Intersting News Regarding the Global Warming Debate

Whether you believe in GW or not- taxing someone to force them to change their behavior is wrong, criminal, and not the roll of government. I'd much rather see the government put real rewards and incentives (think positive here people)out there for the development of new technologies. Create the necessity through potential benefit, not threat of loss.

I like how the people championing GW are so easy to get on the band wagon to penalize everyone for "damaging the environment", yet they never give any example of real life efforts they have made to change their habits, or to decrease their pollution, besides trivial things like reusable fabric grocery bags. Even the high priest of the green cult is serial polluter/waster of the highest degree. How about before anyone gets on their high horse and preaches about how I should pay 3-4x for gas, you show me how you have altered your existence for the cause.

I also hate the argument that "some European countries pay more so we should stop complaining". That's like telling someone to stop complaining about our pollution here, because in China it is so much worse. Not a good argument either way.

We do need to keep improving our technologies and decreasing our impact. We don't need to cut off our own noses to spite our own faces though.

 

So basically your saying, you don't buy anything from a store. Every thing comes from a local source, your TV, your Pepsi, refrigerator, computer, automobile, clothing, bicycle all made locally?:?: Doubt it.

How the hell do you think those products got to be available locally? That's right a truck brought it there. EVERY THING YOU PURCHASE A TRUCK WAS INVOLVED!!! Your bag of Doritos didn't magically appear at the liquor store. I don't care if you had to drive to a store to purchase it. A truck still brought it to the store so you can purchase it, even if it is grown locally a truck still had to bring it to the stand and the wood for the stand was brought there buy a truck. Why is that so hard for you to understand? The only exeption is if you pick it or caught it your self. And then still your fishing rod, riffle, knife, clothing, or what ever, was still all brought to a store by a truck. Even if you bought something that is manufactured locally (like bread from the local bakery) all the raw materials (flour, eggs, salt, suger) had to be brought to the baker by truck. This is not a hard concept to understand.

Profits in trucking??? You have no idea what you are talking about. Trucking companies are going belly up all over the place. I myself have been laid off for 4 months because there is no work and they have to cut costs. A company that is operating well will run at a 92-96% that means that for every dollar they bring in they make 4-8cents. Most companies are lucky to brake even. Right now alot of companies are operating at a 102-107% if not more, so in other words it's costing them money to make money.

 

America is still the number 1 polluter per capita and was only recently overtaken (2 years ago?) by China as a nation.
The argument actually runs the opposite way in that newly industrialized countries are refusing to lower their emissions because a) Why should they when much richer countries are refusing to, and B)Why should they when they are not the historical root cause of the problem, as they are the new kids on the block when it comes to pumping pollutants into the atmosphere.

You asked, so here is what I try and do.
I drive as little as possible and mainly in a car that averages 34 mpg when I do. I think about and try to arrange carpooling as much as I can. I buy non processed, non packaged, locally produced and if possible, organic food as much as I can and primarily eat at home. I try not to eat too much meat. I ride my bike to the store to buy food. I save water where I can by not having a lawn and having native plants in the yard that do not need irrigation and try to do the small things like turning off the shower when soaping up, taking shorter showers and turning off the faucet while cleaning my teeth. I use low energy bulbs and turn out lights when not in use. I compost and recycle and reuse plastic bags. I do, as you said, use the reusable ones too. I only wash clothes when I have a full machine load. I use the dryer as little as possible and instead, hang them out to dry in good weather. I think about how much I consume. I collect trash and recycle it when I ride or hike.
I am no Guru, just someone who thinks he can maybe make a small difference if he tries.
All small "trivial" (and to some, probably laughable) things I know, but if multiplied by a few hundred million or even several billion, then I believe it does make a difference. Just like I think that if everyone does nothing, it too, all adds up.
Sorry if it sounds preachy, but you did ask, so I replied.

 

Basically, no. I never said any such thing, spare me the drama.

Most of what you just listed I don't consume by choice, and the items I do use are purchased used or were obtained for free or by trade. You can go on about how those good were originally trucked. But we aren't talking about the past anymore, we are talking about the now and the future. The antiquated ways of doing things won't work. Unless getting the same result over and over is what you consider working.

Actually several trucks probably brought it there. And that's part of the problem, it could have just as well been delivered by fewer trucks and by better planning and logistics. No business just deserves to be in business. When there are too many businesses for any segment of commerce or demand, some of them have to adapt and the rest mostly die.

That's exactly the mindset that feeds the fire and keeps the bloated companies and government in business. You should care. It costs you and yours as much as it costs everyone else in useless waste of doubled efforts and energy. More importantly, it costs all us in untold ways by continuing the excessive consumption of finite resources. What about that is so hard for you to understand?

Now you're catching on. I, and a lot of others, live a simple lifestyle not solely based on useless disposable consumer goods that make up the bulk of landfills or crappy processed food items that do more harm than good - all the way from the corporate farms to the folks who consume it, to the healthcare venues and emergency rooms where those same folks eventually wind up. It's also why we have large parcels of vegetable and produce gardens to insure a quality food supply and for greater independence from the expanding conditions of polluted, less nutritional engineered food supply. We are dedicated to it as if our lives and quality of life depend on it because it really does!

What's hard to understand is why companies and consumers still think such items and others have to be trucked from all over the country when they are mostly readily available locally - thus driving up the costs, waste, pollution, and depleting important resources for said items? Costs that are long term in their impact.

That's because they are/were wastefully bloated and running an inefficient and outdated business model, they should go out of business. Part of the reason they are working with such tight margins is because there are too many of them and thus they can be pitted against each other very easily for the hauls out there. Another example of how the herd needs thinning.

You make it sound like these businesses deserve to be in business just for merely providing a service. It doesn't work that way in a free market system. Why should folks be allowed to over consume without consequences? Guess what, they/we aren't.

As I stated, I have family that are in various parts of the business as labor, management and as owners. While a few of them have had to find other work, most have changed with the game by reducing costs and diversifying their businesses and have learned to do better with less, including a lot less profit. But profits none the less.

Any business or industry that won't adapt to the necessary changes that are occurring deserve to be left behind to die. They are doing us no favors and are only prolonging the agony for themselves as well as the rest of us.

It's tough no doubt, I have seen it first hand as have most folks. I've closed 3 businesses of my own in the past due to not being willing to either roll with the changes that were necessary for survival or due to needing to make as little negative impact as possible on the environment.

But to go on about how necessary all of these businesses are regardless of their negative impacts would be humorous if it wasn't so serious. This country, and the planet needs to wake up to the fact that the business as usual concept is over - and our long term needs had better be taken into account if the remaining businesses want to continue.

More importanly is the need for each individual to realize this and make well thought out choices as to the types of businesses and elected officials they chose to have and do business with. If we continue to do nothing or make only half-hearted efforts, then there is only one person to point the finger at.

Fuels and energy are only part of symptom of what's coming down the pike - and it is coming up really fast.

Localizing essentials and other supplies is as basic a concept as one can get. To ignore it is to do so at our own peril.

 

Seriously... Dude... Are you sure you ain't smoking rope??? If you were at least you would have an excuse for not being able to focus and not being able to follow common logic. I was trying to explain why higher fuel costs wasn't going to just cost you more to drive down the street. It's going to make every thing more expensive. It's basic economics. By your own choice or not you have to buy things and they will cost you more money.

Then you start spewing common rhetoric about bloated buisnesses and blah blah blah. Some how you think that just because you have family in the transportation industy that magically by asscociation you are an expert on all things logistical and know how all companies are ran. Just because my uncle is a pilot and my freinds wife works for an airline, doesn't make me an expert on flying a plane nor do I know I pretend to know how Southwest Airlines is ran as a company.

That's it, I'm done. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with some one who lacks common sense and reasoning. Typical hippie talk. Go take another hit off of that bong.

 

All at once

Let's hold hands and sing!

Cumbaya my friend, cumbayaaaaaa......

He sounds power hungry:drunk:

 

Yep, hungry to lessen the need for it.

Educate yourselves

http://attra.ncat.org/farm_energy/food_miles.html

 

I pretty much buy everything on the internet nowadays, that's how I help.

 

Me, I'm a subsistence farmer. Zero carbon footprint. The medieval diseases are a drag, but at least I'll go to an early grave knowing I was morally superior.

 

This Is Just The Beginning......

DWP rates may rise between 8% and 28% to pay for mayor's green initiatives

The hike would pay for more aggressive conservation programs and a solar plan designed to create 16,000 jobs as well as cover the fluctuating price of coal and natural gas.

• <LI style="FLOAT: none" class=relatedTitle>Related
• Primary Source: DWP and city officials pitch their rate increase proposal

By David Zahniser and Phil Willon March 15, 2010 | 11:21 p.m.



Households that get their power from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power could see their electric bills go up between 8.8% and 28.4%, depending on where they live and how much energy they use, under a plan unveiled Monday by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Appearing with labor and environmental leaders, Villaraigosa said the proposed increases would ensure that the DWP meets his goal of securing 20% of its energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar by Dec. 31.

The increased revenue would help pay for new environmental initiatives, including more aggressive conservation programs and a solar initiative designed to create 16,000 jobs.

But it also would address the DWP's failure to collect enough money to cover the cost of existing renewable energy initiatives and the fluctuating price of coal and natural gas, utility officials said.

"Nobody's denying that this is a big increase -- at least I'm not," said DWP Acting General Manager S. David Freeman. "Because we've put it off so . . . long, [ratepayers] have saved money in the last three years."

The mayor has been talking for weeks about the need for the DWP to charge more. Monday was the first day his team showed its estimate of the effects on consumers of the increase, which is scheduled to be phased in over a full year starting next month.

Under the plan, households that use the smallest amount of electricity -- technically known as Tier 1 customers -- would see an average increase of 8.8%. Those customers make up 58% of the DWP's residential ratepayers.

Tier 2 customers, who use more power and make up 36% of the utility's residential customers, would see an average increase of 16.8% to 18.9%. Tier 3 customers, who use the most power and make up the remaining 6%, would face hikes in their electric bills of 24.4% to 28.4%, according to documents provided by the mayor's office.

In the hotter San Fernando Valley, where ratepayers receive a slight break on their bills, the average Tier 1 customer would see monthly electric bills jump from $38.76 to $42.17 by April 2011. A Tier 2 customer in the Valley would see the monthly bill increase from $92.19 to $107.60, according to the proposal.

Businesses would see increases in the average bill ranging from 20% to 26%. Any increase would become less steep, however, once ratepayers adopt conservation measures or find ways to install solar panels and sell the excess power to the DWP, mayoral aides said.

The DWP board, whose members are appointed by the mayor, must approve the plan for the increases to go into effect; the proposal goes before the board Thursday. The City Council will review the plan in upcoming weeks and can affirm it or send it back for more work.

The mayor also warned that more increases would be needed to reach his next goal: securing 40% of the DWP's power from renewable sources by 2020.

"We could have raised our fees even more to address the long-term goal of taking us to 40% renewables by 2020 and coal-free," he said. "We knew we had to do this incrementally."

Either way, the proposal drew complaints from a Westside neighborhood activist, who described the increase as a hidden tax.

Mike Eveloff, president of the Tract 7260 Homeowners Assn., criticized the mayor for seeking more money at the same time the DWP is providing at least $220 million annually to balance the city's budget. "As long as the DWP is showing a surplus, then they have no rational reason for seeking a rate increase," he said.

Once all the increases are in place, the DWP will receive an additional $648 million per year.

Villaraigosa said the money would help pay for the hiring of "green doctors" to evaluate the energy efficiency of homes and stepped-up efforts to help residents obtain energy-efficient lightbulbs and refrigerators.

One union leader said residents would support the increases once they knew how the money would be spent.

"When they see that there is a clear-cut plan to do what we need to do in this city -- which is to be more green, to create jobs -- then I think that most people . . . are willing to go along with that," said Maria Elena Durazo, executive secretary-treasurer of the L.A. County Federation of Labor.

david.zahniser @latimes.com

[email protected]

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

 

It's spreading. I was just listening to a (self-described and well-earned) rednecky friend, rant about this very thing.

He was remarking about "what BS it is, that Calirfornya produces more apricots & other fruits than anywhere, and yet you go to Vons, and everything you see is from fcking Chile! No wonder our economy's shit, these businesses are all screwing over our own country". He was apparently so bothered by this he now does all his food shopping at the Farmers Market, which isn't all that much cheaper, but I'll give it, the food is better. I think his exact sentiment was "Food should be bought from a farmer anyway, not from a gd department store." Angry. Still, some interesting thoughts.

Then again, cutting off the Chilean peeps sucks too.

 

The cost of gas is what keeps you from making more trips to mammoth?

I'm sure for some people, what you say is true. But I'd be hesitant to say that most people, much less everyone, affixes a static percentage of their budget to gasoline, and out of sheer love for spending 50 or 100 dollars a month on petrol, they'll just find some other way to blow the gas, just for the sake of blowing it.

I just don't see it.

 

Apricots are a summer fruit. It's summer in Chile. Maybe after global warming we'll have apricots year round in CA, but not today.

I love free trade. Apricots in winter! A generation ago we'd be stuck eating canned fruit this time of year. Free trade makes us better off.

 

That's it. I'm having shirts made. Stop polar tilt!

 

Here's something to fuel the fire, enjoy the read:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36104206/ns/us_news-environment/

 

^^^

Which story. This one?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36111381

This one?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36104206/ns/us_news-environment/

or this one?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36110038/ns/business-oil_and_energy/

All interesting stuff.

 

From MSNBC (GE's Publicity Department)

The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said they had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

(Of course not, they didn't look at it) :lol:

Lawmakers stressed that their report — which was written after only a single day of oral testimony — did not cover all the issues and would not be as in-depth as the two other inquiries into the e-mail scandal that are still pending and which were instigated by the University of East Anglia.

Willis said the lawmakers had been in a rush to publish something before Britain's next national election, which is widely expected in just over a month's time.

"Clearly we would have liked to spend more time of this," he said, before adding jokingly: "We had to get something out before we were sent packing."



One blogger's take:

Now… why would the UK Parliamentary inquiry decide that ‘climategate’ was much ado about nothing!!!!!

Could it be that so much was at stake… the reputation of a world famous university and climate institution… the reputation and integrity of the British people themselves. Whatever it took, the verdict had to salvage the honour and reputation of Britain.

I know I’m right. I’ve watched “Yes Minister” numerous times… particularly the episode in which Sir Humphrey advises Minister James Hacker that one does not call for a Parliamentary inquiry unless one knows exactly what the outcome of the inquiry will be.

And that is exactly what has happened here.

 

You lie! Part 98

This one:

Obama, "I will keep in place the moratorium on offshore drilling."

[youtube]v8fkbEuCQss[/youtube]

 

Just for laughs

Science Magazine used Photoshopped Polar Bear

 

Someone better get this issue right, because if change is needed to slow this down, it must be done "Now"!

If it's all hooyee than all my time reading this thread was futile. These damn recycling bins are taking up space in my garage.