AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
Change
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LisaW wrote:
KarenS wrote:
Most people don't care about global warning since they'll be dead anyway but those that do take global warning seriously feel they should be doing everything they can to help future generations. Kids and grandkids do matter to some folks.



There's a lot of stuff future generations are going to be paying for. Man made Global warming isn't one of them.


This is where we will have to differ. Caring for the environment, caring for future generations matter to some. Others simply do not care as it's not important or simply not a concern of theirs. It really isn't in the best interest of the oil industry to allow alternative energy sources to be utilized so they will disparage Al Gore and others from speaking out and will conduct false and misleading campaigns to sway misguided souls that global warming is bogus. The bottom line is profit and that is their sole concern.


KarenS wrote:
This whole discussion tends to revolve around liberal/conservative, religious/non-religious axis. Others involved seem to be industry types who believe oil companies should be allowed to make record profits. Not to mention they really don't want to give up their SUVs.


[quote=LisaW]No, it doesn't. There are conservatives who believe the hype. And what does religion have to do with it?[/quote]

Some just don't want to believe that man is messing up.





KarenS wrote:
It's that future thing again. Do we start making changes that will create a green economy, green jobs and a healthier planet? Or should we carry on and continue as is with no research into alternative energy sources.

I guess those who don't like Gore can never believe he has anything useful to offer. And that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Others feel he should be commended for raising the topic. He did win a Nobel Prize after all.



[quote=LisaW]"Green" and "Economy" should really not be used together. You want a healthier planet -- it's that nasty little 3rd world that is really messing things up -- why don't we just restrict them instead of letting them go hog wild while restricting the nations that actually feed and medicate the world (check Kyoto).[/quote]

Green economy is exactly the best way to describe the new economy. There is money and profit to be made from switching from an oil based economy to a green economy. Untold profits can be realized. It will help jump start our present deteriorating economy. It really is a perfect storm. All these issues coming together now. Let's make the most of it as they old system isn't going to work.

[quote=LisaW]Al Gore flunked divinity school. Last I heard he wasn't a climatologist but he does own a company that will sell you carbon credits. And he's so green, his house energy use could power a small country. Yasser Arafat also won the Nobel Peace Prize .... Winning doesn't mean Al's got any Climate Knowledge.[/quote]

What does Gore attending divinity school have to do with anything much less him flunking out? I have a friend who left Catholic divinity school after he realized it was all baloney. Gore has always been interested in the environment so even though he might not have a climatology degree it doesn't mean he can't study and converse with climatologists and have an understanding of what is happening. Please cite your sources regarding his home energy use. Most energy efficient homes actually sell power back to the local power company which I suspect is what is happening with Gore's home. He won the Nobel Prize because the officials felt his contributions warranted a Nobel Prize. He has certainly elevated the interest of many people around the world to this concern.

KarenS wrote:
Some of my religious friends(and I do have a few-surprise, surprise) honestly feel that Jesus is coming back soon. Once he lands on Mother Earth his first priority will be to restore the oil so we will have plenty. So as far as they are concerned--No worries! No reason to concern ourselves with global warning as Jesus is going to take care of it.


[quote=LisaW]And I'll flat out say -- Bull S###. There's nothing anywhere that puts that forth. If you truly have friends who believe it -- they're from a very out there sect.[/quote]

Methodist. Yep, it's really one of those far out sects. This friend is also a college graduate who feels Jesus is just going to take care of everything when he comes back. So all these pressing problems shouldn't concern us. I need your advice, Lisa, how do I tell this person Jesus isn't coming back. Never, ever....

KarenS wrote:
Others are perfectly content with internal combustion engines. That big hog of a SUV is their god-given right and no one should take it away from them. Personal responsibility claims you can do whatever you want and no one has the right to tell you otherwise.

Others just don't want to have to contemplate changing their lifestyle. Going away from conspicuous consumption to a more "European" way of life sends chills down conservative's spines.

So what is it? Our old economy was based on conspicuous consumption and waste. Like it or not for environmental and financial reasons, most of us are being forced to change to the new economy. We can't afford the old lifestyle.



[quote=LisaW]As to the internal combustion engine -- you don't like it, what are you proposing that can right now provide the same work? There is nothing. Before you wreck this economy (well, any more than it already is and the current administration is aiming for), find an answer before you stop the only thing we have currently. SUVs Pickup Trucks, etc., all have their place. There are people who need them (and, yeah, there are people who just want them). Guess what ... you don't get to choose. I dare say you have something that you hold to hard and dear that I can find someone who will say it's a waste of time and resources. And I bet it wouldn't be all that hard.[/quote]

The internal combustion engine may very well stay with us for a very long time. It may never be replaced. However, we should wean ourselves away from it where we can. Jet planes will not be replaced. We need them to fly coast to coast as well as to the other continents. Trucks for long-hauling will not be replaced entirely. But transportation for the common masses can be done better and that is where the focus should be. Better gas mileage, electric cars, mass transit are answers. When gas got so expensive a few months ago, there were less cars on the road. Raising fuel prices does affect consumption. I wouldn't mind seeing a gas tax to help pay for infrastructure.

[quote=LisaW]Have you ever lived in Europe? It isn't not the great Utopia!! I have friends who lived near Worchester, England -- who had a 45 minute drive to get to anything close to what we call a supermarket. Oh, sure, there was a butcher shop closer and a baker closer and a green grocer closer ... but to shop, you had to drive several places to find everything you'd want -- and the choices were pretty slim. You like Europe so much -- why haven't you moved there? Please.[/quote]

Europeans have done a lot better than America in preparing for the future. Most Americans don't want to deal with this problem because we're either too lazy or we're so apathetic that we don't have a problem with the oil industry dictating our energy policy. As long as gas is cheap and available most Americans could care less. Most Americans respond only when their pocketbooks are affected. Europe may not be the great Utopia as you put it, but it is more advanced than we are with a lot of these issues. They had to deal with them back in the 70s when the world got it's first taste of an energy crisis. They worked on solutions. America started working on these solutions under Presidents Ford and Carter. The Reagan(big oil guy) dismantled many of these programs and we have not gone forward like we should have. Now we are paying the price.

[quote=LisaW]I like this country. And our economy was built on standing on your own two feet, working for what you wanted, not governmental give-aways.[/quote]

Governmental give-aways as you call it does work for the common good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1382

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since sharon w's post actually referred to a real scientific study rather than simple dis- or misinformation, I took the time to write a full post. See the new "Reality, science and climate" thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LisaW wrote:
KarenS wrote:
Most people don't care about global warning since they'll be dead anyway but those that do take global warning seriously feel they should be doing everything they can to help future generations. Kids and grandkids do matter to some folks.



There's a lot of stuff future generations are going to be paying for. Man made Global warming isn't one of them.


This is where we will have to differ. Caring for the environment, caring for future generations matter to some. Others simply do not care as it's not important or simply not a concern of theirs. It really isn't in the best interest of the oil industry to allow alternative energy sources to be utilized so they will disparage Al Gore and others from speaking out and will conduct false and misleading campaigns to sway misguided souls that global warming is bogus. The bottom line is profit and that is their sole concern.


LisaW wrote:
KarenS wrote:
This whole discussion tends to revolve around liberal/conservative, religious/non-religious axis. Others involved seem to be industry types who believe oil companies should be allowed to make record profits. Not to mention they really don't want to give up their SUVs.


No, it doesn't. There are conservatives who believe the hype. And what does religion have to do with it?


Some just don't want to believe that man is messing up.





KarenS wrote:
It's that future thing again. Do we start making changes that will create a green economy, green jobs and a healthier planet? Or should we carry on and continue as is with no research into alternative energy sources.

I guess those who don't like Gore can never believe he has anything useful to offer. And that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Others feel he should be commended for raising the topic. He did win a Nobel Prize after all.



LisaW wrote:
"Green" and "Economy" should really not be used together. You want a healthier planet -- it's that nasty little 3rd world that is really messing things up -- why don't we just restrict them instead of letting them go hog wild while restricting the nations that actually feed and medicate the world (check Kyoto).


Green economy is exactly the best way to describe the new economy. There is money and profit to be made from switching from an oil based economy to a green economy. Untold profits can be realized. It will help jump start our present deteriorating economy. It really is a perfect storm. All these issues coming together now. Let's make the most of it as they old system isn't going to work.

LisaW wrote:
Gore flunked divinity school. Last I heard he wasn't a climatologist but he does own a company that will sell you carbon credits. And he's so green, his house energy use could power a small country. Yasser Arafat also won the Nobel Peace Prize .... Winning doesn't mean Al's got any Climate Knowledge.


What does Gore attending divinity school have to do with anything much less him flunking out? I have a friend who left Catholic divinity school after he realized it was all baloney. Gore has always been interested in the environment so even though he might not have a climatology degree it doesn't mean he can't study and converse with climatologists and have an understanding of what is happening. Please cite your sources regarding his home energy use. Most energy efficient homes actually sell power back to the local power company which I suspect is what is happening with Gore's home. He won the Nobel Prize because the officials felt his contributions warranted a Nobel Prize. He has certainly elevated the interest of many people around the world to this concern.

KarenS wrote:
Some of my religious friends(and I do have a few-surprise, surprise) honestly feel that Jesus is coming back soon. Once he lands on Mother Earth his first priority will be to restore the oil so we will have plenty. So as far as they are concerned--No worries! No reason to concern ourselves with global warning as Jesus is going to take care of it.


LisaW wrote:
And I'll flat out say -- Bull S###. There's nothing anywhere that puts that forth. If you truly have friends who believe it -- they're from a very out there sect.


Methodist. Yep, it's really one of those far out sects. This friend is also a college graduate who feels Jesus is just going to take care of everything when he comes back. So all these pressing problems shouldn't concern us. I need your advice, Lisa, how do I tell this person Jesus isn't coming back. Never, ever....

LisaW wrote:
KarenS wrote:
Others are perfectly content with internal combustion engines. That big hog of a SUV is their god-given right and no one should take it away from them. Personal responsibility claims you can do whatever you want and no one has the right to tell you otherwise.

Others just don't want to have to contemplate changing their lifestyle. Going away from conspicuous consumption to a more "European" way of life sends chills down conservative's spines.

So what is it? Our old economy was based on conspicuous consumption and waste. Like it or not for environmental and financial reasons, most of us are being forced to change to the new economy. We can't afford the old lifestyle.



[quote=KarenS]As to the internal combustion engine -- you don't like it, what are you proposing that can right now provide the same work? There is nothing. Before you wreck this economy (well, any more than it already is and the current administration is aiming for), find an answer before you stop the only thing we have currently. SUVs Pickup Trucks, etc., all have their place. There are people who need them (and, yeah, there are people who just want them). Guess what ... you don't get to choose. I dare say you have something that you hold to hard and dear that I can find someone who will say it's a waste of time and resources. And I bet it wouldn't be all that hard.


The internal combustion engine isn't going anywhere anytime soon. In fact it may never be replaced as it's useful for the purposes it serves. However, we should wean ourselves away where we can. Jet planes will not be replaced. We need them to fly coast to coast as well as to the other continents. Trucks for long-hauling will not be replaced entirely. But transportation for the common masses can be done better and that is where the focus should be. Better gas mileage, electric cars, mass transit are answers. When gas got so expensive a few months ago, there were less cars on the road. Raising fuel prices does affect consumption. I wouldn't mind seeing a gas tax to help pay for infrastructure.

[quote=LisaW]Have you ever lived in Europe? It isn't not the great Utopia!! I have friends who lived near Worchester, England -- who had a 45 minute drive to get to anything close to what we call a supermarket. Oh, sure, there was a butcher shop closer and a baker closer and a green grocer closer ... but to shop, you had to drive several places to find everything you'd want -- and the choices were pretty slim. You like Europe so much -- why haven't you moved there? Please.[/quote]

Europeans have done a lot better than America in preparing for the future. Most Americans don't want to deal with this problem because we're either too lazy or we're so apathetic that we don't have a problem with the oil industry dictating our energy policy. As long as gas is cheap and available most Americans could care less. Most Americans respond only when their pocketbooks are affected. Europe may not be the great Utopia as you put it, but it is more advanced than we are with a lot of these issues. They had to deal with them back in the 70s when the world got it's first taste of an energy crisis. They worked on solutions. America started working on these solutions under Presidents Ford and Carter. The Reagan(big oil guy) dismantled many of these programs and we have not gone forward like we should have. Now we are paying the price.

LisaW wrote:
I like this country. And our economy was built on standing on your own two feet, working for what you wanted, not governmental give-aways.


Governmental give-aways as you call it does work for the common good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LisaW wrote:
KarenS wrote:
Most people don't care about global warning since they'll be dead anyway but those that do take global warning seriously feel they should be doing everything they can to help future generations. Kids and grandkids do matter to some folks.



There's a lot of stuff future generations are going to be paying for. Man made Global warming isn't one of them.


This is where we will have to differ. Caring for the environment, caring for future generations matter to some. Others simply do not care as it's not important or simply not a concern of theirs. It really isn't in the best interest of the oil industry to allow alternative energy sources to be utilized so they will disparage Al Gore and others from speaking out as well as conducting false and misleading campaigns to sway the public that global warming is bogus. The bottom line is profit and that is their sole concern. Your quality of life doesn't matter. We're all pawns to them.

LisaW wrote:
KarenS wrote:
This whole discussion tends to revolve around liberal/conservative, religious/non-religious axis. Others involved seem to be industry types who believe oil companies should be allowed to make record profits. Not to mention they really don't want to give up their SUVs.


No, it doesn't. There are conservatives who believe the hype. And what does religion have to do with it?


Some just don't want to believe that man is messing up.





KarenS wrote:
It's that future thing again. Do we start making changes that will create a green economy, green jobs and a healthier planet? Or should we carry on and continue as is with no research into alternative energy sources.

I guess those who don't like Gore can never believe he has anything useful to offer. And that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Others feel he should be commended for raising the topic. He did win a Nobel Prize after all.



LisaW wrote:
"Green" and "Economy" should really not be used together. You want a healthier planet -- it's that nasty little 3rd world that is really messing things up -- why don't we just restrict them instead of letting them go hog wild while restricting the nations that actually feed and medicate the world (check Kyoto).


Green economy is exactly the best way to describe the new economy. There is money and profit to be made from switching from an oil based economy to a green economy. Untold profits can be realized. It will help jump start our present deteriorating economy. It really is a perfect storm. All these issues coming together now. Let's make the most of it as they old system isn't going to work.

LisaW wrote:
Gore flunked divinity school. Last I heard he wasn't a climatologist but he does own a company that will sell you carbon credits. And he's so green, his house energy use could power a small country. Yasser Arafat also won the Nobel Peace Prize .... Winning doesn't mean Al's got any Climate Knowledge.


What does Gore attending divinity school have to do with anything much less him flunking out? I have a friend who left Catholic divinity school after he realized it was all baloney. Gore has always been interested in the environment so even though he might not have a climatology degree it doesn't mean he can't study and converse with climatologists and have an understanding of what is happening. Please cite your sources regarding his home energy use. Most energy efficient homes actually sell power back to the local power company which I suspect is what is happening with Gore's home. He won the Nobel Prize because the officials felt his contributions warranted a Nobel Prize. He has certainly elevated the interest of many people around the world to this concern.

KarenS wrote:
Some of my religious friends(and I do have a few-surprise, surprise) honestly feel that Jesus is coming back soon. Once he lands on Mother Earth his first priority will be to restore the oil so we will have plenty. So as far as they are concerned--No worries! No reason to concern ourselves with global warning as Jesus is going to take care of it.


LisaW wrote:
And I'll flat out say -- Bull S###. There's nothing anywhere that puts that forth. If you truly have friends who believe it -- they're from a very out there sect.


Methodist. Yep, it's really one of those far out sects. This friend is also a college graduate who feels Jesus is just going to take care of everything when he comes back. So all these pressing problems shouldn't concern us. I need your advice, Lisa, how do I tell this person Jesus isn't coming back. Never, ever....

LisaW wrote:
KarenS wrote:
Others are perfectly content with internal combustion engines. That big hog of a SUV is their god-given right and no one should take it away from them. Personal responsibility claims you can do whatever you want and no one has the right to tell you otherwise.

Others just don't want to have to contemplate changing their lifestyle. Going away from conspicuous consumption to a more "European" way of life sends chills down conservative's spines.

So what is it? Our old economy was based on conspicuous consumption and waste. Like it or not for environmental and financial reasons, most of us are being forced to change to the new economy. We can't afford the old lifestyle.



As to the internal combustion engine -- you don't like it, what are you proposing that can right now provide the same work? There is nothing. Before you wreck this economy (well, any more than it already is and the current administration is aiming for), find an answer before you stop the only thing we have currently. SUVs Pickup Trucks, etc., all have their place. There are people who need them (and, yeah, there are people who just want them). Guess what ... you don't get to choose. I dare say you have something that you hold to hard and dear that I can find someone who will say it's a waste of time and resources. And I bet it wouldn't be all that hard.


The internal combustion engine isn't going anywhere anytime soon. In fact it may never be replaced as it's useful for the purposes it serves. However, we should wean ourselves away where we can. Jet planes will not be replaced. We need them to fly coast to coast as well as to the other continents. Trucks for long-hauling will not be replaced entirely. But transportation for the common masses can be done better and that is where the focus should be. Better gas mileage, electric cars, mass transit are answers. When gas got so expensive a few months ago, there were less cars on the road. Raising fuel prices does affect consumption. I wouldn't mind seeing a gas tax to help pay for infrastructure.

LisaW wrote:
Have you ever lived in Europe? It isn't not the great Utopia!! I have friends who lived near Worchester, England -- who had a 45 minute drive to get to anything close to what we call a supermarket. Oh, sure, there was a butcher shop closer and a baker closer and a green grocer closer ... but to shop, you had to drive several places to find everything you'd want -- and the choices were pretty slim. You like Europe so much -- why haven't you moved there? Please.


Europeans have done a lot better than America in preparing for the future. Most Americans don't want to deal with this problem because we're either too lazy or we're so apathetic that we don't have a problem with the oil industry dictating our energy policy. As long as gas is cheap and available most Americans could care less. Most Americans respond only when their pocketbooks are affected. Europe may not be the great Utopia as you put it, but it is more advanced than we are with solution to this issue. Europe dealt with them back in the 70s when the world got it's first taste of an energy crisis. America started working on these issues under Presidents Ford and Carter. However, Reagan(big oil guy) dismantled many of these programs and we have not gone forward like we should have. Now we are paying the price.

LisaW wrote:
I like this country. And our economy was built on standing on your own two feet, working for what you wanted, not governmental give-aways.


Governmental give-aways as you call it does work for the common good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KarenS wrote:

This is where we will have to differ. Caring for the environment, caring for future generations matter to some. Others simply do not care as it's not important or simply not a concern of theirs. It really isn't in the best interest of the oil industry to allow alternative energy sources to be utilized so they will disparage Al Gore and others from speaking out as well as conducting false and misleading campaigns to sway the public that global warming is bogus. The bottom line is profit and that is their sole concern. Your quality of life doesn't matter. We're all pawns to them.



"Caring for the environment" doesn't mean falling for every sob story you hear. I'm a long time camper, outdoors lover and have been a conservationist long before it was cool. I also recognize there has to be a balance between what mankind needs and what we do to keep the environment "pristine." The oil industry has as much interest as any other entity in "alternative energy." It's easy to say they don't but -- an alternative energy source is also another revenue source. The one that comes up with the next best thing will be the next big dollar winner -- and probably next generation's "most hated" like the oil industry. And the line is not that global warming is bogus -- what's bogus is Human Caused Global Warming. Climate changes is a fact of the planet.

KarenS wrote:

Some just don't want to believe that man is messing up.


Some just like to look for the eternal gloom and doom. You do understand that in this country and the fully developed countries of the world, the environment is cleaner than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It's those countries still developing (China, India, etc.) who are the major contributors to environmental pollution. It's better for them to reach development quicker than be pushed backwards.


KarenS wrote:

Green economy is exactly the best way to describe the new economy. There is money and profit to be made from switching from an oil based economy to a green economy. Untold profits can be realized. It will help jump start our present deteriorating economy. It really is a perfect storm. All these issues coming together now. Let's make the most of it as they old system isn't going to work.


There is no where near the money to be made switching than staying. Oh, yeah, there will be quite a number of jobs created -- but most will barely be past minimum wage. Being environmentally friendly isn't the problem, but basing the entire economy on "Green" will take the world backwards, not forwards. It's the balance you're not allowing for.

KarenS wrote:

What does Gore attending divinity school have to do with anything much less him flunking out? I have a friend who left Catholic divinity school after he realized it was all baloney. Gore has always been interested in the environment so even though he might not have a climatology degree it doesn't mean he can't study and converse with climatologists and have an understanding of what is happening. Please cite your sources regarding his home energy use. Most energy efficient homes actually sell power back to the local power company which I suspect is what is happening with Gore's home. He won the Nobel Prize because the officials felt his contributions warranted a Nobel Prize. He has certainly elevated the interest of many people around the world to this concern.


Gore didn't flunk divinity school because he thought it was baloney -- he couldn't pass the courses. And he sure as shooting never took any courses that let's him be the head guru for climate change. As to his house? You surely cannot tell me you haven't heard about it! Amazing. George W Bush's house in Texas was built totally green while Al's place is a energy hog.


http://newsbusters.org/node/11073

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254908,00.html

I really like this one:
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764

Quote:
Al Gore’s Personal Electricity Consumption Up 10% Despite “Energy-Efficient” Renovations
Energy guzzled by Al Gore’s home in past year could power 232 U.S. homes for a month


And this one is priceless:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml

Quote:
A spokeswoman for Gore said the former vice president invests in enough renewable energy to make up for the home's power consumption. The spokeswoman said Gore purchases enough "green power" — renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas — to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.


Just gives people more reason to buy Big Al's Carbon Credits. What a joke!

Try a little research to find out what's going on.

KarenS wrote:

Methodist. Yep, it's really one of those far out sects. This friend is also a college graduate who feels Jesus is just going to take care of everything when he comes back. So all these pressing problems shouldn't concern us. I need your advice, Lisa, how do I tell this person Jesus isn't coming back. Never, ever....


Odd, I have a lot of friends who are Methodist. That doesn't seem to be part of their belief system. As to what to tell your friend about Jesus -- why don't you try listening instead of telling. Oh, yeah, I'm one of those silly Christians.


KarenS wrote:

The internal combustion engine isn't going anywhere anytime soon. In fact it may never be replaced as it's useful for the purposes it serves. However, we should wean ourselves away where we can. Jet planes will not be replaced. We need them to fly coast to coast as well as to the other continents. Trucks for long-hauling will not be replaced entirely. But transportation for the common masses can be done better and that is where the focus should be. Better gas mileage, electric cars, mass transit are answers. When gas got so expensive a few months ago, there were less cars on the road. Raising fuel prices does affect consumption. I wouldn't mind seeing a gas tax to help pay for infrastructure.


Well, at least you understand the purpose of the engine. But, do you understand that raising the tax on fuel will not provide anything toward developing an alternative energy? If that was the case, your precious Europe would be swimming in alternative energy sources. Oh, yeah, there are some solar mirrors in Spain -- but that's a lot of land gone that could be providing food and only works in places with a lot of sun. Windmills provide a bit -- but it does kill birds and only works where there is a steady supply of wind. Again, not everywhere. If wind and solar were the total answer, Europe would be much more advanced than they are -- except, of course, for those places without wind and sun.Money has to be available for R&D by companies ... and taxes are going for things like a mouse. Think what that money could do for energy research.

Now, one thing Europe is doing for alternative energy is nuclear power. Something the "Environmentalists" in this country are screaming about ... but then they do seem to scream about so very much and say so very little.

KarenS wrote:

Europeans have done a lot better than America in preparing for the future. Most Americans don't want to deal with this problem because we're either too lazy or we're so apathetic that we don't have a problem with the oil industry dictating our energy policy. As long as gas is cheap and available most Americans could care less. Most Americans respond only when their pocketbooks are affected. Europe may not be the great Utopia as you put it, but it is more advanced than we are with solution to this issue. Europe dealt with them back in the 70s when the world got it's first taste of an energy crisis. America started working on these issues under Presidents Ford and Carter. However, Reagan(big oil guy) dismantled many of these programs and we have not gone forward like we should have. Now we are paying the price.


Yeah, Europe's doing a bang up job of being prepared. So prepared that everytime anything goes wrong in the world, the first cry isn't "What can we do?" but "Why isn't the USA doing more?"

KarenS wrote:

Governmental give-aways as you call it does work for the common good.


“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” Margaret Thatcher
_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sharon w.



Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LisaW wrote:
You do understand that in this country and the fully developed countries of the world, the environment is cleaner than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It's those countries still developing (China, India, etc.) who are the major contributors to environmental pollution. It's better for them to reach development quicker than be pushed backwards.


I'm not certain where the difficulty in appreciating this essential point comes from. Prosperity = Time + Money = Clean Air/Water

The more prosperous a Country is the cleaner the air and water. Period. People in this country either want to shut down the development of other countries OR cannot understand that no matter the Trillions in expenses paid by some the AIR above us isn't segregated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your sources commenting about Al Gore's home being inefficient doesn't even mention the square footage of the house. How big is it? That has a lot to do with calculating the use of kilowats. It stated his home was 60 to 70 years old which would tell me it's inefficient even though they said the Gores were in the process of updating it. That article was written in 2007 from Fox News. Sorry, but I don't consider Fox News a credible source.

Most of your diatribe seems to be against Al Gore. To me, it seems like you have an obsession with Al Gore that frankly doesn't seem healthy. Who cares whether he flunked out of divinity school or for that matter might own an energy inefficient home(according to Fox New) or owns an energy business selling carbon credits. You are confusing the man with the message. You need to get over Al Gore. Your mental health may depend on it.

Where do you get the idea that green jobs will barely pay minimum wage? Why do you fear the green economy? Maybe, your concern is that you won't be able to fit in and will be left behind. Many folks may share that concern but training will provide the necessary skills to be able to find work.


If we don't get up to speed with Europe we will be buying their technology.
The EU(European Union) has mandated that 20% of their energy be renewable by 2020. Each country is working to meet that requirement. It's actually a modest requirement but they are going forward as they know it's the future. Your comments about the rest of the world comes across as belittling and offensive. You sound like an ugly, ignorant American who believes the rest of the world is backwards. You need to do research about what other countries are doing and have done with renewable energy. They are not sitting on their duffs but are innovating. We should be doing the same.

"The problem with capitalism is that the rich folks end up with everything." KarenS(Granted I may not be Margaret) but capitalism isn't what it's cracked up to be either. The right amount of Socialism and Capitalism can work for the common good. It doesn't have to be either/or.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skrabs



Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 387
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Karen S, I love your previous post, esp. the second last paragraph. It echoed everything I've been sitting here thinking but, as I'm Australian I didn't want to cast stones at anyone American for fear of generalising or being called racist or a backwoods Aussie. It's a big world out there and we all share it and I think any solution needs to be world-wide and not nation specific. As Sharon W. said, the 'air above us isn't segregated' and neither are the global effects.

I travelled extensively in Europe last year and I really took a lot home with me about the attitude and lifestyle, particularly towards the environment. Did I think it was a modern-day Utopia? No. In some ways I thought it remarkably backwards but I also saw some ideas that were really forward thinking. Instead of dissing them out of hand perhaps we should actually look into the possibilities instead?

As for whether man-made global warming is occurring or not, (and I think for every 'scientist' supporting a fact there can easily be a hundred others negating it - depending upon whatever 'reliable' internet sources you can dig up) I believe that we are creating a heavy footprint on the earth. I can see this with my own eyes. Regardless of the truth behind global-warming effects, pollution in general simply cannot be good for the earth. The rate of extinction is increasing at an alarming rate and we're rapidly chewing through natural resources. If everybody in the world did one thing to reduce their imprint, it would make a major difference and I don't believe it would severly effect their personal financial situation. That's just as easy way out of it.

I'm not a 'tree-hugger', nor particularly environmental, nor do I particularly give a rats about a political system I know nothing about and that effects me in minor ways - though I have to admit I've really enjoyed learning more about the political parties and their ideals, primarily through these boards. Laughing It gives an outsider a very good idea into what the major democratic/republican groups stand for. But I do think that there is an issue at hand and I think that it is almost as important as the current economic crisis - which effects us here in Australia just as much as America. And probably has a run on effect in those third world countries that are causing us all such grief. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Margaret



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 882

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
KarenS(Granted I may not be Margaret)


Laughing Laughing Laughing I know emoticons drive some people batty, but that deserves a few chuckles. And I'm on the side of balance, too. I do love our regulated banking system tho.

It may be surprising (or not) but I'm not sold on the man-made Global Warming issue. And it has nothing to do with religion. I do think there is some credibility to natural earth cycles. However, I do think we have the ability to make positive change. Call it what you want pollution is pollution, period... and the earth is warming. I'm a big supporter of alternative clean energy sources...stop the dependence on oil. Now I'm off to hug a tree. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KarenS wrote:
Your sources commenting about Al Gore's home being inefficient doesn't even mention the square footage of the house. How big is it? That has a lot to do with calculating the use of kilowats. It stated his home was 60 to 70 years old which would tell me it's inefficient even though they said the Gores were in the process of updating it. That article was written in 2007 from Fox News. Sorry, but I don't consider Fox News a credible source.


Uh, Karen, inefficient is inefficient and you cannot say "oh, well, size .." Sorry, Al and Barack have the nerve to tell all us out here we must cut back, we have to conserve, we should accept a downgrade to our lifestyles., In the meantime, Al's big contribution is a house that is an energy hog, a movie that is mostly a lie, and selling carbon credits to the gullible. Barack's answer is to work on bankrupting companies using clean coal technology to produce electricity, asking for legislature that will raise the electricity costs in the midwest by 40% in a time of financial hardship, wants gas up to $4 or more per gallon, but doesn't give any indication he's pushing for any alternate energy research. But, man, haven't those weekend trips to Chicago for dinner, flights to LA to be on TV entertainment shows, not having to pay for your own gasoline for 4 years, plane fares, or housing easy to handle. I haven't noticed Mr Obama doing anything to "cut back," either. Ya know ... I don't think I've ever eaten a steak from Japan (can you imagine the energy used to fly it here?!?!), let alone $100 / pound steak. But Barack sure did -- and made it an "official" dinner so it didn't come out of the family pocket but out of mine and yours from our taxes.

And of course you don't consider Fox News creditable. You've been told it isn't, not that you ever bothered to check for yourself, so it isn't. Fox News is the number 1 cable news network. It has more ratings than a few of the cable news shows put together. Seems you and your ilk are in a minority there. But, Fox was only one of the sources -- but you can ignore the others because I mentioned Fox. Hmm, wonder if the reason I couldn't find a report on Al Gore's massive energy use on MSNBC or CNN because they just didn't think it was important that He Who Screams Too Much Energy Use Is Killing The Planet is using too much energy?!?!? And, yeah, Al did start making some changes to his house to try to cut his usuage -- but not before he started trying to tell ME how to live, only after places like Fox News pointed out his hypocrisy. Oh, and you did notice that TCPR report was dated June 17, 2008 ... so if he's "improving" he's not doing a great job.

KarenS wrote:
Most of your diatribe seems to be against Al Gore. To me, it seems like you have an obsession with Al Gore that frankly doesn't seem healthy. Who cares whether he flunked out of divinity school or for that matter might own an energy inefficient home(according to Fox New) or owns an energy business selling carbon credits. You are confusing the man with the message. You need to get over Al Gore. Your mental health may depend on it.


You mad a big push that Al had a Nobel Prize .... Al is the guru of the Man Made Global Warming fiasco. Of course, I guess we could listen to all those Hollywood Stars -- many who barely finished high school, few who even attended college, maybe took some acting classes, but feel qualified to tell the rest of us how to live.

KarenS wrote:
Where do you get the idea that green jobs will barely pay minimum wage? Why do you fear the green economy? Maybe, your concern is that you won't be able to fit in and will be left behind. Many folks may share that concern but training will provide the necessary skills to be able to find work.


Just what do you see in a "green" economy that produces well paying jobs? Sources? I don't fear a "green" economy. But, yeah, use those personal attacks because you cannot really find anything else. Now, remember, when you bring up "green" jobs do not throw out any job that currently exists. You cannot count those because those jobs are already here. What new jobs will this touted "green" economy provide that are well paying? As to my skills, funny how those computer thingies are just involved in everything ....


KarenS wrote:
If we don't get up to speed with Europe we will be buying their technology. The EU(European Union) has mandated that 20% of their energy be renewable by 2020. Each country is working to meet that requirement. It's actually a modest requirement but they are going forward as they know it's the future. Your comments about the rest of the world comes across as belittling and offensive. You sound like an ugly, ignorant American who believes the rest of the world is backwards. You need to do research about what other countries are doing and have done with renewable energy. They are not sitting on their duffs but are innovating. We should be doing the same.


Lovely. And just what renewables are they planning on? An awful lot of the current renewables everyone is counting on are causing problems in and of themselves. A lot of European countries are going nuclear. Can't do that here, of course, bad for the environment (wonder why European environment isn't hurt? Hmmm). Wind? Killing birds. Biofuels? Along with killing birds and other wildlife (because it takes land previously not used for crops) it also raises the price of food across the board. Means those who are of lower income get to have even less in their pockets. So, great. Thinking "ooh, cool, renewable and green" ends up being even more harmful. Remember my statement that tomorrow's new alternate energy would be the next generation's new hate object? You can mandate all you want -- but if you don't provide a sane and sensible path, you get nightmare. Do some research on how giving too little thought on "good" ideas can be detrimental. For the USA, think sparrows and starlings and kudzu. Australia and it's cats and rabbits. There's a lovely little tale about killing the predators on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon that everyone with a "good idea" should be required to study. Go look for it.

KarenS wrote:
"The problem with capitalism is that the rich folks end up with everything." KarenS(Granted I may not be Margaret) but capitalism isn't what it's cracked up to be either. The right amount of Socialism and Capitalism can work for the common good. It doesn't have to be either/or.



That is the stupidest thing I've seen you write -- and I'm generally not impressed by your writing because you give feelings not intelligent thought and facts. Think about the USA alone. It isn't just the rich who have TVs, cell phones, expensive basketball shoes and the like. Do we have people who fall through the cracks? Yeah ... but our poorest are still far better off than the poor in any other country. Even without the constant government dole like there is in France and the UK, there is plenty of help for those who need it if they are willing to ask for it and (gasp!!) work for it.

Plug that bleeding heart and think -- the way things are going now, with no one paying attention, your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and even their children will be paying for what has happened in the past 4 months. The big shock now is the bonuses paid to AIG. Why? Why is it such a shock? Senatory Chris Dodd put it in the bill. Secretary of the Treasury Geithner pushed for it, the Congress was given 90 minutes to read the thousand plus page bill because "it had to be passed or the world will end" -- and Barack Obama signed the "most be passed and signed immediately!!!" Of course, he waited until after that weekend trip to Chicago. All this because someone didn't step back, say "wait a minute, let's think this out better."

You think all this lovely socialistic leanings will be so wonderful. Don't look at the little countries that are socialist to see if it works. Look at the countries the size of the US. Oops, that's right .....
_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think all of your hullabaloo is in your first sentence by stating that one must downgrade one's lifestyle by conserving. Sounds like you're trying to justify your life style. Conserving doesn't mean a reduction in comfort or lifestyle but just doing things a little smarter. If we don't conserve there will be one hell of a lifestyle change when we're forced back to the Stone Age.

You are confusing personalities with the issues. Now you're on to Barack Obama eating Kobe beef. Kobe beef is in most fine restaurants. You can even order a Kobe hamburger from the Cheesecake Factory. It's my son's favorite item on the menu. So it's not a big deal to order Kobe beef for a special occasion. The President does have a few more perks than you or me. I guess it's one of the nice things about being President. I think it's great they're growing a Victory Garden at the White House.

You claim Fox News is the #1 cable news network which automatically means it must be creditable. That only means more people watch Fox News. That doesn't mean that Fox has more creditability. I am sure you heard about the Pew Research Center study done which showed the Fox viewers least informed of all the networks. The Daily Show and Colbert Report had the most informed viewers. In order to understand the humor, you need to get the references.

http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions

Your Hollywood diatribe is a rehash from 2007. Again, the message not the personalities. It was funny to hear political discussions from my Republican friends railing against Hollywood. Back then the "cultural" wars were a big thing. We must not allow liberals to take over our country and who is more liberal than Hollywood?

I am rather proud of my capitalism comment. Too bad that you don't get it but different strokes for different folks. You think you are providing intelligent thought and facts? You're parroting Fox New. You sound just like my Libertarian friend who knows everything and what he doesn't know isn't worth knowing. He loves to begin every sentence with "It's a fact..."


I love my bleeding heart!! I would like to think that it's not all about me.

IIRC, the first bail out was back in October and who was President back then? Oh yeah, Bush, and his minions who were pushing for it.

I am so glad that you are willing to admit that socialism works. Yes, the size of the country doesn't matter. When it works, it works.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group