An Inconvenient Electric Bill

[Irvine511]

forget it.

 

[INDY500]

WWJD

What would Jesus drive?

 

[U2Man]

Does a cardiologist lose all credability on how people should eat low fat diets if he has a big steak for dinner?

thats not the same scenario. the cardiologist will only hurt himself by eating that steak. he can believe in his science and yet choose that lifestyle, it will only hurt himself. its his choice.

the environment is a common good. if you tell other people to take care of it (for the benefit of society), and don't do it yourself, then you are being a hypocrite.

still a hypocrite's message can be true, though.

 

[Irvine511]

WWJD

What would Jesus drive?

the mofo walked. like me.

 

[Justin24]

Then I say we start making a petition for all our congressmen/woman to make all cars use organic fuell, from corn stock. Bio diesel

 

[BVS]

I didn't post this to debate global warming. Jesus will fix it. I just wanted to point out that Gore is a fraud.

And if he doesn't? Is Jesus a fraud, or his followers?

It reminds of the story of the man in the flood. A car, a boat, a helicopter all come to rescue him while the water raises higher. He turns them all down and says, God will save me. Finally the man only has his chimney to stand on before he drowns. When he's up in heaven he asks God, why didn't you save me, I've been such a loyal servant? God answers, what did you want me to do? I sent you a car, a boat, and a helicopter...

You call Gore a fraud without much to go on. I think that's called "bearing false witness upon your neighbor" or "gossip" in the Bible.

Who's the fraud now?

 

[randhail]

thats not the same scenario. the cardiologist will only hurt himself by eating that steak. he can believe in his science and yet choose that lifestyle, it will only hurt himself. its his choice.
.

That may be true, but he's still a hypocrite which could turn patients off of his advice. Do as I say and not as I do. Same could be said if he said quit smoking, yet he lights up as often as he can.

 

[BVS]

WWJD

What would Jesus drive?

Birkenstocks

 

[Vincent Vega]

But what if he is wrong and it's a cycle the earth goes through every couple of thousands of years? Would you then put him in the Bush there are WMD's in Iraq box?

So we should go on wasting the earth to find out when we have the possibility to change the pollution we are causing?

I don't care what is in the Bible, or in Revelation 21:1, I want ot live in this world.

 

[Justin24]

Have they done research on volcanos? weather patters? What about the earths tilt could that have done something.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I agree.

But a bill alone doesn't have any context to it. I'm not the biggest Gore fan, but I'm not ready to call him a hypocrite just yet due to his electricity bill.

What about his international travel? Webcasting should be the first thing adopted by politicians; it saves taxpayers money and the environment.

 

[BVS]

Justin, have you not read anything about global warming?

 

[BVS]

What about his international travel? Webcasting should be the first thing adopted by politicians; it saves taxpayers money and the environment.

Yes webcasting is cool and yes it saves resources but we still live in a world where shaking a hand and eye to eye contact is important...

 

[Justin24]

Some not all I admit. But why should we also turn a blind eye to that of which I wrote?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Didn't Al Gore say at the Oscars that it's not a political issue? I think he was either drunk or he's doing some naive wishful thinking. Republicans are certainly making it a political issue, and against a guy who says he's not even going to run.

And the use of the term denialist isn't political?

 

[BVS]

Some not all I admit. But why should we also turn a blind eye to that of which I wrote?

We haven't, what makes you think anyone has?

 

[Justin24]

Because I have not seen anyone bring it up.

 

[BVS]

Because I have not seen anyone bring it up.

No one's brought up Mel Gibson either, do you think he could be a factor?

 

[financeguy]

This is another swiftboating attempt.

Yep

 

[Ormus]

Some alarm bells should go off here for the more discerning reader.

First off, who the hell is "The Tennessee Center for Policy Research," and why should I care? It really doesn't take very much to be "an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization." That doesn't mean that you're not allowed to have an ideological slant, and a quick view of their website uncovers at least that much.

And, to that group's credit, they do make that ideological bend fairly clear. Here's the full disclaimer on their press release:

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions.

I guess that Drudge didn't see that part to be important enough, since nearly all "free market" types would rather see the world burn to the ground than do anything that might lead to higher taxes.

Considering their bias, I'm already suspect of their claims. But that's not to say that one shouldn't be suspect of Gore. By the way, he does have a response to this:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A day after actor Leonardo DiCaprio hailed Al Gore on the Oscar stage as a "inspirational leader in the fight against global warming," the former vice president was forced to respond to charges from a Tennessee organization that his home consumes significantly more energy than the national average.

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that Gore's "mansion" "consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year."

"The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh -- more than 20 times the national average," the group charged in a statement.

"Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," the groups president Drew Johnson said in the statement.

But a spokesman for Gore quickly fired back Monday night, claiming, "The Gore's purchase all of their power through the local Green Powerswitch program -- it is 100 percent renewable power."

"In addition, they are in the midst of a renovation which includes installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Gore's spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said in a statement.

Ouch. I guess the "nonpartisan, independent" Tennessee Center for Policy Research left out that part.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Have they done research on volcanos? weather patters? What about the earths tilt could that have done something.

You don't want to get it, do you?

I've said several times now that there is no need to worsen it by simply not caring. And I have acknowledged accompanying natural effects with the man-made effects.

Today there was an interesting article about the weather and its weakly cycles.
Now, these weakly cycles hadn't been seen thirty years ago.
Today it is that Saturday is the day with the most rainfall and cloudiness. Wednesday is the hottest, Sunday the coolest, and Monday the driest.
In the 1970's that was not the case.

This was empirical data, with empirical observation all over Germany.
Similar data has been gathered by the USA and Canada.
The weather just follows this cycle and all scientists came to the same conclusion: That it is caused by the waste from the increased car driving during the week.

This is just weather, and weather is short term. But long term, climate, you can see that there is a change as well comparing the situation in the 1970's, when pollution was highest and just built up these huge amounts in the atmosphere, and today.

 

[financeguy]

since nearly all "free market" types would rather see the world burn to the ground than do anything that might lead to higher taxes.

Very true, unfortunately. Extremist free marketeers have debauched the philosophy of conservatism for years - in their own way, they are every bit as extreme and ideological - and damaging for society - as revolutionary Marxist-Leninists.

 

[U2Man]

al gore might be a hypocrite but that doesnt make the science, he tries to convey, faulty.

 

[Ormus]

Have they done research on volcanos? weather patters? What about the earths tilt could that have done something.

1) Volcanic eruptions are notable for their emissions of sulfur dioxide--a global coolant. And that's independent of the volcanic ash itself, which can theoretically block sunlight. The last volcanic eruption of any global climactic notability, the eruption of Indonesia's Mount Tambora in 1816, was so powerful that it caused "The Year Without a Summer."

2) The Earth's tilt does have larger cycles (Milankovitch cycles), but they occur slowly and with a regular pattern. In other words, there wouldn't be an abrupt change.

 

[INDY500]

So we should go on wasting the earth to find out when we have the possibility to change the pollution we are causing?

I don't care what is in the Bible, or in Revelation 21:1, I want ot live in this world.

I don't think it's wasting, it's using resources to the best of our technology. That we now use energy consuming machines to do what 100 years ago required the physical labor of a man or animal...is a good thing. An advancement.

But technological advancements come with a trade-off don't they?
Fossil fuels pollute and may cause global climate changes. Ok, let's switch to nuclear power. No, that's too icky we're told.

So, do we listen to the alarmists that warn us to cut back on our energy use and therefore slow our progress and lessen our prosperity. Or do we go forward, trusting in the same technology and ingenuity that transformed the world of poverty, filth and sickness that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution, to today's standard of living---to find solutions.

 

[Ormus]

However, at some point in time - there will be a new Heaven and a new Earth.

And, in the meantime, we have to live in the Earth that we've got. If God didn't stop terrorism or save the Roman Empire even after Christianity became the state religion, who's to say that God is interested in stepping in to stop us from destroying the planet?

(In fact, to step back to the Roman Empire for a moment, it's theorized that Christianity actually hastened the demise of the empire, because of complacency. After all, "Jesus was going to come again," so why care all that much if your empire is falling apart at the seams?)

Contrary to what others might think, I do believe that nature has a built-in "failsafe" to all of this to prevent us from becoming Venus. Since Earth exists outside of the zone in the solar system, where the Sun, alone, is enough to warm us up (only Mercury and Venus inhabit this zone), we're dependent on natural processes that ultimately form our "greenhouse effect" for warmth. Damage nature enough and you could very well damage the "greenhouse," allowing us to revert to a rather interesting part of Earth's geological past: the "Snowball Earth."

So, yes, I do believe that the Earth is fairly robust, but that doesn't mean that Earth's life is as adaptable. We've had many "mass extinction" events, and there's nothing that says that we will automatically survive one. But life would go on for other, lesser animal species, affording them the millions of years for our dominant successor to evolve.

 

[randhail]

So, do we listen to the alarmists that warn us to cut back on our energy use and therefore slow our progress and lessen our prosperity. Or do we go forward, trusting in the same technology and ingenuity that transformed the world of poverty, filth and sickness that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution, to today's standard of living---to find solutions.

Why does cutting back on energy have to slow down progress? It's actually just the opposite - it would spur great new technological advances, while you're actually advocating maintaining what we have now. That's not progess to me.

 

[AEON]

And, in the meantime, we have to live in the Earth that we've got. If God didn't stop terrorism or save the Roman Empire even after Christianity became the state religion, who's to say that God is interested in stepping in to stop us from destroying the planet?

(In fact, to step back to the Roman Empire for a moment, it's theorized that Christianity actually hastened the demise of the empire, because of complacency. After all, "Jesus was going to come again," so why care all that much if your empire is falling apart at the seams?)

Contrary to what others might think, I do believe that nature has a built-in "failsafe" to all of this to prevent us from becoming Venus. Since Earth exists outside of the zone in the solar system, where the Sun, alone, is enough to warm us up (only Mercury and Venus inhabit this zone), we're dependent on natural processes that ultimately form our "greenhouse effect" for warmth. Damage nature enough and you could very well damage the "greenhouse," allowing us to revert to a rather interesting part of Earth's geological past: the "Snowball Earth."

So, yes, I do believe that the Earth is fairly robust, but that doesn't mean that Earth's life is as adaptable. We've had many "mass extinction" events, and there's nothing that says that we will automatically survive one. But life would go on for other, lesser animal species, affording them the millions of years for our dominant successor to evolve.

It was meant to be tongue in cheek. I do honestly believe that we ARE designed to be good stewards of the planet.

 

[Ormus]

I don't think it's wasting, it's using resources to the best of our technology. That we now use energy consuming machines to do what 100 years ago required the physical labor of a man or animal...is a good thing. An advancement.

But technological advancements come with a trade-off don't they?
Fossil fuels pollute and may cause global climate changes. Ok, let's switch to nuclear power. No, that's too icky we're told.

So, do we listen to the alarmists that warn us to cut back on our energy use and therefore slow our progress and lessen our prosperity. Or do we go forward, trusting in the same technology and ingenuity that transformed the world of poverty, filth and sickness that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution, to today's standard of living---to find solutions.

1) We do waste a lot of energy, so it's not necessarily bad advice to try and cut back.

2) Conservation is never going to be about shuttering the global economy. Al Gore and his contemporaries have too many stock investments to allow that, so that "alarmism" is really just mindless fearmongering--probably instigated by our slow-moving corporate monoliths that refuse to spend one dime on R&D, but spend plenty on lobbying.

3) Since conservatives obviously don't care about climate change, this argument is really best phrased from a "national security" standpoint. Our "drug dealers," so to say, are all unstable third-world countries that could turn against us. Currently, market conditions don't exactly put that too much in their favor; Venezuela and Iran, for all its tough talk, would go broke if the U.S. stopped buying oil from it.

However, it would be foolish to expect this to last forever. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the U.S.' status as the sole global superpower has given the world an incentive to become more powerful (after all, there's two things that the market hates: a vacuum and a monopoly). The market already reflects this, in part, as emerging markets investments are at record levels, and are seen as the best place for long-term growth. So will it be China, India, or the E.U.? Or maybe none of them, in particular, but if they get collectively stronger and pissed off at us, they certainly could make our lives hell.

As such, if we expect to be a wealthy nation by the 22nd century, we'd best start preparing to be more self-reliant on energy, whether that includes ethanol, wind power, solar power, ocean power (a new and highly promising power technology, as oceanic currents are strong and constant, compared to wind power), or nuclear power. Realistically, it will end up including all of that, as technologies like hydrogen fuel will require a robust power grid like that.

 

[financeguy]

So, do we listen to the alarmists that warn us to cut back on our energy use and therefore slow our progress and lessen our prosperity. Or do we go forward, trusting in the same technology and ingenuity that transformed the world of poverty, filth and sickness that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution, to today's standard of living---to find solutions.

This is all well and good, but I think that to stop nature inflicting upon us a fate that frankly we as a species probably deserve, we have no choice but to dramatically alter our current system of mass consumption and unimpeded growth.