An Inconvenient Electric Bill

[A_Wanderer]

Inputting more energy to get the same ammount of material at the end is not more productive.

[Angela Harlem]

i can't believe this thread.

[INDY500]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega


That's perfectly right, yet greater efficiency is more valuable than greater energy use.

So a bulldozer consuming 10 liters/hour for that work is worse off than a bulldozer that consumes 5 liters/hour for the exact same work.

That's progress.

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.

[LyricalDrug]

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.

Wow. Way to publicly show off your unfounded paranoia! Yeah, that's it! All "hardcore environmentalists" are actually Marxists!

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Angela Harlem
i can't believe this thread.

i go away for a few hours to eat dinner and watch American Idol and organize some tax stuff, and this is what's happened?

it's kind of cool, actually. only in FYM.

[Irvine511]

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.

you realize, of course, that this conspiracy theory is as wild as if i told you that George Bush is seeking to ban marriage equality in order to reduce gays into the 3/5ths status of African-Americans in the 19th century so that we can strip them of personhood and send them to reeducation "straight" camps.

i mean, seriously. it's just as crazy.

[A_Wanderer]

It's not a conspiracy because it isn't actually being orchestrated; but collectivism and neo-luddism are hallmarks of radical environmentalists and eco-terrorists.

But they are irrelevent; anybody that wants to abolish the automobile and go back to living a wonderfull tribal existence (all the joys of shit food, disease and an early grave) is not informing the political debate. The solution is technological, achieving zero emission power generation and removing excess carbon from the atmosphere (or shading the Earth) but it has to be achieved within economic constraints over the course of decades.

We don't need a rollout of strict government regulation; perhaps qualifying how carbon emissions from one piece of private property makes the owner liable to damage to others and making it an issue for the courts and individual responsibility. For instance if I was manafacturing in my back yard I would by violating my neighbours property rights by dumping polluted water over the fence.

The basic research requirements for zero emission power at market competitive prices are where it gets dicey and protracted; fusion would be a magic bullet, but it takes decades to beat the technological challenges to it.

[Angela Harlem]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
radical environmentalists and eco-terrorists.

are we still talking about people who want to clean up this planet, or has it evolved into anyone but those who want to clean up the planet?

how can some of you not see this.

I cannot believe the links some of you are forging. It's the stuff of fairytales.

[INDY500]

Originally posted by Irvine511




you realize, of course, that this conspiracy theory is as wild as if i told you that George Bush is seeking to ban marriage equality in order to reduce gays into the 3/5ths status of African-Americans in the 19th century so that we can strip them of personhood and send them to reeducation "straight" camps.

i mean, seriously. it's just as crazy.

It ain't just me.
Wikipedia Green Parties

Greens on the Left adhere to Eco-socialism, an ideology that combines ecology, environmentalism, socialism and Marxism to criticise the capitalist system as the cause of ecological crises, social exclusion, inequality and conflict. Many Green Parties are avowedly eco-socialist but most Green Parties around the world have or have had a large Eco-socialist membership. This has lead some on the right to refer to Greens as "watermelons" -- green on the outside, red in the middle.

[Angela Harlem]

wikipedia as a valid source? cue me, someone; do we laugh or cry?

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by Angela Harlem


are we still talking about people who want to clean up this planet, or has it evolved into anyone but those who want to clean up the planet?

how can some of you not see this.

I cannot believe the links some of you are forging. It's the stuff of fairytales.

Do we draw the line between mainstream groups like Greenpeace and those like Earth First!? I was making the point that there are hardline collectivists out there with an agenda but the are so irrelevent to the mainstream dialogue and politics theres no point in raising it.

[Rono]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Do we draw the line between mainstream groups like Greenpeace and those like Earth First!? I was making the point that there are hardline collectivists out there with an agenda but the are so irrelevent to the mainstream dialogue and politics theres no point in raising it.

Hardliners make the mainstrain lazy population think. mainstrain is comfortable and does not take to much risk and even more important, it is cheap on the short therm.

[A_Wanderer]

Do you reserve the same appreciation for those that declare global warming non-existent?

Making an ad hominem argument against tackling climate change on the basis of the poltiical nature of radical environmentalists is flawed; the science definitely informs the debate and the world is warming, the state of the planet is going to change and reduction of the ammount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the most feesible way of minimising the impact - that is not changed by the whims or designs of some hypothetical eco-communist plotters.

[AEON]

Originally posted by Irvine511



i go away for a few hours to eat dinner and watch American Idol

The guys did better tonight.

[indra]

Wow this thread has moved too fast for me today and I don't feel like wading through it all, so I'm just going to comment on the initial point.

I think it's fair to question Gore's electric and gas usage (just as I think it's fair to question Bono's tax shelters). He has to know that he needs to walk the walk as well as talking the talk. I don't think his usage of power negates his message, but it doesn't help either because it gives his opponents a way to divert attention from the necessary systemic changes which need to be made.

If he's smart he will take steps to seriously cut the power usage for his house and guest house -- and soon. Where most people can really only easily afford to make changes such as replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents, using only cold water for laundry, hanging clothes to dry instead of using a dryer, closing off heating/cooling ducts to unused rooms, lowering/raising the temperature a few degrees in the winter/summer, Gore does have the wherewithal to make his home a poster child for greenness. It wouldn't solve the problem of course, and if every household in the US was as green as possible it still wouldn't solve the problem, but it would be great publicity and would help to keep the focus on the bigger issue.

[Diemen]

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.

[Vincent Vega]

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.

[Ormus]

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.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by AEON


The guys did better tonight.

agreed.

[BVS]

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.