An Inconvenient Electric Bill - Page 14 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-28-2007, 06:39 AM   #196
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Did you catch melon's link a page up, indra? 100% of the Gore household's power is green and renewable. Something that was conspicuously absent from the original article.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 07:14 AM   #197
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Sure, after the innovation comes improvement. Before the shovel we dug with a bone.

Most people I argue with about this, like yourself, have good intentions, only want to leave a better world for their children. But I believe, at it's core, the goal of hardcore environmentalists isn't the lowering of CO2 emissions through efficiency to save our planet (or why be so stridently opposed to nuclear and hydroelectric power?) It's to choke off economic expansion and population growth, redistribute wealth and change ownership from private to government control.
In other words, good old fashioned Marxism, but now wrapped-up in a postmodern philosophy that views Man not as part of nature, but as a bane to it's ultimate survival.
Well, after innovation comes improvement, leading to more efficiency. That's right, but many companies, like e.g. the bulldozer manufacturer didn't invest so much money in developing more efficient engines. And people are not more prosperous because they use more energy. They rather would be even more prosperous if they did th same work, but didn't increase their fuel consumption necessarily.

Well, I'm strictly opposed to Marxism, and I don't agree with everything these hardcore environmentatlists want.
I don't think it's the best idea to shutdown the nuclear power plants in any case for example. It's not even an advantage by default.

I don't think the state needs more control. Giving incentives, advocating more efficient use of energy, advertising some awareness for our nature, all this could be done without passing too many laws.

Like Bill Bryson brought the example with the five nuclear power plants that are only running for the computers that are waiting in standby modus overnight because the people don't want to wait this one to two minutes in the morning.
This has an direct effect on our pollution.
Every horsepower your car has (Sorry, wrote PS before, now I realize that's a German expression :hide: ) consumes some extra fuel. This extra fuel produces CO2 that goes into the atmoshere.
Just by using smaller engines you could decrease your emission.
But it's simply not cool enough when the other guy accelerates faster than you.

I'm not campaigning for redistribution of wealth. Why should I?
Of course I think it's highly arrogant if one has his millions, and doesn't care at all about people having less. Still I would never want any government, or anyone else, to take his money so that everybody is equal.

I don't know which kind of environmentalist you are talking about, I wouldn't even consider myself an environmentalist, but the people I know who are concerned about the future of our planet earth aren't socialists at all, and the description you provided doesn't fit at all. I'm sorry.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 08:09 AM   #198
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 12:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
But I believe, at it's core, the goal of hardcore environmentalists isn't the lowering of CO2 emissions through efficiency to save our planet (or why be so stridently opposed to nuclear and hydroelectric power?) It's to choke off economic expansion and population growth, redistribute wealth and change ownership from private to government control.
No one has ever taken "neo-Luddites" seriously. And, frankly, the opposition to nuclear power is gradually eroding away with reason (hydroelectric power isn't eroding, because dams leave a rather large, tangible environmental impact; and in the days where the West is drying out, is it really the most efficient power scheme for North America? We're not Canada or Iceland, after all.).

The rest of that, frankly, boils down to the success of conservatives in muddying the issue and is nothing but pure paranoia. The oil industry, obviously, foresees its own long-term demise in environmentalism, and obviously will do anything it can to delay and/or prevent that. Environmentalism is a true market today, and all the notable firms involved in it have stocks. That's hardly "Marxist" and the furthest from neo-Luddite.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 08:25 AM   #199
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


The guys did better tonight.


agreed.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-28-2007, 09:50 AM   #200
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Sure, after the innovation comes improvement. Before the shovel we dug with a bone.

Most people I argue with about this, like yourself, have good intentions, only want to leave a better world for their children. But I believe, at it's core, the goal of hardcore environmentalists isn't the lowering of CO2 emissions through efficiency to save our planet (or why be so stridently opposed to nuclear and hydroelectric power?) It's to choke off economic expansion and population growth, redistribute wealth and change ownership from private to government control.
In other words, good old fashioned Marxism, but now wrapped-up in a postmodern philosophy that views Man not as part of nature, but as a bane to it's ultimate survival.
Well now your theory is all shot to hell.

You should have shown your true colors and let the paranoia out first, we could have saved a lot of time and saved some energy for truly productive discussion.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-28-2007, 10:00 AM   #201
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
Something that was conspicuously absent from the original article.
Well I posted about the renewable aspect on the first page, yet they continued. It doesn't matter I guess
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 10:13 AM   #202
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Do you reserve the same appreciation for those that declare global warming non-existent?

yes,...it makes me think.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 11:02 AM   #203
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
wikipedia as a valid source? cue me, someone; do we laugh or cry?
Strange that you would make such a comment only after my clearly marked use of Wikipedia, and not the several instances that Ormus quoted from it.

The paragraph just happened to add voices to "my wild conspiracy theory" that there exists a sometimes cozy relationship between today's radical environmentalism and yesterday's Marxism.
Quote:
some on the right refer to Greens as "watermelons" -- green on the outside, red in the middle.
Also strange that the subtlety hinted at financial relationship between Big Oil and any-and-all remaining global-warming skeptics--isn't considered equally crazy.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 11:23 AM   #204
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 12:49 PM
People advocating change to mitigate the effects of climate change are hardly radical environmentalists or Marxists. It has nothing to do with climate change except attack the integrity of it's supporters.

To disregard the evidence of climate change and it's effects is laughable. Did these same people disregard the claims that smoking was harmful to people or worse yet, that second hand smoke was damaging to non-smokers? Did they not believe scientists when they discovered that leaded gasoline was poisoning us or that CFCs were eroding the ozone layer? I guess that smog stuff which affects the quality of life for people with lung afflictions by forcing them to stay inside is just a theory? Nah, human behaviour has no effect on the environment, what a silly concept.

Countries which fail to act and invest in efficient and new energy technologies will have short term economic benefits but in the long run will suffer as the world including developing nations use green energy technology. Canada is already losing ground with our government's inability to act. The fossil fuel industry has the most to lose from switching to alternative energy and will do whatever it takes to confuse people about green technologies meaning paying people to write ambiguous articles condemning the science and evidence behind climate change.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 11:23 AM   #205
The Fly
 
Copy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 190
Local Time: 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Sure, after the innovation comes improvement. Before the shovel we dug with a bone.

Most people I argue with about this, like yourself, have good intentions, only want to leave a better world for their children. But I believe, at it's core, the goal of hardcore environmentalists isn't the lowering of CO2 emissions through efficiency to save our planet (or why be so stridently opposed to nuclear and hydroelectric power?) It's to choke off economic expansion and population growth, redistribute wealth and change ownership from private to government control.
In other words, good old fashioned Marxism, but now wrapped-up in a postmodern philosophy that views Man not as part of nature, but as a bane to it's ultimate survival.
so, al gore is a hypocritical capitalist living in his 20-bedrooms mansion AND a marxist!!!
__________________
Copy is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 11:39 AM   #206
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Strange that you would make such a comment only after my clearly marked use of Wikipedia, and not the several instances that Ormus quoted from it.

Wikipedia is used quite a bit in here and has also been disputed quite a bit in here.

If you're going to use it I'd suggest using the portions that are fact and can be backed up using other sources, and skip the conspiracy theories, commentary, and paranoia that can't.

Just a suggestion.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-28-2007, 11:55 AM   #207
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Strange that you would make such a comment only after my clearly marked use of Wikipedia, and not the several instances that Ormus quoted from it.

The paragraph just happened to add voices to "my wild conspiracy theory" that there exists a sometimes cozy relationship between today's radical environmentalism and yesterday's Marxism.

Also strange that the subtlety hinted at financial relationship between Big Oil and any-and-all remaining global-warming skeptics--isn't considered equally crazy.
Every movement has its radicals that are just stupid and don't see where to stop.

To make them the majority is just ignorant.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 12:18 PM   #208
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
People advocating change to mitigate the effects of climate change are hardly radical environmentalists or Marxists. It has nothing to do with climate change except attack the integrity of it's supporters.

To disregard the evidence of climate change and it's effects is laughable. Did these same people disregard the claims that smoking was harmful to people or worse yet, that second hand smoke was damaging to non-smokers? Did they not believe scientists when they discovered that leaded gasoline was poisoning us or that CFCs were eroding the ozone layer? I guess that smog stuff which affects the quality of life for people with lung afflictions by forcing them to stay inside is just a theory? Nah, human behaviour has no effect on the environment, what a silly concept.

Countries which fail to act and invest in efficient and new energy technologies will have short term economic benefits but in the long run will suffer as the world including developing nations use green energy technology. Canada is already losing ground with our government's inability to act. The fossil fuel industry has the most to lose from switching to alternative energy and will do whatever it takes to confuse people about green technologies meaning paying people to write ambiguous articles condemning the science and evidence behind climate change.
I would think that as a Canadian you might actually see an upside to global warming. Most of your population lives near your southern border because the upper regions of the Northern hemisphere are climatically extreme for humans right? Imagine the new frontiers that global warming might bring to your country.

It's also probably safe to assume that at one time in our not too distant past, the spot of land that you now call home was under 100's of feet of ice. So global-warming was a good thing, right?

Which is to say, climates have changed dramatically in the past, and they will continue to change. Man-made or not.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 12:23 PM   #209
Blue Crack Supplier
 
elevated_u2_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm here 'cus I don't want to go home
Posts: 31,694
Local Time: 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
I would think that as a Canadian you might actually see an upside to global warming. Most of your population lives near your southern border because the upper regions of the Northern hemisphere are climatically extreme for humans right?
Most of our population also lives in areas below sea level so no... That would not be a good thing.
__________________
elevated_u2_fan is online now  
Old 02-28-2007, 12:41 PM   #210
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by elevated_u2_fan


Most of our population also lives in areas below sea level so no... That would not be a good thing.
Ever been to the Netherlands? They licked that problem a long time ago.

Anyway, don't believe every hyped threat about rising sea levels and accompanying computer animated cartoon that's throw at us. They're just that.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com