An Inconvenient Electric Bill

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
anitram said:

I beg to differ. One square of TP isn't going to make anyone feel good.

:lmao:

I think this might be my favourite post ever. :)
 
INDY500 said:


No surprise really.
Like fluorescent light bulbs, one square of toilet paper, "green Oscars" or "Live Earth" concerts...real results aren't what matter.
No, what's important is that these things make us "feel good" and provide an avenue for remission of past "sins."
Actually the fluorecent bulbs are better, im just waiting until LED spot-lighting gets cheaper :drool:
 
Diemen said:
You guys do know that the one square of TP thing was said in jest, right?

Of course, but the problem is when she said it she should have realized how insane it would sound to the public and then you're just working against your own, legitimate goals. By saying that, to a lot of people Sheryl sounds like "just another wacko environmentalist" - so what was the point of the comment? Just defeats the purpose alltogether.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Actually the fluorecent bulbs are better, im just waiting until LED spot-lighting gets cheaper :drool:

Provided you use enough of them.
They may be more energy efficient and last longer, but they have lower luminance in eye friendly colors.

LEDs may work for single use lighting put you certainly can't light a room with them, unless you have a disco ball.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Well I'm wondering what your issue with flourescent lights is?

Are you against helping the environment in general?

1) They may be an alternative but they can't replace incandescence bulbs. Not yet anyway.

2) They have environmental concerns of their own. Mercury being the primary one.
 
INDY500 said:


1) They may be an alternative but they can't replace incandescence bulbs. Not yet anyway.

2) They have environmental concerns of their own. Mercury being the primary one.

Well LED will be the way to go, but flourescents are excellent alternatives. And the latest bulbs definately are coming close to being able to replace incandescence.

The mercury used is miniscule and given how much they save is a non-issue.

I get the feeling you think all of this is a joke. That any means to save and protect is a waste. I'm not sure if it's based on misinformation you've been given or that you just don't care, because it won't effect you in your lifetime.
 
INDY500 said:


1) They may be an alternative but they can't replace incandescence bulbs. Not yet anyway.


They've done a pretty good job of it in my house. And I like it bright. :shrug:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Well LED will be the way to go, but flourescents are excellent alternatives. And the latest bulbs definately are coming close to being able to replace incandescence.

The mercury used is miniscule and given how much they save is a non-issue.

I get the feeling you think all of this is a joke. That any means to save and protect is a waste. I'm not sure if it's based on misinformation you've been given or that you just don't care, because it won't effect you in your lifetime.
Actually saving the planet is a shitty argument to convert; the long life span, high brightness and cool things you can do with them (LED setups) are much more attractive.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Actually saving the planet is a shitty argument to convert; the long life span, high brightness and cool things you can do with them (LED setups) are much more attractive.

Well I think the fact that it's a double edged sword makes it even a better sale.
 
Assaulting the public conciousness with tripe about each one of them being individually responsible for the end of the world just makes people tune out. Delivering the next generation of things that they use all the time that cut down energy use with a whole lot of new bells and whistles is much better.

If we have to be spending billions or trillions of dollars on saving the planet I say put the money into a massive carbon geosequestration program.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Assaulting the public conciousness with tripe about each one of them being individually responsible for the end of the world just makes people tune out.

That's like saying don't educate the voters on the canidates.:|

Individuals need to be educated for they are the ones going to force corporations to make the changes. Otherwise we'll just continue living like we have no effect on the planet...
 
Education should be different than indoctrination. Green groups still seem to show strong of opposition to GM technology and nuclear energy (things that reduce pesticide and fertilizer use as well as carbon emissions); the agendas of these types of parties is disagreeable to me. As far as being informed I think more people should be informed that Kyoto does nothing at all to stop global warming, that to actually solve the problem with such a regulatory framework needs severe cutbacks that will compromise both living standards and economy - if were playing the game of using the publics money for global warming then more funds to research and engineering solutions that gets carbon out of the atmosphere and back in the ground.

At the end of the day living green has to deliver what the consumer needs at a reasonable price; talking about sacrifice and pennance isn't a good way to sell anything.
 
Last edited:
Off topic, but Bush's popularity ratings would probably lend support to that statement since it wasn't sold as a long tough slog.

Then again plenty of people willingly embrace beliefs because of those feelings, the Catholic Church has worked it very well, but that mentality could never occur independently in the green movement, it could never border on religion.
 
Religious leaders urge action on warming

30 minutes ago

Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders are urging President George W. Bush and Congress to take action against global warming, declaring that the changing climate is a "moral and spiritual issue."

In an open letter to be published on Tuesday, more than 20 religious groups urged U.S. leaders to limit greenhouse gas emissions and invest in renewable energy sources.

"Global warming is real, it is human-induced and we have the responsibility to act," says the letter, which will run in Roll Call and the Politico, two Capitol Hill newspapers.

"We are mobilizing a religious force that will persuade our legislators to take immediate action to curb greenhouse gases," it says.

The letter is signed by top officials of the National Council of Churches, the Islamic Society of North America and the political arm of the Reform branch of Judaism.

Top officials from several mainline Christian denominations, including the Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church, African Methodist Episcopal Church and Alliance of Baptists also signed the letter, along with leaders of regional organizations and individual churches.

Rev. Joel Hunter, a board member of the National Association of Evangelicals, also signed the letter, though that group has not officially taken a stance on global warming due to opposition from some of its more conservative members.



"The letter is signed by top officials of the National Council of Churches, the Islamic Society of North America and the political arm of the Reform branch of Judaism."

W is finally uniting. :up:
 
we have a faith-based war

we have faith-based aids programs

we have faith-based Judical appointments




why not have a faith-based response to global warming


espcially when it is backed up by an over-whelming majority of scientists.
 
So coopting religious lobby groups is alright when it fits your agenda?

A faith based response to global warming would be much like the rest of the faith based programs - spending without caring for results. Evidence and result based responses are what should count - and I have a problem with religious lobbies from millenialist conservatives to christian socialists.
 
A_Wanderer said:
So coopting religious lobby groups is alright when it fits your agenda?


I would prefer they stay out of politics

but we have suffered through almost 7 years of an administration where they have had some influence


and people that don't support making changes are just playing into the hands of big business' wanting to maximize profits to record high levels
 
You say it like it's a bad thing (not the religion in government - which I think is a evil at all times - but record profits), it's that attitude in the environmentalism movement that demands environmental policy be used as a means to hurt big business that should discredit them. They are anti-capitalists masquerading with environmental peity (the anti-GMO, anti-nuclear and anti-trade platforms of their parties as supporting evidence).

How about unconventional solutions, mirrors in space or releasing extra sulphates up in the upper atmosphere to reduce the temperature change. Make a prize about it, one billion dollars would deliver more effective outcomes than any repressive carbon tax.
 
The whole big "green movement" has become a religion in itself. If one doesn't convert, they are persecuted by the green crusade.

This movement is not based on science, it is based on emotions and faulty logic, just like Christianity and all the other religions of the world.

Those who say that there is 100% scientific backing to the claims of Al Gore and those leading the green charge are lying to themselves. There are many, many studies that refute the claims of man's contribution to climate change. All there is is a theory, not proven scientific fact.

But, no one really much cares for facts these days. The feeling of being "right" is enough to convince anyone there is no other perspective.

See, a religion.
 
upabove said:
The whole big "green movement" has become a religion in itself. If one doesn't convert, they are persecuted by the green crusade.

This movement is not based on science, it is based on emotions and faulty logic, just like Christianity and all the other religions of the world.

Those who say that there is 100% scientific backing to the claims of Al Gore and those leading the green charge are lying to themselves. There are many, many studies that refute the claims of man's contribution to climate change. All there is is a theory, not proven scientific fact.

But, no one really much cares for facts these days. The feeling of being "right" is enough to convince anyone there is no other perspective.

See, a religion.

Very interesting 2nd post. I applaud you for your courage and hope you post more in FYM.

You're right though, nothing, and I repeat nothing is guaranteed by 100%. Not religion, not science, not love, nothing...

There are few absolutes in this world.

But that shouldn't ever stop anyone from trying to do what's right...
 
upabove said:
The whole big "green movement" has become a religion in itself. If one doesn't convert, they are persecuted by the green crusade.

This movement is not based on science, it is based on emotions and faulty logic, just like Christianity and all the other religions of the world.

Those who say that there is 100% scientific backing to the claims of Al Gore and those leading the green charge are lying to themselves. There are many, many studies that refute the claims of man's contribution to climate change. All there is is a theory, not proven scientific fact.

But, no one really much cares for facts these days. The feeling of being "right" is enough to convince anyone there is no other perspective.

See, a religion.

I agree! :up:
 
Even if it is shown somewhere along the line that global warming isn't man's fault, continued use of fossil fuels is still short-sighted and quite stupid.

The stuff coming out of your cars and power plants still pollutes, coal and oil will run out.

Eventually renewable resources will be a far cheaper option, and will certainly make for a cleaner and healthier earth, plus no reliance on hostile countries to supply oil, which I am sure it has already been mentioned.

For those reasons alone, I think it is reasonable enough to make being 'green' a top priority.

Honestly even if we are not at fault for climate change, I am really surprised we haven't mucked up the world more, with the stuff we have been filling it with, the contribution of humans to the planet hasn exactly been great. You wouldn't treat your own house half as badly as we do to the planet.
 
Back
Top Bottom