An Inconvenient Electric Bill

[MrsSpringsteen]

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

[Rono]

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

yes,...it makes me think.

[INDY500]

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.

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.

[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.

[Copy]

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!!!

[BVS]

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.

[Vincent Vega]

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.

[INDY500]

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.

[elevated_u2_fan]

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.

[INDY500]

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.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by INDY500


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.

Of course you don't have to care.

Why should you care about the earth in the 2060's, right?

[trevster2k]

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? Imagine the new frontiers that global warming might bring to your country.

Your short sightedness on this topic is remarkable. Visiting Hawaii is a treat, their ecosystem has adapted to such a climate. Climate change is not simply global warming and having warmer weather for people to have fun in the sun. Climatic changes in Canada are already having a negative effect on the Inuit, ice thicknesses on lakes used for highways in the north to connect communities which are inaccessible by roads are thinner and occur for shorter periods of time affecting the ability of these communities to receive supplies, pests like the pine beetle are moving further and further north decimating our forests because it is no longer cold enough to kill their larvae in the winter thus having a negative on the forest industry, oil and gas exploration in the north is facing new challenges in exploring due to the warmer weather as many areas where they work need frozen ground to be able to drive into the bush and search. Some of our water resources are being diminished by melting of glacial ice too. The ground in northern Canada is mush,bog, soft thus frozen land makes it easier for the people of northern Canada. I am not a big fan of seals but some are suggesting lack of sea ice will have a negative impact on the birth of seals as significant numbers may drown if the ice isn't thick enough for females to have their pups.

Canada along with the Nordic European nations and Russia will definitely be among the first to feel the effects of climate change. Drought and water shortages in the coming decades will be effects we will all feel.

[BVS]

Originally posted by INDY500


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.

This coming from someone who believes the conspiracy theories of the paranoid ultra-right?

[INDY500]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega


Of course you don't have to care.

Why should you care about the earth in the 2060's, right?

Is that what I'm saying? I don't care? No, I'm saying that let's not pretend that life on the planet Earth isn't full of change. Most of it very unexpected. Most of it completely out of our control.

Change, a problem or an opportunity?

[elevated_u2_fan]

Originally posted by INDY500


Is that what I'm saying? I don't care? No, I'm saying that let's not pretend that life on the planet Earth isn't full of change. Most of it very unexpected. Most of it completely out of our control.

Change, a problem or an opportunity?

So you care.... You just don't want to do anything about it?

[INDY500]

Originally posted by trevster2k


Your short sightedness on this topic is remarkable. Visiting Hawaii is a treat, their ecosystem has adapted to such a climate. Climate change is not simply global warming and having warmer weather for people to have fun in the sun. Climatic changes in Canada are already having a negative effect on the Inuit, ice thicknesses on lakes used for highways in the north to connect communities which are inaccessible by roads are thinner and occur for shorter periods of time affecting the ability of these communities to receive supplies, pests like the pine beetle are moving further and further north decimating our forests because it is no longer cold enough to kill their larvae in the winter thus having a negative on the forest industry, oil and gas exploration in the north is facing new challenges in exploring due to the warmer weather as many areas where they work need frozen ground to be able to drive into the bush and search. Some of our water resources are being diminished by melting of glacial ice too. The ground in northern Canada is mush,bog, soft thus frozen land makes it easier for the people of northern Canada. I am not a big fan of seals but some are suggesting lack of sea ice will have a negative impact on the birth of seals as significant numbers may drown if the ice isn't thick enough for females to have their pups.

Canada along with the Nordic European nations and Russia will definitely be among the first to feel the effects of climate change. Drought and water shortages in the coming decades will be effects we will all feel.

Actually, that's very interesting. Thanks for spending the time to post that information.

Let me assume for a minute that Al Gore is 100% correct. That it's true when he says "the world has 10 years or less to turn things around before it is too late."
Canada would have to reduce it's CO(2) emissions by one third to meet it's Kyoto target by 2012. (You can look it up)
Is that possible? And even Kyoto Protocol advocates admit that if fully implemented, it would affect global temps by less than 1/10 of a degree. In fact, we may need 30 Kyotos to make a real difference.
Frankly, I don't think we can afford to fix global-warming at this time even if we had the political will, so in the short run, wouldn't adaptation strategies make more sense, until we have the technology needed?

[BVS]

Originally posted by INDY500


Actually, that's very interesting. Thanks for spending the time to post that information.

Let me assume for a minute that Al Gore is 100% correct. That it's true when he says "the world has 10 years or less to turn things around before it is too late."
Canada would have to reduce it's CO(2) emissions by one third to meet it's Kyoto target by 2012. (You can look it up)
Is that possible? And even Kyoto Protocol advocates admit that if fully implemented, it would affect global temps by less than 1/10 of a degree. In fact, we may need 30 Kyotos to make a real difference.
Frankly, I don't think we can afford to fix global-warming at this time even if we had the political will, so in the short run, wouldn't adaptation strategies make more sense, until we have the technology needed?

When Gore said "turn things around before it's too late" did he mean those goals must be met within 10 years? Or steps to make those goals within the next 10 years?

[A_Wanderer]

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.

Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm

[INDY500]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


When Gore said "turn things around before it's too late" did he mean those goals must be met within 10 years? Or steps to make those goals within the next 10 years?

Doesn't matter, at this point in time we can't make the changes really necessary, even if we wanted, because of economics.

Unless you want to handcuff our economy, lose jobs and deprive the planets most impoverished citizens a chance to access electricity and other modern technologies.

[BVS]

Too bad he hasn't learned anything from his house.