Rockadelic, where did you get the idea that Gore didn't do anything about climate change while he was in office? Too much talk radio?
Climate change was a fairly high priority - in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Gore presented a a comprehensive climate change action plan to serve as a framework for the next 4/8 years. Here's a link: http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html
This was pre-Kyoto, and one of the central parts of the plan was a "carbon tax" (BTU-based energy tax prorated across energy sources). The first attempt to implement it was in the House in 1994. It got shot down quickly thanks to intense lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute.
Nowadays the carbon tax is a favorite of moderate Republican economists like Greg Mankiw, who see it as a less complicated and less globally binding alternative to Kyoto Protocol membership. Needless to say they don't acknowledge Gore's attempt to do the same thing 12 years ago.
No doubt Gore presented and attempted to pass some enironmental laws...my question was what did he actually accomplish??
I don't care who you are...If I'm told that I should sell my SUV and do whatever I can to stop burning fossil fuels by a guy in a Private Jet I'm gonna call hypocrisy, and that's all I attempted to do initially in this thread.
And if he lived on a granola commune in Vermont you'd pay full attention to what he has to say?
Probably not but I wouldn't be able to call him a hypocrite then could I???
who cares if he is a hypocrite. the people funding the message that global warming doesnt exist are the polluters who make tons of money and fear legislation that would restrict how they operate. you admit that global warming is a threat, right? so just leave it at that. is gore speculating and exaggerating as to how severe and imminent the damage will be? perhaps, but that really isn't the point. his message is to take measures to prevent global warming. what's wrong with that? keep in mind that the anti-gore message has a terrible agenda. what harmful agenda do gore and the anti-global warming scientists have?[/b]
That's a particularly interesting question.
I'm also disturbed by Rock's use of "stewardship", a term I have previously heard only from the mouths of religiously oriented right wingers, used to define a "use" of natural resources, justified by a "God put it there for us to use, so we should use it" attitude. I believe it even has biblical roots.
Rockadelic, where did you get the idea that Gore didn't do anything about climate change while he was in office? Too much talk radio?
Climate change was a fairly high priority - in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Gore presented a a comprehensive climate change action plan to serve as a framework for the next 4/8 years. Here's a link: http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html
This was pre-Kyoto, and one of the central parts of the plan was a "carbon tax" (BTU-based energy tax prorated across energy sources). The first attempt to implement it was in the House in 1994. It got shot down quickly thanks to intense lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute.
Nowadays the carbon tax is a favorite of moderate Republican economists like Greg Mankiw, who see it as a less complicated and less globally binding alternative to Kyoto Protocol membership. Needless to say they don't acknowledge Gore's attempt to do the same thing 12 years ago.
No doubt Gore presented and attempted to pass some enironmental laws...my question was what did he actually accomplish??
I don't care who you are...If I'm told that I should sell my SUV and do whatever I can to stop burning fossil fuels by a guy in a Private Jet I'm gonna call hypocrisy, and that's all I attempted to do initially in this thread.
And if he lived on a granola commune in Vermont you'd pay full attention to what he has to say?
Probably not but I wouldn't be able to call him a hypocrite then could I???
who cares if he is a hypocrite. the people funding the message that global warming doesnt exist are the polluters who make tons of money and fear legislation that would restrict how they operate. you admit that global warming is a threat, right? so just leave it at that. is gore speculating and exaggerating as to how severe and imminent the damage will be? perhaps, but that really isn't the point. his message is to take measures to prevent global warming. what's wrong with that? keep in mind that the anti-gore message has a terrible agenda. what harmful agenda do gore and the anti-global warming scientists have?[/b]
That's a particularly interesting question.
I'm also disturbed by Rock's use of "stewardship", a term I have previously heard only from the mouths of religiously oriented right wingers, used to define a "use" of natural resources, justified by a "God put it there for us to use, so we should use it" attitude. I believe it even has biblical roots.
Being a "Steward" is a word that has been used in a myriad of ways. In most Unions there is a "Shop Steward" which basically means he is to oversee and insure proper work ethics and practices.
Being an "Environmental Steward" is a phrase first used by Environmental Groups and is intended to mean that we will oversee and properly treat our environment.
I am glad that in the days of Richard Nixon republicans were not on an anti-science crusade. DDT would have never been banned in todays climate where, for every expert who found that DDT caused decreases in bird populations, there was an expert who said it didn't. That expert would then say, the person who said it did ate an apple that had been grown with DDT.
Isn't there a debate going on now about DDT? With using it in the fight against malaria.
Rockadelic, where did you get the idea that Gore didn't do anything about climate change while he was in office? Too much talk radio?
Climate change was a fairly high priority - in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Gore presented a a comprehensive climate change action plan to serve as a framework for the next 4/8 years. Here's a link: http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html
This was pre-Kyoto, and one of the central parts of the plan was a "carbon tax" (BTU-based energy tax prorated across energy sources). The first attempt to implement it was in the House in 1994. It got shot down quickly thanks to intense lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute.
Nowadays the carbon tax is a favorite of moderate Republican economists like Greg Mankiw, who see it as a less complicated and less globally binding alternative to Kyoto Protocol membership. Needless to say they don't acknowledge Gore's attempt to do the same thing 12 years ago.
No doubt Gore presented and attempted to pass some enironmental laws...my question was what did he actually accomplish??
I don't care who you are...If I'm told that I should sell my SUV and do whatever I can to stop burning fossil fuels by a guy in a Private Jet I'm gonna call hypocrisy, and that's all I attempted to do initially in this thread.
And if he lived on a granola commune in Vermont you'd pay full attention to what he has to say?
Probably not but I wouldn't be able to call him a hypocrite then could I???
You'd call him irrelevant. Or maybe poke fun at his private press records. It's just weird that you seem to be able to relate to Bush but not Gore when they are both "do as I say not as I do" elites.
Show me a post where I "relate" to GW Bush???
The problem with SS is that if you don't fall in step with the overwhelming left leaning politics of the board you're automatically labeled a Bush Dick Sucker or Sabadababa.....depending on what the poster feels is the worse insult of those two!!
Sorry, you relate to his causes or viewpoints. Like immigration, global warming, crusades, etc.
Sabadabada reminds me more of
I am 100% against Bush's Immigration plan that includes amnesty and have said so on this board.....are you just making this shit up??
I was talking about border control and Repub-sponsored ballots, not some campaign 2-liner (you called it a "plan"?) that's had no bearing on reality.
I'd replace "defeatist" with "realist" and I can assure you there are opportunities within my industry to get paid while adding to the decline of our environment. I feel good about what I do and that is why I do it, certainly not because it pays better than the former position would. True I am sure.
The reason my associates and I are able to accomplish what we have has very little to do with politics and politicians.
I doubt that. The only reason you are getting paid to do what you do is A) You are helping industry and goverments to work within enviormental laws and regulations that were passed by politicians. B) You are helping industry and goverment become more green, a goal that is closely tied to the politics of the enviormental movement. AS you know, the republicans have politisized and attaked those green politics.
Overall I'd say that politicians of BOTH parties have made my job harder, not easier. No doubt.
I'm also disturbed by Rock's use of "stewardship", a term I have previously heard only from the mouths of religiously oriented right wingers, used to define a "use" of natural resources, justified by a "God put it there for us to use, so we should use it" attitude. I believe it even has biblical roots.
haha WTF did you pull this paragraph out of?
The stewardess on my flight home tried to baptize me!!!
The problem with SS is that if you don't fall in step with the overwhelming left leaning politics of the board you're automatically labeled a Bush Dick Sucker or Sabadababa.....depending on what the poster feels is the worse insult of those two!!
And unfortunately this helps perpetuate the climate of the board as some are afraid to or just won't waste their time trying to present an opposing view.
It seems that anything outside the scope of what is definitely the Staus Quo here politically is met with hatred and intolerance.
Rockadelic, where did you get the idea that Gore didn't do anything about climate change while he was in office? Too much talk radio?
Climate change was a fairly high priority - in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Gore presented a a comprehensive climate change action plan to serve as a framework for the next 4/8 years. Here's a link: http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html
This was pre-Kyoto, and one of the central parts of the plan was a "carbon tax" (BTU-based energy tax prorated across energy sources). The first attempt to implement it was in the House in 1994. It got shot down quickly thanks to intense lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute.
Nowadays the carbon tax is a favorite of moderate Republican economists like Greg Mankiw, who see it as a less complicated and less globally binding alternative to Kyoto Protocol membership. Needless to say they don't acknowledge Gore's attempt to do the same thing 12 years ago.
No doubt Gore presented and attempted to pass some enironmental laws...my question was what did he actually accomplish??
I don't care who you are...If I'm told that I should sell my SUV and do whatever I can to stop burning fossil fuels by a guy in a Private Jet I'm gonna call hypocrisy, and that's all I attempted to do initially in this thread.
And if he lived on a granola commune in Vermont you'd pay full attention to what he has to say?
Probably not but I wouldn't be able to call him a hypocrite then could I???
who cares if he is a hypocrite. the people funding the message that global warming doesnt exist are the polluters who make tons of money and fear legislation that would restrict how they operate. you admit that global warming is a threat, right? so just leave it at that. is gore speculating and exaggerating as to how severe and imminent the damage will be? perhaps, but that really isn't the point. his message is to take measures to prevent global warming. what's wrong with that? keep in mind that the anti-gore message has a terrible agenda. what harmful agenda do gore and the anti-global warming scientists have?[/b]
That's a particularly interesting question.
I'm also disturbed by Rock's use of "stewardship", a term I have previously heard only from the mouths of religiously oriented right wingers, used to define a "use" of natural resources, justified by a "God put it there for us to use, so we should use it" attitude. I believe it even has biblical roots.
Being a "Steward" is a word that has been used in a myriad of ways. In most Unions there is a "Shop Steward" which basically means he is to oversee and insure proper work ethics and practices.
Being an "Environmental Steward" is a phrase first used by Environmental Groups and is intended to mean that we will oversee and properly treat our environment.
Talk about semantics.
Yes, let's talk about semantics and the essential dishonesty of your response. I know what the fuck "steward" means, and for you to dance around the issue of the use of the word "stewardship" by those that are essentially hostile to environmental protection, by virtue of religious belief is bullshit. You know what I'm talking about.
The first time I EVER heard anyone use the term "stewardship" in relation to the environment was James Watt during the Reagan years, in EXACTLY the context I was describing.
I'm also disturbed by Rock's use of "stewardship", a term I have previously heard only from the mouths of religiously oriented right wingers, used to define a "use" of natural resources, justified by a "God put it there for us to use, so we should use it" attitude. I believe it even has biblical roots.
haha WTF did you pull this paragraph out of?
The stewardess on my flight home tried to baptize me!!!
Google the following "concept of stewardship Leviticus"
Rockadelic, where did you get the idea that Gore didn't do anything about climate change while he was in office? Too much talk radio?
Climate change was a fairly high priority - in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Gore presented a a comprehensive climate change action plan to serve as a framework for the next 4/8 years. Here's a link: http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html
This was pre-Kyoto, and one of the central parts of the plan was a "carbon tax" (BTU-based energy tax prorated across energy sources). The first attempt to implement it was in the House in 1994. It got shot down quickly thanks to intense lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute.
Nowadays the carbon tax is a favorite of moderate Republican economists like Greg Mankiw, who see it as a less complicated and less globally binding alternative to Kyoto Protocol membership. Needless to say they don't acknowledge Gore's attempt to do the same thing 12 years ago.
No doubt Gore presented and attempted to pass some enironmental laws...my question was what did he actually accomplish??
I don't care who you are...If I'm told that I should sell my SUV and do whatever I can to stop burning fossil fuels by a guy in a Private Jet I'm gonna call hypocrisy, and that's all I attempted to do initially in this thread.
And if he lived on a granola commune in Vermont you'd pay full attention to what he has to say?
Probably not but I wouldn't be able to call him a hypocrite then could I???
who cares if he is a hypocrite. the people funding the message that global warming doesnt exist are the polluters who make tons of money and fear legislation that would restrict how they operate. you admit that global warming is a threat, right? so just leave it at that. is gore speculating and exaggerating as to how severe and imminent the damage will be? perhaps, but that really isn't the point. his message is to take measures to prevent global warming. what's wrong with that? keep in mind that the anti-gore message has a terrible agenda. what harmful agenda do gore and the anti-global warming scientists have?[/b]
That's a particularly interesting question.
I'm also disturbed by Rock's use of "stewardship", a term I have previously heard only from the mouths of religiously oriented right wingers, used to define a "use" of natural resources, justified by a "God put it there for us to use, so we should use it" attitude. I believe it even has biblical roots.
Being a "Steward" is a word that has been used in a myriad of ways. In most Unions there is a "Shop Steward" which basically means he is to oversee and insure proper work ethics and practices.
Being an "Environmental Steward" is a phrase first used by Environmental Groups and is intended to mean that we will oversee and properly treat our environment.
Talk about semantics.
Yes, let's talk about semantics and the essential dishonesty of your response. I know what the fuck "steward" means, and for you to dance around the issue of the use of the word "stewardship" by those that are essentially hostile to environmental protection, by virtue of religious belief is bullshit. You know what I'm talking about.
The first time I EVER heard anyone use the term "stewardship" in relation to the environment was James Watt during the Reagan years, in EXACTLY the context I was describing.
I can assure you that the word is used in my industry as a positive term relating to improvement....plain and simple. Just because some lunatics use it in a different context doesn't invalidate the word from being used correctly.
For you to question my values and intent after laying out what my life's work has been, and I assume you view these works as positive things, is beyond contempt.
Rockadelic, where did you get the idea that Gore didn't do anything about climate change while he was in office? Too much talk radio?
Climate change was a fairly high priority - in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Gore presented a a comprehensive climate change action plan to serve as a framework for the next 4/8 years. Here's a link: http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html
This was pre-Kyoto, and one of the central parts of the plan was a "carbon tax" (BTU-based energy tax prorated across energy sources). The first attempt to implement it was in the House in 1994. It got shot down quickly thanks to intense lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute.
Nowadays the carbon tax is a favorite of moderate Republican economists like Greg Mankiw, who see it as a less complicated and less globally binding alternative to Kyoto Protocol membership. Needless to say they don't acknowledge Gore's attempt to do the same thing 12 years ago.
No doubt Gore presented and attempted to pass some enironmental laws...my question was what did he actually accomplish??
I don't care who you are...If I'm told that I should sell my SUV and do whatever I can to stop burning fossil fuels by a guy in a Private Jet I'm gonna call hypocrisy, and that's all I attempted to do initially in this thread.
And if he lived on a granola commune in Vermont you'd pay full attention to what he has to say?
Probably not but I wouldn't be able to call him a hypocrite then could I???
who cares if he is a hypocrite. the people funding the message that global warming doesnt exist are the polluters who make tons of money and fear legislation that would restrict how they operate. you admit that global warming is a threat, right? so just leave it at that. is gore speculating and exaggerating as to how severe and imminent the damage will be? perhaps, but that really isn't the point. his message is to take measures to prevent global warming. what's wrong with that? keep in mind that the anti-gore message has a terrible agenda. what harmful agenda do gore and the anti-global warming scientists have?[/b]
That's a particularly interesting question.
I'm also disturbed by Rock's use of "stewardship", a term I have previously heard only from the mouths of religiously oriented right wingers, used to define a "use" of natural resources, justified by a "God put it there for us to use, so we should use it" attitude. I believe it even has biblical roots.
Being a "Steward" is a word that has been used in a myriad of ways. In most Unions there is a "Shop Steward" which basically means he is to oversee and insure proper work ethics and practices.
Being an "Environmental Steward" is a phrase first used by Environmental Groups and is intended to mean that we will oversee and properly treat our environment.
Talk about semantics.
Yes, let's talk about semantics and the essential dishonesty of your response. I know what the fuck "steward" means, and for you to dance around the issue of the use of the word "stewardship" by those that are essentially hostile to environmental protection, by virtue of religious belief is bullshit. You know what I'm talking about.
The first time I EVER heard anyone use the term "stewardship" in relation to the environment was James Watt during the Reagan years, in EXACTLY the context I was describing.
I can assure you that the word is used in my industry as a positive term relating to improvement....plain and simple. Just because some lunatics use it in a different context doesn't invalidate the word from being used correctly.
For you to question my values and intent after laying out what my life's work has been, and I assume you view these works as positive things, is beyond contempt.
That's me. Beyond contempt. If I worked in an industry that claimed to be working "for" the environment while absorbing and repeating the cant of those that are essentially hostile to it, I'd start to question my work.
The problem with SS is that if you don't fall in step with the overwhelming left leaning politics of the board you're automatically labeled a Bush Dick Sucker or Sabadababa.....depending on what the poster feels is the worse insult of those two!!
And unfortunately this helps perpetuate the climate of the board as some are afraid to or just won't waste their time trying to present an opposing view.
It seems that anything outside the scope of what is definitely the Staus Quo here politically is met with hatred and intolerance.
The status quo on here is "Which Nike's Should I Cop?" and white kids arguing about regional rap. Hardly a radical leftist agenda..... or is it? hmmmmm.
As to Chinas role in co2 emmisions, here are a few things I found:
China China, the world's most populous country, mines a third of all the coal cut from the Earth, providing three quarters of the country's energy requirements. It has made Chinese cities the most polluted on Earth [10] and the country the world's second largest source of CO2. But China is also engaged in a massive effort to clean up both its own backyard and the planet.
China is switching to natural gas, cutting coal subsidies and investing heavily in improved energy efficiency. A National Improved Stove Programme has upgraded 160 million domestic stoves. Since 1996, China has shut down 60 000 smoky and inefficient industrial boilers, while hundreds of small inefficient power stations over 25 years old are also to be closed.
Overall since the early 1980s, China has improved its energy efficiency by 47 percent, doubling economic output while raising CO2 emissions by only 50 percent. In 1998, while increasing its economic output by more than 7.2 percent, it actually reduced its emissions of CO2 by 3.7 percent -- thanks mainly to continuing declines in coal burning [11] [Add].
This is part of an dated but very interesting web page .
more up to date and record related:
Private Business' Largest-Scale Solar Power System Installed at TDK's Changan Factory in China web page
Here is some general info from the UK on who is producing co2 and why. Us and Australia produce much more than most every other country per person, China produces far less. web page
Rockadelic, where did you get the idea that Gore didn't do anything about climate change while he was in office? Too much talk radio?
Climate change was a fairly high priority - in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Gore presented a a comprehensive climate change action plan to serve as a framework for the next 4/8 years. Here's a link: http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html
This was pre-Kyoto, and one of the central parts of the plan was a "carbon tax" (BTU-based energy tax prorated across energy sources). The first attempt to implement it was in the House in 1994. It got shot down quickly thanks to intense lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute.
Nowadays the carbon tax is a favorite of moderate Republican economists like Greg Mankiw, who see it as a less complicated and less globally binding alternative to Kyoto Protocol membership. Needless to say they don't acknowledge Gore's attempt to do the same thing 12 years ago.
No doubt Gore presented and attempted to pass some enironmental laws...my question was what did he actually accomplish??
I don't care who you are...If I'm told that I should sell my SUV and do whatever I can to stop burning fossil fuels by a guy in a Private Jet I'm gonna call hypocrisy, and that's all I attempted to do initially in this thread.
And if he lived on a granola commune in Vermont you'd pay full attention to what he has to say?
Probably not but I wouldn't be able to call him a hypocrite then could I???
who cares if he is a hypocrite. the people funding the message that global warming doesnt exist are the polluters who make tons of money and fear legislation that would restrict how they operate. you admit that global warming is a threat, right? so just leave it at that. is gore speculating and exaggerating as to how severe and imminent the damage will be? perhaps, but that really isn't the point. his message is to take measures to prevent global warming. what's wrong with that? keep in mind that the anti-gore message has a terrible agenda. what harmful agenda do gore and the anti-global warming scientists have?[/b]
That's a particularly interesting question.
I'm also disturbed by Rock's use of "stewardship", a term I have previously heard only from the mouths of religiously oriented right wingers, used to define a "use" of natural resources, justified by a "God put it there for us to use, so we should use it" attitude. I believe it even has biblical roots.
Being a "Steward" is a word that has been used in a myriad of ways. In most Unions there is a "Shop Steward" which basically means he is to oversee and insure proper work ethics and practices.
Being an "Environmental Steward" is a phrase first used by Environmental Groups and is intended to mean that we will oversee and properly treat our environment.
Talk about semantics.
Yes, let's talk about semantics and the essential dishonesty of your response. I know what the fuck "steward" means, and for you to dance around the issue of the use of the word "stewardship" by those that are essentially hostile to environmental protection, by virtue of religious belief is bullshit. You know what I'm talking about.
The first time I EVER heard anyone use the term "stewardship" in relation to the environment was James Watt during the Reagan years, in EXACTLY the context I was describing.
I can assure you that the word is used in my industry as a positive term relating to improvement....plain and simple. Just because some lunatics use it in a different context doesn't invalidate the word from being used correctly.
For you to question my values and intent after laying out what my life's work has been, and I assume you view these works as positive things, is beyond contempt.
That's me. Beyond contempt. If I worked in an industry that claimed to be working "for" the environment while absorbing and repeating the cant of those that are essentially hostile to it, I'd start to question my work.
I'm actually DOING SOMETHING to improve our planet.
I'm not using half truths and scare tactics to further some political agenda while being a hypocrite.
I'm done responding to this thread....you know my opinion, disrespect it all you want.
I'm also disturbed by Rock's use of "stewardship", a term I have previously heard only from the mouths of religiously oriented right wingers, used to define a "use" of natural resources, justified by a "God put it there for us to use, so we should use it" attitude. I believe it even has biblical roots.
haha WTF did you pull this paragraph out of?
The stewardess on my flight home tried to baptize me!!!
Google the following "concept of stewardship Leviticus"
Read and learn.
no offense, but if you've never heard the term "steward" used outside the realm of religion, you need to get out more. the fact that you are derailing this thread down this stupid path is kind of sad.
I'm also disturbed by Rock's use of "stewardship", a term I have previously heard only from the mouths of religiously oriented right wingers, used to define a "use" of natural resources, justified by a "God put it there for us to use, so we should use it" attitude. I believe it even has biblical roots.
haha WTF did you pull this paragraph out of?
The stewardess on my flight home tried to baptize me!!!
Google the following "concept of stewardship Leviticus"
Read and learn.
no offense, but if you've never heard the term "steward" used outside the realm of religion, you need to get out more. the fact that you are derailing this thread down this stupid path is kind of sad.
The fact that you can't read is even sadder. The term used - repeatedly - was "stewardship", which has a very specific meaning in this context.
As to Chinas role in co2 emmisions, here are a few things I found:
China China, the world's most populous country, mines a third of all the coal cut from the Earth, providing three quarters of the country's energy requirements. It has made Chinese cities the most polluted on Earth [10] and the country the world's second largest source of CO2. But China is also engaged in a massive effort to clean up both its own backyard and the planet.
China is switching to natural gas, cutting coal subsidies and investing heavily in improved energy efficiency. A National Improved Stove Programme has upgraded 160 million domestic stoves. Since 1996, China has shut down 60 000 smoky and inefficient industrial boilers, while hundreds of small inefficient power stations over 25 years old are also to be closed.
Overall since the early 1980s, China has improved its energy efficiency by 47 percent, doubling economic output while raising CO2 emissions by only 50 percent. In 1998, while increasing its economic output by more than 7.2 percent, it actually reduced its emissions of CO2 by 3.7 percent -- thanks mainly to continuing declines in coal burning [11] [Add].
This is part of an dated but very interesting web page .
more up to date and record related:
Private Business' Largest-Scale Solar Power System Installed at TDK's Changan Factory in China web page
Here is some general info from the UK on who is producing co2 and why. Us and Australia produce much more than most every other country per person, China produces far less. web page
While we sit around and argue about whether or not we should listen to Al Gore and reduce co2 emmissions, or listen to "the other side of the debate" and do nothing, China and Germany and Ukraine are going to bury us.
Those countries are activly finding alternatives to fossill fuels and are reducing their cox emmissions. We continue to drive SUVs and offer tax amnesty to oil companys. When this debate is decided by the down side of the oil peak we will be on our hands and knees begging China and Germany to help us.
Pro KVH $B PP LW Nox JP Mot day Ten UHM Ash f16 zil joe dje bsl
Con sab bli Roc Dor PN Ham
16 with "saving the planet" to 5 with "fuck Gore and saving the planet but I'm not with Bush even though I always take the republican side in every debate on soulstrut". So 25% of soulstruters share Bush's views at a time when about 25% of Americans support Bush. While a much smaller percent of scientist who work with the environment side with Bush on this issue.
Yet we get posts like this:
The problem with SS is that if you don't fall in step with the overwhelming left leaning politics of the board you're automatically labeled a Bush Dick Sucker or Sabadababa.....depending on what the poster feels is the worse insult of those two!!
The board is no more left leaning the real world. And Bush Dick Sucker and Sabadaba are synonyms and no different than the insults and idiocy of the other side.
While we sit around and argue about whether or not we should listen to Al Gore and reduce co2 emmissions, or listen to "the other side of the debate" and do nothing, China and Germany and Ukraine are going to bury us.
Those countries are activly finding alternatives to fossill fuels and are reducing their cox emmissions. We continue to drive SUVs and offer tax amnesty to oil companys. When this debate is decided by the down side of the oil peak we will be on our hands and knees begging China and Germany to help us.
Interesting link on the german offshore windpower. Haven't they been trying to do that all over the US, but get resistance by politicians (a la Kennedy doesn't want wind power off the coast of martha's vineyard).
Why hasn't the US followed China's lead in using natural gas? Since the US has twice the proved reserves that China does.
Speaking about natural gas and alternatives. Does anyone else remember the synfuels project back in the day? Lawd, what a boondagle
Larry - for what it's worth "stewardship" is common parlance in the business world.
there is nothing wrong with the word stewardship. The newest stewardship in the Christian world is pro-enviorment based on the lessons of Noah and the flood.
16 with "saving the planet" to 5 with "fuck Gore and saving the planet but I'm not with Bush even though I always take the republican side in every debate on soulstrut". So 25% of soulstruters share Bush's views at a time when about 25% of Americans support Bush. While a much smaller percent of scientist who work with the environment side with Bush on this issue.
While we sit around and argue about whether or not we should listen to Al Gore and reduce co2 emmissions, or listen to "the other side of the debate" and do nothing, China and Germany and Ukraine are going to bury us.
Those countries are activly finding alternatives to fossill fuels and are reducing their cox emmissions. We continue to drive SUVs and offer tax amnesty to oil companys. When this debate is decided by the down side of the oil peak we will be on our hands and knees begging China and Germany to help us.
Interesting link on the german offshore windpower. Haven't they been trying to do that all over the US, but get resistance by politicians (a la Kennedy doesn't want wind power off the coast of martha's vineyard).
Right, mealy mouthed liberals throughout the NE have been fighting wind power becuase they are afraid it will spoil the view. Likewise in my part of the country the damage done by hydro power to rivers have outweighed the benifits in clean power. Enviormentalists need to work on promoting fish friendly dams.
Like Rocka said politicians in both paryts make doing the right thing harder.
I'd still like him to explain what is the political agenda behind reducing co2s.
Pro KVH $B PP LW Nox JP Mot day Ten UHM Ash f16 zil joe dje bsl
Con sab bli Roc Dor PN Ham
16 with "saving the planet" to 5 with "fuck Gore and saving the planet but I'm not with Bush even though I always take the republican side in every debate on soulstrut". So 25% of soulstruters share Bush's views at a time when about 25% of Americans support Bush. While a much smaller percent of scientist who work with the environment side with Bush on this issue.
Yet we get posts like this:
The problem with SS is that if you don't fall in step with the overwhelming left leaning politics of the board you're automatically labeled a Bush Dick Sucker or Sabadababa.....depending on what the poster feels is the worse insult of those two!!
The board is no more left leaning the real world. And Bush Dick Sucker and Sabadaba are synonyms and no different than the insults and idiocy of the other side.
keep my name out your mouth, especially when you don't know me. show me where anyone on this thread ever said "fuck the planet"...or just keep spouting inflammatory bullshit.
I've only read a page and half of this thread and I can't take any more.
I thought this thread may actually be about debating enviromental outlooks in the near future and how correct/ incorrect Gores film was, it only took like 2 posts before it because a dem v. rep. thread.
seriously why does every argument have to fall along party lines? It's as if there is only 2 looks at everything and they've already been pre-selected for you.
leaders and doers don't choose a side, they create their own path.
If gores a hypocrite, it sucks and can't be defended and bringing the argument that the republicans haven't done anything will not justify AG's actions and vice versa.
for once can everyone here not choose a heavily lobbied, special interest, and completely fucked up side and debate global warming based on its facts and theories instead of by the personal choices of those that have already chosen a stance.
"I'd wear a condom, but since I heard that Dick Cheney did it I can no longer support that action"
Comments
That's a particularly interesting question.
I'm also disturbed by Rock's use of "stewardship", a term I have previously heard only from the mouths of religiously oriented right wingers, used to define a "use" of natural resources, justified by a "God put it there for us to use, so we should use it" attitude. I believe it even has biblical roots.
Being a "Steward" is a word that has been used in a myriad of ways. In most Unions there is a "Shop Steward" which basically means he is to oversee and insure proper work ethics and practices.
Being an "Environmental Steward" is a phrase first used by Environmental Groups and is intended to mean that we will oversee and properly treat our environment.
Talk about semantics.
Isn't there a debate going on now about DDT? With using it in the fight against malaria.
I was talking about border control and Repub-sponsored ballots, not some campaign 2-liner (you called it a "plan"?) that's had no bearing on reality.
Al D'Amato seems to be more your inspiration.
I'd replace "defeatist" with "realist" and I can assure you there are opportunities within my industry to get paid while adding to the decline of our environment. I feel good about what I do and that is why I do it, certainly not because it pays better than the former position would.
True I am sure.
The reason my associates and I are able to accomplish what we have has very little to do with politics and politicians.
I doubt that. The only reason you are getting paid to do what you do is A) You are helping industry and goverments to work within enviormental laws and regulations that were passed by politicians. B) You are helping industry and goverment become more green, a goal that is closely tied to the politics of the enviormental movement. AS you know, the republicans have politisized and attaked those green politics.
Overall I'd say that politicians of BOTH parties have made my job harder, not easier.
No doubt.
haha WTF did you pull this paragraph out of?
The stewardess on my flight home tried to baptize me!!!
And unfortunately this helps perpetuate the climate of the board as some are afraid to or just won't waste their time trying to present an opposing view.
It seems that anything outside the scope of what is definitely the Staus Quo here politically is met with hatred and intolerance.
Yes, let's talk about semantics and the essential dishonesty of your response. I know what the fuck "steward" means, and for you to dance around the issue of the use of the word "stewardship" by those that are essentially hostile to environmental protection, by virtue of religious belief is bullshit. You know what I'm talking about.
Here's a link:
http://www.thebelieversreference.za.net/articles/way_ahead/2.6.htm
(scroll down to "stewardship")
The first time I EVER heard anyone use the term "stewardship" in relation to the environment was James Watt during the Reagan years, in EXACTLY the context I was describing.
Google the following "concept of stewardship Leviticus"
Read and learn.
I can assure you that the word is used in my industry as a positive term relating to improvement....plain and simple. Just because some lunatics use it in a different context doesn't invalidate the word from being used correctly.
For you to question my values and intent after laying out what my life's work has been, and I assume you view these works as positive things, is beyond contempt.
Good times...
The fact that there is even a 'debate,' about changing our lifestyle for the good of the environment sickens me.
That's me. Beyond contempt.
If I worked in an industry that claimed to be working "for" the environment while absorbing and repeating the cant of those that are essentially hostile to it, I'd start to question my work.
The status quo on here is "Which Nike's Should I Cop?" and white kids arguing about regional rap. Hardly a radical leftist agenda..... or is it? hmmmmm.
China
China, the world's most populous country, mines a third of all the coal cut from the Earth, providing three quarters of the country's energy requirements. It has made Chinese cities the most polluted on Earth [10] and the country the world's second largest source of CO2. But China is also engaged in a massive effort to clean up both its own backyard and the planet.
China is switching to natural gas, cutting coal subsidies and investing heavily in improved energy efficiency. A National Improved Stove Programme has upgraded 160 million domestic stoves. Since 1996, China has shut down 60 000 smoky and inefficient industrial boilers, while hundreds of small inefficient power stations over 25 years old are also to be closed.
Overall since the early 1980s, China has improved its energy efficiency by 47 percent, doubling economic output while raising CO2 emissions by only 50 percent. In 1998, while increasing its economic output by more than 7.2 percent, it actually reduced its emissions of CO2 by 3.7 percent -- thanks mainly to continuing declines in coal burning [11] [Add].
This is part of an dated but very interesting web page .
more up to date and record related:
Private Business' Largest-Scale Solar Power System Installed at TDK's Changan Factory in China web page
Here is some general info from the UK on who is producing co2 and why. Us and Australia produce much more than most every other country per person, China produces far less. web page
This is from this web page
I'm actually DOING SOMETHING to improve our planet.
I'm not using half truths and scare tactics to further some political agenda while being a hypocrite.
I'm done responding to this thread....you know my opinion, disrespect it all you want.
no offense, but if you've never heard the term "steward" used outside the realm of religion, you need to get out more. the fact that you are derailing this thread down this stupid path is kind of sad.
The fact that you can't read is even sadder. The term used - repeatedly - was "stewardship", which has a very specific meaning in this context.
If we could just be more like Somalia, the world would be a much better place.
While we sit around and argue about whether or not we should listen to Al Gore and reduce co2 emmissions, or listen to "the other side of the debate" and do nothing, China and Germany and Ukraine are going to bury us.
Those countries are activly finding alternatives to fossill fuels and are reducing their cox emmissions. We continue to drive SUVs and offer tax amnesty to oil companys. When this debate is decided by the down side of the oil peak we will be on our hands and knees begging China and Germany to help us.
web page
KVH
$B
PP
LW
Nox
JP
Mot
day
Ten
UHM
Ash
f16
zil
joe
dje
bsl
Con
sab
bli
Roc
Dor
PN
Ham
16 with "saving the planet" to 5 with "fuck Gore and saving the planet but I'm not with Bush even though I always take the republican side in every debate on soulstrut". So 25% of soulstruters share Bush's views at a time when about 25% of Americans support Bush. While a much smaller percent of scientist who work with the environment side with Bush on this issue.
Yet we get posts like this:
The board is no more left leaning the real world. And Bush Dick Sucker and Sabadaba are synonyms and no different than the insults and idiocy of the other side.
Interesting link on the german offshore windpower. Haven't they been trying to do that all over the US, but get resistance by politicians (a la Kennedy doesn't want wind power off the coast of martha's vineyard).
Why hasn't the US followed China's lead in using natural gas? Since the US has twice the proved reserves that China does.
Speaking about natural gas and alternatives. Does anyone else remember the synfuels project back in the day? Lawd, what a boondagle
there is nothing wrong with the word stewardship. The newest stewardship in the Christian world is pro-enviorment based on the lessons of Noah and the flood.
Bring up abortion, gay rights or even Iraq.
And I don't support any american president.
Right, mealy mouthed liberals throughout the NE have been fighting wind power becuase they are afraid it will spoil the view. Likewise in my part of the country the damage done by hydro power to rivers have outweighed the benifits in clean power. Enviormentalists need to work on promoting fish friendly dams.
Like Rocka said politicians in both paryts make doing the right thing harder.
I'd still like him to explain what is the political agenda behind reducing co2s.
keep my name out your mouth, especially when you don't know me. show me where anyone on this thread ever said "fuck the planet"...or just keep spouting inflammatory bullshit.
I thought this thread may actually be about debating enviromental outlooks in the near future and how correct/ incorrect Gores film was, it only took like 2 posts before it because a dem v. rep. thread.
seriously why does every argument have to fall along party lines? It's as if there is only 2 looks at everything and they've already been pre-selected for you.
leaders and doers don't choose a side, they create their own path.
If gores a hypocrite, it sucks and can't be defended and bringing the argument that the republicans haven't done anything will not justify AG's actions and vice versa.
for once can everyone here not choose a heavily lobbied, special interest, and completely fucked up side and debate global warming based on its facts and theories instead of by the personal choices of those that have already chosen a stance.
"I'd wear a condom, but since I heard that Dick Cheney did it I can no longer support that action"
thats why everyone here is an expert.
I've never heard this word before. So, looking it up finds
Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome
[homer]The Internet teaches everyday[/homer]