My point was that without consumers buying in (at all), environmentalism was/is always going to be the province of those who care enough to learn why it's a good idea. The average consumer doesn't really care. Until they can be made to care through the introduction of green products that actually are green and are equal to, if not superior to, the products they already buy, green will always be the "lunatic fringe" of consumer choice.

If that means I have to tolerate either well-intentioned ignorance or even disingenuous marketing techniques, well, it's better than ignoring or dismissing the whole idea, isn't it? Or is the journey of a thousand miles not begun with a single step?

Speaking of dismissal:

T-Stat is at 68F

I own 4 cars.

1. Honda Civic SI 2007
2. 1995 Chrysler Lebaron V6 Convertible ( Weekend car )
3. 1990 Volvo 740 Turbo ( Toy car, its a on going project. )
4. Drag Car ( Old Merc Couger )

I don't recycle, its a waste of my time.

I don't buy organic.

I don't car pool.

I don't turn the heat down in the winter.

I don't buy " green " anything, its a waste of my money.

Hell, my father owns 12 cars, many of them getting sub 10mpg.


Heres why, because I don't care. I love my cars, and I am not going to drive around in a little shitbox that I hate just to save a few bucks on gas.

You are part of the problem, but that's your right.

So your saying I should buy a shitbox like a Prius because I care about other peoples kids? Which I don't.

I don't much buy into this global warming crap either.

I'll keep buying the cars I want, and theres not a damn thing anyone can do to stop me.

We can, however, stop you from driving them wherever you want. Like in parts of my city (http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=2361efb0-3435-4e9d-bfd8-13d8e40f8f77).

Your apathy is not surprising. I find it quite typical of car enthusiasts when they are informed of the fact that they're helping to kill kids. When one realises this, it becomes obvious that they probably care even less about the environment. Since that is the case, the rest of us are just going to have to do what it takes to ensure humanity's continued existence without your help.

Congratulations, you just made yourself obsolete to the human race.

Congratulations, you just made yourself obsolete to the human race.

*adds cybernetic implants*

It doesn't have to be massive cultural changes led by governments and/or NGOs that save our planet, as many environmentalists would have you believe. They have their own political agendas they attach to environmentalism. The issue does not have to be so politically charged.
Ahh, but then there are those of us, social ecologists, who feel that the very make-up of society is incompatible with sustaining human life on this planet at the level we enjoy today for very much longer.

The problem with 'green' is two things:

1. You have to HAVE green, to BE green.

2. Green, was made to MAKE green.

That's a lotta green!

Although it obviously is important to take care of the environment, and people seem to have their act together on a personal level, it's at the governmental and state level where all the wrong choices are being made.

Think about all the "breakthroughs" we've had, like good 'ol "I'm-going-to-drive-the-price of-commodities-through-the-roof" ethanol, or "I'm-going-to-fill-up-landfills-with-mercury" compact florescent bulbs. What we really need to do is think a new product through before we immediately hail it as a godly way to save the planet (except maybe fusion power. that's just plain godly).

You don't have to "buy into this global warming crap" to care about the environment and try to do things to maintain or improve it. Even without global warming we are using petroleum for everything from fuel to makeup and thereby depleting the supply. Even without global warming, every day emissions from travel, manufacturing, and just living are getting into the atmosphere. Even without global warming, chemicals from manufacturing, farming and just living are getting into the water. Every day species become extinct when it isn't their time to become extinct. Global warming isn't the be all and end all of environmental concern.

Thank you! It irritates me that some people who don't believe in global warming somehow think that since in their opinion, there's no warming and/or any warming is natural that they can continue polluting, wasting and eating up resources without boundary. It doesn't take a scientist to understand that exposure to pollution is unhealthy!

What we really need to do is think a new product through before we immediately hail it as a godly way to save the planet (except maybe fusion power. that's just plain godly).

The term you're looking for is 'Life cycle assessments'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_cycle_assessment

It doesn't take a scientist to understand that exposure to pollution is unhealthy!

It may be unhealthy, but it's my God-given right! :p

Why? Because they can make money from it.

What happened to being "green" because it was the right thing to do?

Getting people to do the right thing is hard enough. Demanding they do the right thing for the right reasons is just unreasonable.

We can, however, stop you from driving them wherever you want. Like in parts of my city (http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=2361efb0-3435-4e9d-bfd8-13d8e40f8f77).

Your apathy is not surprising. I find it quite typical of car enthusiasts when they are informed of the fact that they're helping to kill kids. When one realises this, it becomes obvious that they probably care even less about the environment. Since that is the case, the rest of us are just going to have to do what it takes to ensure humanity's continued existence without your help.

Congratulations, you just made yourself obsolete to the human race.

Good thing theres no proof on global warming, its all political. All my fam has been driving cars, none have cancer, oh wait I don't have cancer either. So its just liberal bullshit. These damn liberals want everyone on buses so they can have total control.

Why I drive into the El=Queero district of a city to start with? I'd take the bus.

No. Just no. You should have realized by the third section of that post that it was in jest.

It may say something of your argument if no one can tell the difference between it and intentional silliness.

You, Free Soviets, are a myopic, impotent, arrogant ass and we'd be better off without your petty parochialisms and condescending attitude. Do us all a favor and become an hero.

Who is this "us all" and "we" you are presuming to speak for?

The term you're looking for is 'Life cycle assessments'.

Ok, let me restate that into "a good way to assess products." Like, one that doesn't miss ethanol, CFC's, compact florescent bulbs, etc.

These damn liberals want everyone on buses so they can have total control.

…
…
…

Ok, let me restate that into "a good way to assess products." Like, one that doesn't miss ethanol, CFC's, compact florescent bulbs, etc.

Ah, but that would be regulation of industry. Any good capitalist knows that's baaaaad.

…
…
…

Yeah. Me too.

Yeah. Me too.

I honestly never knew that was what we wanted.
I mean, I know we wanted to brainwash the majority of the populace and send them to toil in our Hemp Mines, but… wait, I've said too much.

I honestly never knew that was what we wanted.
I mean, I know we wanted to brainwash the majority of the populace and send them to toil in our Hemp Mines, but… wait, I've said too much.

Relax. He clearly already knows about the global domination bus plan.

It's over. The secret is out. We've been compromised. Might as well stop trying to deny it!

Ah, but that would be regulation of industry. Any good capitalist knows that's baaaaad.

Only government regulation of industry is bad. *Sticks nose up in air*

Ah, but that would be regulation of industry. Any good capitalist knows that's baaaaad.

Ah, touche...:D

Still, it wouldn't be government regulation if the companies checked themselves. Plus, the government encouraged farmers to start making corn (ethanol corn), so that too would technically be a regulation of industry.

When the human population began there were a few individuals. This raised to a a few hundred million and then maintaned for years. Then came the industrial development. 1 Billion, 2 Billion, 3 Billion .... Over 6 Billion and this is projected to rise to over 9 Billion. Can anyone think of how much more food, water, energy and so on 9 Billion people consume to less then 1 Billion.

What large mammals (that arnt human pets) are in such large numbers as humans? There arnt any. Our numbers are the problem. The push to continue eating, drinking and maintaining warmth are still where most energy and utilities go towards.

The industrial development made us consume more and the improvments in technology have been too small to reduce the increasing impact.

Unless the human population enforced a limit upon the number of children people can have or somehow reduces the population without targeting any group (politically impossible and would cause war creating ALOT more damage) the situation will just get worse.

By the time I die the human population will have increased by 50%. Can anyone realisticly claim that they will even be consuming 2/3rds as many resources before their death. Thats the minimum if you believe we are sustainable now.

This problem only worsens when you consider the developing world rightly wants what we want.


Human beings, thanks to our intellect, are a slight anomaly amongst the animal kingdom. We are the only mult-cellular organism which DOES NOT adjust to it's environment. We simply consume and move on; therefore we are really only befitted to belonging to the same catagory as a virus, which is the only other "living" organism which does not adjust to it's environment. It simply consumes and moves on.

Once upon a time when there were only a few thousand of us on the planet this would have been fine. As humanity the virus spreads from one area in the Earth's body it sucks it's resources dry and moved on. But the amount of us doing this enabled the "body" of earth to repair itself. Can it do this now with our large numbers? No.

Soon humanity will complete a course similar to many overly efficient viruses. There have been many dieseases which have been so efficient that they "burnt themselves out" I.E. they killed so well that suddenly there were no humans to support them; the bacteria subsequently died.

This time round humanity is the plague upon this planet which serves us our body. We are hurtling towards our own destruction. And i intend to watch it from a nice cliff somewhere as the world descends into anarchy.

Goodbye earth!!! And thanks for all the fish.

except for anti-monopoly laws. And child labor laws. And a couple other laws. But the rest are bullshit!
Actually, those laws should be destroyed too.

Only government regulation of industry is bad. *Sticks nose up in air*

except for anti-monopoly laws. And child labor laws. And a couple other laws. But the rest are bullshit!

This time round humanity is the plague upon this planet which serves us our body. We are hurtling towards our own destruction. And i intend to watch it from a nice cliff somewhere as the world descends into anarchy.

Goodbye earth!!! And thanks for all the fish.
Euch.

Mixing Matrix psuedoscience with H2G2? Leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

Euch.

Mixing Matrix psuedoscience with H2G2? Leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

Ahh, i am aware of the references ;) But no, it's true, sad really...

I honestly never knew that was what we wanted.
I mean, I know we wanted to brainwash the majority of the populace and send them to toil in our Hemp Mines, but… wait, I've said too much.

Just think about it, if they can control carbon, they can control energy, which means they have total control, it'll be just like the USSR all over again.

These communist bastards like obama are out to kill america.

Just think about it, if they can control carbon, they can control energy, which means they have total control, it'll be just like the USSR all over again.

These communist bastards like obama are out to kill america.

I'm not a bastard... :D

I'm not a bastard... :D

That's just what your mother told you! Jk:p

lol, i did the math!!! My birthday and my parents wedding!!! I'm 2 days in boy suck on that!!!

ha ha lol :p
:eek:

That's just what your mother told you! Jk:p

lol, i did the math!!! My birthday and my parents wedding!!! I'm 2 days in boy suck on that!!!

ha ha lol :p

--- I doth amuse myself

Thank you! It irritates me that some people who don't believe in global warming somehow think that since in their opinion, there's no warming and/or any warming is natural that they can continue polluting, wasting and eating up resources without boundary. It doesn't take a scientist to understand that exposure to pollution is unhealthy!

Well, its not like me turning up my AC to 70 is going to do anything.

Its not like i care, because its a bunch of eco scare tactics.

Its not like i care, because its a bunch of eco scare tactics.
Scare tactics in aid of what?

Global domination by an unhierarchial loose-nit group of disparate peoples? What shit are you on?

Scare tactics in aid of what?

Global domination by an unhierarchial loose-nit group of disparate peoples? What shit are you on?

They want ppl to change their lifes completely, stop driving cars, stop flying, stop having fun pretty much because " OMFG THE WORLD WILL END UNLESS WE ALL DRIVE HYBRIDS AND DONT POLLUATE WAA WAA WAA "

They're not good Americans, anyone who believes global warming is real is just fucked.

They're not good Americans, anyone who believes global warming is real is just fucked.
Oh, I see.

Irrational, uninformed nonsense.

Goodbye.

Oh, I see.

Irrational, uninformed nonsense.

Goodbye.


Right, because theres any evidence to say that man has a say in climate change.

Now, I am not saying that climate change isn't real, it is. But it happenes naturally.


A single event like Mt. St. Helans puts out more C02 than humans, have in the whole of history.

And the world did not end, surprise surprise

Right, because theres any evidence to say that man has a say in climate change.

Yes. There is. I know you thought that was rhetorical, but you have to realize that no one here believes your rambling conspiracy theory about "they" and "communists" and "controlling carbon" in order to "control energy" in order to control TEH WORLD!

I mean do you see how insane your 'argument' is sounding? I thought you honestly had to be satirizing.

Now, I am not saying that climate change isn't real, it is. But it happenes naturally.

Except when anthropogenic.

A single event like Mt. St. Helans puts out more C02 than humans, have in the whole of history.

And the world did not end, surprise surprise

No one ever claimed the "world would end." This is called a strawman fallacy, in case you wanted to know - to educate yourself - so that next time you make one, I can laugh at you for not being able to learn.

Yes. There is. I know you thought that was rhetorical, but you have to realize that no one here believes your rambling conspiracy theory about "they" and "communists" and "controlling carbon" in order to "control energy" in order to control TEH WORLD!

I mean do you see how insane your 'argument' is sounding? I thought you honestly had to be satirizing.


Oh, I was. I wanted to see how long I could people going going.

I am not THAT blind :)

But really, in all seriousness, I dont plan on making any lifestyle changes any time soon. But I am not going to go out and cut trees down for no reason either.

Oh, I was. I wanted to see how long I could people going going.

=trolling? You realize I reported you already...

=trolling? You realize I reported you already...

Its called exgratating, I still don't believe in global warming, and I never will, until someone shows me a bunch of evidence supporting it. Because right now I really don't believe its real.

But heres how I wasnt trolling, I do own 4 cars, I drive them all depending on my mood, and I have my AC at 68.

I dont see how that really is going to effect anything.

Ah, but that would be regulation of industry. Any good capitalist knows that's baaaaad.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2008/db2008068_580706.htm
to, inexorably ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/18/AR2008061802732.html

*adds cybernetic implants*
Lower ... lower ... a lot lower ... lower ... TOO LOW! ... lower.
The 24th! Huzzah!

Its called exgratating, I still don't believe in global warming, and I never will, until someone shows me a bunch of evidence supporting it. Because right now I really don't believe its real.Did it ever occur to you to do some research on your own, as opposed to waiting for people to tell you what to believe?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Human drones today...

Its called exgratating, I still don't believe in global warming, and I never will, until someone shows me a bunch of evidence supporting it. Because right now I really don't believe its real.

But heres how I wasnt trolling, I do own 4 cars, I drive them all depending on my mood, and I have my AC at 68.

I dont see how that really is going to effect anything.

You don't belive in global warming? Madness, sheer madness.

T-Stat is at 68F

I own 4 cars.

1. Honda Civic SI 2007
2. 1995 Chrysler Lebaron V6 Convertible ( Weekend car )
3. 1990 Volvo 740 Turbo ( Toy car, its a on going project. )
4. Drag Car ( Old Merc Couger )

I don't recycle, its a waste of my time.

I don't buy organic.

I don't car pool.

I don't turn the heat down in the winter.

I don't buy " green " anything, its a waste of my money.

Hell, my father owns 12 cars, many of them getting sub 10mpg.


Heres why, because I don't care. I love my cars, and I am not going to drive around in a little shitbox that I hate just to save a few bucks on gas.The irony is, you probably bitch about how welfare bums lack responsibility as well.

Its called exgratating, I still don't believe in global warming, and I never will, until someone shows me a bunch of evidence supporting it. Because right now I really don't believe its real.It's called what now?
But heres how I wasnt trolling, I do own 4 cars, I drive them all depending on my mood, and I have my AC at 68.You can state facts and troll at the same time. Trolling is about fishing for negative responses, not about the actual veracity of a statement.
I dont see how that really is going to effect anything.Your lack of education or insight on the matter is not exactly our fault.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2008/db2008068_580706.htm
to, inexorably ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/18/AR2008061802732.html

Why am I not surprised at that sequence?

Ah, touche...:D

Still, it wouldn't be government regulation if the companies checked themselves. Plus, the government encouraged farmers to start making corn (ethanol corn), so that too would technically be a regulation of industry.

Yes, and we can all see where THAT's led us, can't we? Starvation increases with commodities prices, and the shit (ethanol) isn't even a decent PARTIAL gasoline replacement.

I honestly never knew that was what we wanted.
I mean, I know we wanted to brainwash the majority of the populace and send them to toil in our Hemp Mines, but… wait, I've said too much.

Shh! Dammit, man! NOW we'll have to re-negotiate all our pizza delivery contracts!

Its called exgratating, I still don't believe in global warming, and I never will, until someone shows me a bunch of evidence supporting it. Because right now I really don't believe its real.

But heres how I wasnt trolling, I do own 4 cars, I drive them all depending on my mood, and I have my AC at 68.

I dont see how that really is going to effect anything.

It's called trolling.

Your wealth and the infrastructure with which you transport and enjoy it were not created by you, for only you. This is a collective society whether you believe it or not. Set aside global warming for a minute and let's look at what your attitude truly represents.

You're a kid who loves playing with his toys in the sandbox. This is a sandbox at school, not one you or your family built. Now how would you feel if someone came along and did something that adversely affected your ability to use and enjoyment of that sand? Say, a pack of other kids comes along and pisses in it (and that's not even a stretch when you consider that piss is sterile and not bad for you, unlike chemical pollutants), spoiling the sand and your playtime. You're saying that you, the kid who needs the sand to be clean in order to enjoy it at all, is a whiny little eco-bitch for telling the teacher and trying to get help in cleaning up the sand and punishing those who ruined it. Worse yet, you're saying that those kids who pissed in the sand have the RIGHT to do so because they think it's fun.

Is that a clear enough analogy?

It's called trolling.

Your wealth and the infrastructure with which you transport and enjoy it were not created by you, for only you. This is a collective society whether you believe it or not. Set aside global warming for a minute and let's look at what your attitude truly represents.

You're a kid who loves playing with his toys in the sandbox. This is a sandbox at school, not one you or your family built. Now how would you feel if someone came along and did something that adversely affected your ability to use and enjoyment of that sand? Say, a pack of other kids comes along and pisses in it (and that's not even a stretch when you consider that piss is sterile and not bad for you, unlike chemical pollutants), spoiling the sand and your playtime. You're saying that you, the kid who needs the sand to be clean in order to enjoy it at all, is a whiny little eco-bitch for telling the teacher and trying to get help in cleaning up the sand and punishing those who ruined it. Worse yet, you're saying that those kids who pissed in the sand have the RIGHT to do so because they think it's fun.

Is that a clear enough analogy?



That analogy would only work if humans could affect the global climate of the Earth in any discernible way.

That analogy would only work if humans could affect the global climate of the Earth in any discernible way.

Agreed.

It is a way to make money. Of course people will exploit something good like recycling.
____________
I'm back! Yeah, I;ve been busy but I'm returning to NSG.

If you're like me, you've been recycling, driving LEVs, setting your A/C at 80 and generally trying to minimize your impact on the environment insofar as you are able. And you've been doing this for years.

Now, all of a sudden, everything's going green - it's suddenly become the big fad, the style.

Green is a fashion statement, a design statement, a food statement. Its in!

And this annoys me. Suddenly green has become a very public bandwagon. They even have a green channel on TV!

Why? Because they can make money from it.

What happened to being "green" because it was the right thing to do?

Whatever happened to promoting being green, and actually being green?

Bush wasn't promoting being green, but his ranch at Crawford is orders of magnitude more green than Mr. Green Gore's mansion in Tennessee.

And what if "green" isn't as popular as the promoters believe? It's one thing to say, "hey, I want to save the environment" and quite another to actually care enough to actually do it....

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1501119/story.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10517012

Meanwhile, Radiohead were left with a row of empty seats at a recent French concert after a ticket giveaway backfired.

The eco-friendly group announced 50 passes were available for their show at Paris' Bercy Arena but fans could only get by cycling to their record label's offices in the French city.

However, Parisians were not prepared to get on their bikes so 35 tickets went unclaimed.

A source said: "Radiohead are using their current world tour to highlight their commitment to green issues.

"They advise all concertgoers to use public transport and are doing all they can to make their carbon footprint as small as possible.

"Unfortunately the French didn't appear to share their noble intentions and roundly ignored the free ticket tactic."

In Gore's case, "going green" means using 10% more energy than his energy hog mansion was using before.

http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764

Indeed, I love how Bush's ranch is ALOT ' greener " than Gores mansion, which uses more power than any home in the state.

That analogy would only work if humans could affect the global climate of the Earth in any discernible way.

Yeah, how could humans influence the make up of the earth? If that were possible, we'd be using up all of that oil and coal and stuff.

In Gore's case, "going green" means using 10% more energy than his energy hog mansion was using before.

http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764

Indeed, I love how Bush's ranch is ALOT ' greener " than Gores mansion, which uses more power than any home in the state.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Yes, Bush's house is the truly green one...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Yes, Bush's house is the truly green one...

Yep, just shows how stupid gore really is, and whats with him driving around that bigass ford SUV during his movie of lies?

Well I guess you fellas are done discussing the subject, since you've moved on to high-fiving each other and bashing Al Gore for some reason.

Well I guess you fellas are done discussing the subject, since you've moved on to high-fiving each other and bashing Al Gore for some reason.

Its not really discussing, global warming is nothing more than a failed theory.

I'd take Al Gore alot more seriously if he didn't live in a home that uses 10 times the amount of power of any other home in the state, and if he didn't drive around in a massive SUV getting 8mpg, which he does.

Makes him a hypocrite.

Its not really discussing, global warming is nothing more than a failed theory.

I'd take Al Gore alot more seriously if he didn't live in a home that uses 10 times the amount of power of any other home in the state, and if he didn't drive around in a massive SUV getting 8mpg, which he does.

Makes him a hypocrite.

Of course it's a failed theory. That's why discredited organizations like the IPCC, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, International Council for Science, European Science Foundation, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Federation of American Scientists, World Meteorological Organization, American Meteorological Society, Royal Meteorological Society (UK), American Institute of Physics, American Chemical Society, among others all seem to be coming to the same conclusion: anthropogenic climate change is very real. But conclusions reached by climatologists across the globe is much less credible than your own personal opinion. I mean, why on earth would you trust a climatologist on matters concerning climate? It's like trusting a biologist to accurately describe biology!

Global warming skeptics remind me of creationists. No matter how much evidence exists to disprove them, they continue living in their fantasy world.

Its not really discussing, global warming is nothing more than a failed theory.

Repeating this hypothesis, as you are, with nothing to back it up, is nothing more than a failed argument.

I'd take Al Gore alot more seriously if he didn't live in a home that uses 10 times the amount of power of any other home in the state, and if he didn't drive around in a massive SUV getting 8mpg, which he does.

Makes him a hypocrite.

That's nice. I don't give a fuck.

You people bash Al Gore and expect that to do what exactly? I haven't even SEEN that movie of his, but I guess you assume that anyone who disagrees with your inane claims must "worship" him. And that by insulting him, you're both deeply wounding your opponents and presenting some sort of valid argument.

Wake up. Climate change is not Al Gore worship. It's not going to be refuted by your inept arguments or your inane trolling.

Repeating this hypothesis, as you are, with nothing to back it up, is nothing more than a failed argument.



That's nice. I don't give a fuck.

You people bash Al Gore and expect that to do what exactly? I haven't even SEEN that movie of his, but I guess you assume that anyone who disagrees with your inane claims must "worship" him. And that by insulting him, you're both deeply wounding your opponents and presenting some sort of valid argument.

Wake up. Climate change is not Al Gore worship. It's not going to be refuted by your inept arguments or your inane trolling.

And I am trolling because I don't believe the insane argument that climate change is being caused by human beings?

Right.

Of course it's a failed theory. That's why discredited organizations like the IPCC, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, International Council for Science, European Science Foundation, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Federation of American Scientists, World Meteorological Organization, American Meteorological Society, Royal Meteorological Society (UK), American Institute of Physics, American Chemical Society, among others all seem to be coming to the same conclusion: anthropogenic climate change is very real. But conclusions reached by climatologists across the globe is much less credible than your own personal opinion. I mean, why on earth would you trust a climatologist on matters concerning climate? It's like trusting a biologist to accurately describe biology!

Global warming skeptics remind me of creationists. No matter how much evidence exists to disprove them, they continue living in their fantasy world.
And what about These guys? (http://www.petitionproject.org/)

And I am trolling because I don't believe the insane argument that climate change is being caused by human beings?

Right.

You admitted to trolling, though you called it "exgratating."

Also, calling it "insane" without even addressing any of the science (or the arguments, or the rebuttals of your own arguments earlier in this thread) - guess what? That's also an argument made of fail.

Either present a real argument or STFU. You're embarrassing yourself.

You admitted to trolling, though you called it "exgratating."

Also, calling it "insane" without even addressing any of the science (or the arguments, or the rebuttals of your own arguments earlier in this thread) - guess what? That's also an argument made of fail.

Either present a real argument or STFU. You're embarrassing yourself.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11648


Should be more than enough proof there.

http://eldib.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/definitive-proof-majority-of-scientists-do-not-support-man-made-warming-theory/

Also seems like most researchers agree that its a load of bull.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11648


Should be more than enough proof there.

A link is not an argument.

And that article does not constitute any kind of "proof" for anything you've said anyway.

I guess you're just too lazy to think for yourself. Oh well, maybe someone else will prove more of a challenge. You're done with.

A link is not an argument.

And that article does not constitute any kind of "proof" for anything you've said anyway.

I guess you're just too lazy to think for yourself. Oh well, maybe someone else will prove more of a challenge. You're done with.

Oh, get off your high horse, you just choose to believe in something that is not real.

And your right, I am to lazy to think for myself, And I am not kidding, if you buy into global warming you must be the same way.

A link is not an argument.

And that article does not constitute any kind of "proof" for anything you've said anyway.

I guess you're just too lazy to think for yourself. Oh well, maybe someone else will prove more of a challenge. You're done with.

Well, I guess I'm in.

There isn't some scientific consensus on global warming. Many scientists disagree with the theory. They've signed a petition HERE! (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Review_Article.html) There are several graphs portraying the medieval climate optimum and us right now. We are nowhere near as warm as we were then. It's much colder now then it was a thousand years ago. Warming is to be expected as we come out of a little ice age, but because we are just beginning to observe global temperatures people panic. If we had the technology we do now back in 1500AD, we'd be fretting about global cooling. Ta-Da!

http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide1.png

Well I guess you fellas are done discussing the subject, since you've moved on to high-fiving each other and bashing Al Gore for some reason.

dunno about bashing Al Gore, but didn't he [Mr Gore] win the Nobel Peace Prize for his stance on the environment?

from MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21262661/)
“Al Gore has fought the environment battle even as vice president,” Mjoes said. “Many did not listen ... but he carried on.”

"His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change," the Nobel citation said. "He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."

with these and other accolades heaped on Mr Gore and his participation in "An Inconvienant Truth" and his [Mr Gore] reluctance to downplay them... he did open himself up to scrutiny.

In reference to their living domicles. It does look like Mr Gore is talk, while President Bush does.

dunno about bashing Al Gore, but didn't he [Mr Gore] win the Nobel Peace Prize for his stance on the environment?


He did?!?!? They're just giving it away now!

For all of Al Gore's talk about the importance of climate change and the importance of being green what significant actions did he really take when he was president?

For all of Al Gore's talk about the importance of climate change and the importance of being green what significant actions did he really take when he was president?

What has he ever done?

His movie has been in court more than once for inaccuracies.

For all of Al Gore's talk about the importance of climate change and the importance of being green what significant actions did he really take when he was president?

don't know. when was he President? :p

what significant actions did he really take when he was president?
What is the sound of one hand clapping? :rolleyes:

What is the sound of one hand clapping? :rolleyes:

is it...

FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP... :p

Also seems like most researchers agree that its a load of bull.Seems? Your instincts aren't too trustworthy.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=even-skeptics-admin-global-warming-is-real-video

Oh, get off your high horse, you just choose to believe in something that is not real.

I think given the preponderance of scientists who disagree with your head-in-the-sand 'arguments,' accusations of self-denial are more appropriately aimed in your direction.

And your right, I am to lazy to think for myself

Heh.

, And I am not kidding, if you buy into global warming you must be the same way.

Ahhhh.... Projection.

There isn't some scientific consensus on global warming. Many scientists disagree with the theory.

There is never a 100% consensus on even basic facts or theories. A 100% consensus is not required. In fact, no consensus is strictly required for the evidence to be valid.

Anyway, the majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. At least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.

...they're all wrong, though... because....

....


.....

......

There are several graphs portraying the medieval climate optimum and us right now. We are nowhere near as warm as we were then.

And this would be based on exhaustive record-keeping of global temperatures during the medieval ages?

What exactly do you mean by "climate optimum?"

It's much colder now then it was a thousand years ago. Warming is to be expected as we come out of a little ice age, but because we are just beginning to observe global temperatures people panic.

No, people are 'panicking' because the evidence suggests that by golly, human civilization, industrialization and habitation DOES have an impact on the climate. Pointing out temperature differences between Medieval Europe and the modern global average does not change this.

If we had the technology we do now back in 1500AD, we'd be fretting about global cooling.

If my mother had wheels she'd be a wagon.

dunno about bashing Al Gore, but didn't he [Mr Gore] win the Nobel Peace Prize for his stance on the environment?

from MSNBC

I suppose he did. And?

with these and other accolades heaped on Mr Gore and his participation in "An Inconvienant Truth" and his [Mr Gore] reluctance to downplay them... he did open himself up to scrutiny.

Yes, but it's good to realize that saying "This guy is a hypocrite, and he advocates your position. Therefore your position is wrong" isn't a valid argument. And that's exactly the argument that the Al Gore bashers are really making when they do this.

is it...

FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP... :p
THAT would've been the "president", as well as some splorch/slurping sounds and sounds of dripping cigars. :p
As far as Gore, notsomuch.

Yes, but it's good to realize that saying "This guy is a hypocrite, and he advocates your position. Therefore your position is wrong" isn't a valid argument. And that's exactly the argument that the Al Gore bashers are really making when they do this.That's because they've taken the yoke from other cowards in the media, mostly in the bellicose rightwing.

I suppose he did. And? he's setting himself up as the figurehead (or one of em anyway) for the "going green movement"

Yes, but it's good to realize that saying "This guy is a hypocrite, and he advocates your position. Therefore your position is wrong" isn't a valid argument. And that's exactly the argument that the Al Gore bashers are really making when they do this.
that may be. but it's also taking the position of "Do as I say, not as I do".

How many examples of Politicians who push for DOMA and against Same Sex Marriages end up in a Homosexual scandles?

How many 'Moral Leaders' are caught cheating on their wives and are lambasted for their actions being opposite of what they stood for.

How many times are Catholic Priests and other Religious Leaders who molested little boys are brought up?

yet are you suggesting that Al Gore is above such treatment?

in Gore's case, alot of people do cite the documentary "An Inconvienet Truth" as their 'evidence'. yet how much weight can that carry if the spokesperson, the person who won the Nobel Peace Prize as well as is pushing himself as the "Champion of Going Green" is not doing all he can to be "Green", While the man people blame for not signing the Kyoto Treaty is actually doing more in his life than the 'Champion of Going Green' is?

What does it say about the News Media who DON'T report how the President who didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty is living a greener life than the man who is pushing 'An Inconvient Truth'?

If a person, especially a public figure, is pushing for a type of lifestyle, shouldn't that person be expected to live the lifestyle he or she is advocating, else it becomes a message of "you do what I say, not what I do"?

OK start green end gore, what gore did is not really relevant at this time, look at what he and others are doing now. Starts with global warming, then green (you should do your part or be looked down upon since you are not going with what the t.v. tells you to do. errrrrrrrr :mp5:), at present Whats your carbon number, have you heard that one, (lets charge you for how much you throw away regardless of what has been recycled based on how much c02 it puts out),
next what Gore, Hilary, Obama, and many others are pushing for is a world wide CARBON TAX yes a tax on c02 output so how much are you willing to pay to breath.:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

he's setting himself up as the figurehead (or one of em anyway) for the "going green movement"

Right. So everyone attacks the (largely irrelevant) personal character (i.e, 'hypocrisy' which is as the Bible tells us a sin) of a figurehead.

Instead of. Like. You know. The subject itself.

that may be. but it's also taking the position of "Do as I say, not as I do".

Big deal. Since none of us here are Al Gore, it's not a relevant accusation in any way.

How many examples of Politicians who push for DOMA and against Same Sex Marriages end up in a Homosexual scandles?

What does that have to do with this?

How many 'Moral Leaders' are caught cheating on their wives and are lambasted for their actions being opposite of what they stood for.

How many times are Catholic Priests and other Religious Leaders who molested little boys are brought up?

yet are you suggesting that Al Gore is above such treatment?
[/quote]

I don't see that comparing Bush's "carbon footprint" or whatever with Al Gore's is relevant, nor is it an indicator (as you seem to suggest) that Al Gore is scandalously contradicting and invalidating what he says.

Ad hominem, is not, an argument. And 'lambasting' Al Gore for his alleged hypocrisy is a strawman. Al Gore could fuck ponies, single-handedly burn down forests and spew carbon dioxide at a rate of twenty teragrams every minute - and it wouldn't mean a DAMN thing to the argument at hand.

So. Move on already.

in Gore's case, alot of people do cite the documentary "An Inconvienet Truth" as their 'evidence'.

Yeah? Who here? And how does an accusation of hypocrisy invalidate an argument made in this thread?

It doesn't.

yet how much weight can that carry

More weight than stupid strawmen and ad hominems.

if the spokesperson, the person who won the Nobel Peace Prize as well as is pushing himself as the "Champion of Going Green" is not doing all he can to be "Green", While the man people blame for not signing the Kyoto Treaty is actually doing more in his life than the 'Champion of Going Green' is?

Not signing the Kyoto Treaty FAR more than outweighs whatever minor edge Bush's "estate" has over Al Gore's. FAR MORE. Get some perspective already. AL GORE IS NOT THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT.

What does it say about the News Media who DON'T report how the President who didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty is living a greener life than the man who is pushing 'An Inconvient Truth'?

Let me guess, it says the News Media is part of the liberal conspiracy to gain control over the world's energy supplies by pushing the myth of climate change and man's impact on the environment.

I knew it!

If a person, especially a public figure, is pushing for a type of lifestyle, shouldn't that person be expected to live the lifestyle he or she is advocating, else it becomes a message of "you do what I say, not what I do"?

Your 'expectation' of what that person 'should' do is. Again. Irrelevant. To. The. Message.

Now go away before I thrash your pathetic justifications of DK/Hotwife's trolling again.

If you're like me, you've been recycling, driving LEVs, setting your A/C at 80 and generally trying to minimize your impact on the environment insofar as you are able. And you've been doing this for years.

Now, all of a sudden, everything's going green - it's suddenly become the big fad, the style.

Green is a fashion statement, a design statement, a food statement. Its in!

And this annoys me. Suddenly green has become a very public bandwagon. They even have a green channel on TV!

Why? Because they can make money from it.

What happened to being "green" because it was the right thing to do?

I care very little why someone is doing something good for the environment, so long as it actually has a positive effect. If this trend gets more people recycling, in hybrid vehicles, or conserving energy, than I'm all for it.

*Snipity*

Trostia, you're continuously ignoring everything, and replacing it with answers that give no proof of any kind. I've given a source, it's your turn! You answer the question without putting anything really meaningful other then "All the smart scientists said so, and I believe everything they say, because a majority (OF which I have no proof of) believe in it" Well... That's not really meaningful.
There is never a 100% consensus on even basic facts or theories. A 100% consensus is not required. In fact, no consensus is strictly required for the evidence to be valid.

Anyway, the majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. At least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.

...they're all wrong, though... because....

....


.....

......
Here you yak on about all these academies of science using consensus. Why?
You say the majority of scientists believe in global warming.Link? Source? Proof of some reliable kind? Here you answered the question, whereas here...
If my mother had wheels she'd be a wagon.
How the heck does that relate to the question??? You make one really huge logical jump from technology and panic to your mother and wagons. I was pointing out how many people panic when they have knowledge. People are panicing now because they know the Earth is warming!
No, people are 'panicking' because the evidence suggests that by golly, human civilization, industrialization and habitation DOES have an impact on the climate. Pointing out temperature differences between Medieval Europe and the modern global average does not change this.
Show me the evidence! Or don't you need evidence?

Right. So everyone attacks the (largely irrelevant) personal character (i.e, 'hypocrisy' which is as the Bible tells us a sin) of a figurehead.

Instead of. Like. You know. The subject itself. like you have. like everyone has. how many threads here ignore the subject and attack the poster? how many times have you participated in it?

Big deal. Since none of us here are Al Gore, it's not a relevant accusation in any way. so we should keep arguments away from people who don't actively post here? that removes all of the "democrat/republican are evil threads" as well as all those "[religion] is ebil" threads since all those people talked about don't post here.

What does that have to do with this? Gee... how quickly one forgets the complaint of attacking figureheads...

I don't see that comparing Bush's "carbon footprint" or whatever with Al Gore's is relevant, nor is it an indicator (as you seem to suggest) that Al Gore is scandalously contradicting and invalidating what he says. haven't said that. only telling you why people will attack Al Gore in a thread with the subject about global warming.

Ad hominem, is not, an argument. And 'lambasting' Al Gore for his alleged hypocrisy is a strawman. Al Gore could fuck ponies, single-handedly burn down forests and spew carbon dioxide at a rate of twenty teragrams every minute - and it wouldn't mean a DAMN thing to the argument at hand.

So. Move on already. said the man who argued about those attacking Al Gore.

Not signing the Kyoto Treaty FAR more than outweighs whatever minor edge Bush's "estate" has over Al Gore's. FAR MORE. Get some perspective already. AL GORE IS NOT THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT. except the Kyoto Treaty would effectively have the Federal Government telling, not giving suggestions, not giving incentives, but forcing private industries and states how to govern themselves.

and unfortunately, Al Gore set himself up as the figure head for the Environmental Movement. he painted the target on himself. so expect shots to be fired at your 'hero'.

Let me guess, it says the News Media is part of the liberal conspiracy to gain control over the world's energy supplies by pushing the myth of climate change and man's impact on the environment.

I knew it! nah, it just contradicts the popular notion of painting President Bush as Ebil.

Your 'expectation' of what that person 'should' do is. Again. Irrelevant. To. The. Message.

Now go away before I thrash your pathetic justifications of DK/Hotwife's trolling again. gee, another Ad hominem attack. nice.

Right. So everyone attacks the (largely irrelevant) personal character (i.e, 'hypocrisy' which is as the Bible tells us a sin) of a figurehead.


Kind of off topic, but...does the Bible actually ever say that? If so, where?

like you have.

Okay. Show me an example where I attack a figurehead in an attempt to show that what the figurehead (the figurehead of course being a public figure who I have chosen to be a figurehead because I don't like his political party) believes or supposedly 'represents' (again according to me) is invalid.

I don't think you can do it, man.

like everyone has. how many threads here ignore the subject and attack the poster?

Al Gore is not the poster. So you're now on a different tangent.

so we should keep arguments away from people who don't actively post here?

I'm sorry, did you think "Al Gore is a hypocrite" was an argument either for or against climate change? You were sadly mistaken if so.


Gee... how quickly one forgets the complaint of attacking figureheads...

...explain yourself. I suspect you're trying to accuse me of hypocrisy, but I can't for the life of me figure out how you imagine that to be.

haven't said that. only telling you why people will attack Al Gore in a thread with the subject about global warming.

Oh I KNOW why people attack Al Gore in a thread like this.

You're trying to justify it, however.

said the man who argued about those attacking Al Gore.

Uh. Yes. That's what I said.

except the Kyoto Treaty would effectively have the Federal Government telling, not giving suggestions, not giving incentives, but forcing private industries and states how to govern themselves.

And that is relevant to doing damage to the environment how? It's not. Bush fucked the environment over a little more by not signing that. That's worse than Al Gore's personal lifestyle, as far as the environment goes.

and unfortunately, Al Gore set himself up as the figure head for the Environmental Movement. he painted the target on himself. so expect shots to be fired at your 'hero'.

I like how you assume him to be my 'hero.' I've never even seen that movie. This is one reason why you, Hotwife and everyone else braying about how hypocritical he is is damned annoying.

Like it or not, attacking a "figure head" doesn't address the actual argument. Environmentalism is older than Al Gore. It's bigger. It's far more important. And when you talk about Al Gore, you're not talking about anything as relates to the environment, but rather your own petty political agendas.


gee, another Ad hominem attack. nice.

WTF? Hey, I'm going to repeat exactly what I said that you're supposedly responding to here.

I invite anyone reading to find, and explain exactly how, anything at all here is an ad hominem fallacy or a personal attack. Everyone including you JuNi.

"Your 'expectation' of what that person 'should' do is. Again. Irrelevant. To. The. Message.

Now go away before I thrash your pathetic justifications of DK/Hotwife's trolling again."

Perhaps you believe that if I call your justifications "pathetic," I'm calling YOU pathetic?

Or that by calling DK/Hotwife's behavior trolling, that's a personal attack on his character?

In what way would either of these be meant as an argument at all? I'm not saying you're wrong because your argument was pathetic. I've already explained why you're wrong. Now I'm simply summarizing and concluding, with a helpful if vociferous message to help you save face. That's not an "ad hominem attack."

But it IS nice.

Kind of off topic, but...does the Bible actually ever say that? If so, where?

Says something to that affect. Not the word "sin," but something about hypocrites burning in the fires of hell. It's been a while since I saw the quote, but I remember the essential aspect because at the time I was extremely anti-theist and it struck me as useful.

Trostia, you're continuously ignoring everything

No, I'm really not.

, and replacing it with answers that give no proof of any kind.

I'm not here to give "proof" nor should you be here for "proof." I'm here to argue my points and I am doing it. Perhaps if you didn't *snip* my responses you wouldn't imagine that I'm ignoring you.

I've given a source, it's your turn! You answer the question without putting anything really meaningful other then "All the smart scientists said so, and I believe everything they say, because a majority (OF which I have no proof of) believe in it"

That's called a strawman fallacy. You're not responding to anything I've *actually* argued.

Here you yak on about all these academies of science using consensus. Why?


Because the 'deniers' in this little discussion keep fondling "there's no consensus" as an argument against climate change. I am responding to them.

You say the majority of scientists believe in global warming.Link? Source? Proof of some reliable kind?

If I give you a source or link, you will then claim it's not "proof" and is not "reliable," no matter if it really is or not. That's what happens in these "I posted a link, now it's your turn!" debates.

You can very easily google the issue yourself. What I have specifically stated is confirmable by you if you want.

How the heck does that relate to the question??? You make one really huge logical jump from technology and panic to your mother and wagons.

You didn't ask a 'question.' You stated simply that if 'people had today's technology a thousand years ago, they'd be worried about global cooling.' This is a meaningless statement, completely unfalsifiable, and none too relevant as an argument.

Hence my response.

Show me the evidence! Or don't you need evidence?

The fact that you claim to know of no evidence means you've already seen it, and dismissed it - probably as liberal lies. Of what use is further viewings to you? Particularly as I'm doubtful you or any other denier would actually view them - you certainly have a great time ignoring what people on this message board actually say.

If it helps Trostia, I'm not arguing the global warming thing.

That much is real.

What I am arguing is that Gore is a complete and utter hypocrite.

It doesn't make the message wrong - it just makes him look like a dick.

"Listen to me! Act now before it's too late! Go green! Do as I say, not as I do! All of this is good for you, but it's ok for me to be un-green as much as I can!"

"Global Warming is real, the market has spoken."-Stephen Colbert

If it helps Trostia, I'm not arguing the global warming thing.

That much is real.

What I am arguing is that Gore is a complete and utter hypocrite.

It doesn't make the message wrong - it just makes him look like a dick.

"Listen to me! Act now before it's too late! Go green! Do as I say, not as I do! All of this is good for you, but it's ok for me to be un-green as much as I can!"

So why not start a thread about how Al Gore is a dick, rather than discussing his dickishness or lack thereof in a thread about climate change? Even if Al Gore's personal hobby was pouring fossil fuels all over the Amazonian rainforest and setting it alight, climate change would still be exactly as real, so why discuss him here?

So why not start a thread about how Al Gore is a dick, rather than discussing his dickishness or lack thereof in a thread about climate change? Even if Al Gore's personal hobby was pouring fossil fuels all over the Amazonian rainforest and setting it alight, climate change would still be exactly as real, so why discuss him here?

Because the OP is not about whether or not climate change is real, but why "green" annoys.

This is why it annoys me, because most of the famous people who shout it from the treetops are fucking hypocrites.

You're probably surprised - I'm dead on topic.

I don't understand why you can't do the 'right thing' and make money at the same time. As if one, somehow, precludes the other. It's just silly thinking.

Nobody seems to mind when some talentless loser hi-jacks a worthy cause for self promotion or to gain political power. To my mind that's far more disturbing than kiting dodgy solar stocks.

Mind you, I'm sure the people behind all these 'green' brands don't really give a fuck. Like that body shop lady. I hear she used to spend the weekends torturing kittens.

"Global Warming is real, the market has spoken."-Stephen Colbert/thread

"Listen to me! Act now before it's too late! Go green! Do as I say, not as I do! All of this is good for you, but it's ok for me to be un-green as much as I can!"As much as he can?

Isn't everything about sales anyway? Gotta get the brand going. Since people do generally stupid things in their consumption and what they pay for, what they're told they need, i see this as another way of getting market buzz to help where, obviously, sense never went.